Most informed people think that competiting views about human orgin are wrong and evolution is the only view.
It is sad that these folks don't have an open mind and if you press them on why they belive tht evolution is the only view, one finds that they are mis informed about evolution.
I don't belive any of the popular views on human orign, including evolution and Intelligent Design. But just most folks in the US, I learned in school that evolution is 'fact'.
But it seems more and more clear that evolution is not a fact and really not an empirical science and you cannot apply the methods of empirical sciennce to 'prove' evolution or give credence to evolution as being a theory.
From David N. Menton, Ph.D
'..evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory.
The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be observable. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Secondly, the object or phenomenon we wish to study must be repeatable.
First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. Most living organisms and their offspring are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." Dobzhansky tells us that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted." The well-known evolutionist Paul Ehrlich says the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science."
So picking on Palin for her advocacy to teach competiting theories of human origin is a fools game.