If I were to claim "My state will teach Newtonian theory of gravity is not fact" would you have issues with it? How about Einstein's theory of gravity? I would be correct in teaching them that those two theories were/are not factual, and showing where the gaps are. This is how we make progress in science and improve theories.
It is important to understand that all we have are observations (with noise) and we make theories/models to explain them in order to predict future behavior. Newton's mechanics worked great for the observations available at that time, while relativity theory is needed under other circumstances such that when matter travel at speeds close to the speed of light. Getting students to understand this and to realize that there are likely cases when even Einstein's theories do not explain observations is of course very valuable. However, this does not mean that any theory of mechanics is equally useful/plausible. We have for instance no reason to look back to Aristotle or some other ancient theory as an alternative as they do not offer any predictability.
Would teaching where these theories seem to fail mean that "I refuse to teach about gravity" and all of my students are idiots because I taught them to question what someone else want's them taught as "fact" (this matches the straw man TFA erects and you seem to believe)?
I'm not sure what article you are referring to but I don't see anyone claiming "not teach their children what is accepted in the scientific community". I read "argued against teaching natural selection as fact, " and "teach them the controversy".
Evolution and Natural selection surely have some gaps, which is why there is still some controversy. You may not like the other side, so choose to ignore the gaps which makes you biased. Just like the other side is biased, but of course that is difficult to come to grips with our own shortcomings.
Of course there are controversies within the fine details in the field of biology as in any research field, but they are just not the controversies Sen. Mike Fair has in mind. The term "teach the controversy" is used to propose that intelligent design/creationism are valuable alternative ideas to natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_controversy). There is simply no such controversy among scientist, the people who believe in creationism do so primarily on religious grounds. Here's an interesting article explaining some actual controversies in evolution: http://arstechnica.com/science.... One among them apparently being the relationship between the three main cell types Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes and how they exactly evolved in the beginning.
A big part of science used to be not accepting what someone gives you and following the scientific methods. Teaching people to question what they are told surely has benefits. Are you so biased that questions are only valid about someone else' belief?
I agree that it would be great to teach high school students some theory of science and give them the tools to separate good science from bad science and pseudo science such as astrology, creationism and "young earth theories". I have a hard time believing this is what the senator in SC is proposing though.