The internet is perennially abound with discussion over evolutionary biology. It is a topic that surfaces repeatedly in the news, either in the form scientific dispatch describing a new species or in political news concerning the friction between science and religion. The latest iteration of the latter debate concerns recent remarks by Florida Senator Marco Rubio when answering a question about the age of the earth. The Senators somewhat ambiguous and confused (but understandable and unsurprising) answer has found both critics and apologists. He eventually qualified his answer, and I think made a good point that I will echo later in the post: the age of the earth has nothing to do with his tasks in the Senate. Even this point has been criticized, but I think it rings true in a subtle way). Many of these debates, however, usually filter back to the opposition between creationism and evolution (as well as geology, embryology, or any other science that touches on the same points).

(Taken from Joyfully Battle Worn's blog without permission. Interesting post, you should definitely check it out. Echos some of the sentiments I expound here, although approached from a more religious perspective.)
The astute reader may be queuing up their groans and moans (or cheers, if they are into this debate). "Will this blog also devolve into a debate over evolution?" While I thought it would be appropriate to weigh in on the subject (after all, this blog is partly devoted to science, and biology in particular), you need not fear that these pages will transform into another blog taking on evolutionary biology. After all, there are many fine sites that primarily focus on this topic. I am especially familiar (and fond of) some of the more popular ones maintained by other scientists, such as PZ Meyer's Pharyngula. There is even a blog, aptly named EvolutionBlog, that focuses on both evolution and chess!
What then, does Science on the Squares have to offer to the evolution blogosphere? I am trained in molecular biology, not evolutionary biology (although I am well-read on the subject), and thus I will leave the discussion of the finer points of this science to others. However, I would like to add a voice to the debate over the proper placement of evolution in the classroom.
I've beaten about the bush long enough; my point is that neither creationist science, intelligent design, or evolutionary biology (as I understand it to be currently taught) belongs in the science classroom. No, you don't need to adjust your screen or check your glasses: I did indeed call for the partial removal or reform of evolutionary biology from the Science curriculum.
Now that I have your interest, please select 'Read More' to read this article in its entirety. I'll give you a preview: the evolutionary explanation of the origin of species is more history than it is predictive science, and thus is not critical to the education (or future competitiveness) of our youth.
The position I've taken is one that is sure to stir up controversy, and will probably have the somewhat unique distinction of angering proponents of both evolution and creationism. Please feel free to add to the discussion by leaving a comment below, but try to keep it civil!