My thoughts: Science classes should teach evolution, not creationism, the latter is not science. If you want to rationally approach the subject of our origins in an open minded way, that is the place of an appropriate branch of philosophy. If you look for a theory that fits the evidence and make reasonable assumptions that batsh** crazy stuff isn't happening behind the scenes, evolution's what you get, thus that's what should be taught in science classes. What direly needs to be taught is that the scientific approach isn't the only way to view the world, and that science divorced of its underlying philosophy becomes like a house with its foundations removed. There is a point to faith, and indeed to myths. The point of myths is that much meaning can be conveyed to a level sufficient for everyday life that would require thousands of journal articles to pin down to scientific standards, if it can be pinned down at all. Sometimes a myth is enough.
In short, teach basic maths, basic science and teach people how to be open-minded, reason carefully and not be dogmatic about what they believe.
Also develop a good notion what faith is, in both a secular and religious context and teach that. Do not teach the agressive secularist idea that faith is old-fashioned, backward, inconsistent with evidence or just plain wrong. That is, alas, the seed of religious dogmatism growing up within the humanist viewpoint, where surely religious dogmatism has no place.
When we get to the prequel to the prequel to the prequel to the prequel to the...
When does this stop?
We may as well stop where we are now and answer the question posed without worrying about foundational prequels.
And where does chance get its random numbers from? Why is reality unreasonably well described by mathematical laws.
In summary, 'you just happened by chance, get over it' is no better than 'you exist because God created man in verse X of Genesis 1, and you have sin because of Eve's sin in Genesis 2-3.. get over it.' The point of this is that the 'get over it' attitude is unhelpful to those who are unsatisfied.
Eventually if you don't get over it, if you chase back far enough, abstract enough, you will at least find something that you can label as the Divine (to give it a name other than God.) Either the 'this is the case because X, and X is the case because Y' chain goes back indefinitely, in which case you pick a point, any point, say X and say 'from X backwards we'll call everything divine, and label the totality of divine things The Divine, or God, or whatever name you choose' or else this chain terminates, and where it terminates is, again, the Divine.
I don't really see the point of this kind of reasoning anymore, but went along these lines in the past.
If you want to believe in God, there are rational reasons if you look for them, and likewise for if you don't. There is, for sure, never going to be sufficient philosophical foundations to decide. So choose your faith, be it materialistic or theistic or whatever wisely, and accept that you cannot know for sure. This latter point is the one thing where I would play the get over it card: we don't know intellectually, and we can't know intellectually, so get over it.
So we know it has a role to play in some of the small changes in our recent past. Besides that 'can't see anything else' argument, how does one conclude that it is the only mechanism?
One would expect most things to be beyond human understanding, so why not the nature of a creator if one exists?
I raise such questions because I believe that evolution and naive science are the new religious dogmas of the world, and represent a trend in the following of scientific progress that needs opposing. People should take real care with their thinking when it comes to making deductions from the evidence (and you don't need to point out the oxymoronic aspect of that previous statement: I'm well aware of it.)
The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice.