I don’t know how this compares to the current physics curriculum in US high schools; as far as I know, we don’t have a mandated curriculum at the national level, but rather it is left to the discretion of the states and school boards.  However, given how much demand there has been for biology classes to include so-called “intelligent design” (which is religion, not science), I wouldn’t be that surprised to see physics dumbed down as well.

This is yet another reason why countries that teach traditional math and science to their students are going to take the lead in engineering.  China and India don’t base their educational curriculum on political correctness.

Although it’s not as entertaining, I think the materialist story of the origin (not creation) is something like:

In the beginning there was a small, hot, dense lump, though there was no one around to observe it. For reasons that are unknown, it started expanding and cooling. As it cooled, hydrogen atoms formed and coalesced into stars. Some stars exploded, producing heavier elements. Eventually some of those supernova remnants formed planets.

Although the laws of thermodynamics require that the overall entropy of a closed system (such as the universe) to increase over time, localized decreases can and do occur. On at least one planet, this led to a progression of increasingly complex self-replicating organisms. Eventually a species of such organisms appeared which exhibited self-awareness, and questioned the origin of the universe.

Some members of this species invented the concept of an all-powerful entity which created the universe, but others observed that there was no physical evidence of the existence of such an entity.

If even the Vatican can recognize the difference between science and religion, why can’t the Kansas State Board of Education?

Although I disagee with them, it doesn’t bother me that they believe that, as long as they recognize that such a belief is faith, and don’t confuse it with science. Science does not “prove” evolution, but there is substantial scientific evidence for it. There is absolutely no scientific evidence in support of creationism. This is why I oppose teaching creationism as an “alternate theory” in schools. It’s not a theory or even a proper hypothesis, since it is not falsifiable.

I have no problem whatsoever with discussion of creationism presented in social studies and philosophy classes, provide that it isn’t represented as science. I don’t even mind if the science cirriculum includes a brief mention that evolution contradicts many relgious beliefs, since such a statement is plainly factual. But presenting creationism (or “intelligent design”) as being alternative scientific theories is complete bullshit.