I really think both sides get this issue very wrong. Creationism is not valid science, obviously. But that's because it isn't science at all. It is a religious belief, which is by definition non-scientific. Here is where the science side gets things wrong. Creationism is a NON-scientific belief, not an ANTI-scientific belief. It's not anti-intellectual or stupid or backward either. It's a choice to believe in the sup…
Of course creationism itself isn't anti-scientific, but the majority of people who deeply believe it do have anti-scientific agendas.
Is it stupid and backward? I'm not going to conclusively comment on this, but you seem to think that just because it's a choice, it has to be legitimate. No, it can be a wrong choice.
Schools shouldn't teach students to be religious, but they should teach them to understand religion... and not just as a cute, prehistoric way of explaining things that science now has exclusive domain over. Religious beliefs, as non-scientific beliefs, are non-falsifiable. Students need to understand this. Modern science does not falsify religious beliefs. It provides an alternative based on empirical evidence. But there is no requirement that everyone on Earth only accept things based on empirical evidence. It may seem odd to you to deliberately choose to believe something which isn't based on empirical evidence, but many people do (knowingly at that) and that is their right.
Argumentum ad populum. Just because a lot of people resort to superstition to explain natural events does not mean it is legitimate or correct.
The right to believe in unsubstantiated claims doesn't shield you from criticism on the illegitimacy of your claims.