Well, science and theology/worldview are two different things. Maybe a worldview is implied in certain school texts, but I took a secular, basic level science class last semester, and I certainly didn't feel that my values and perspective on life was influenced in the least. My theology didn't change, I didn't start questioning the redemptive work of Christ (as some YECers warn will most likely happen), or none of that silly stuff. I know how to separate things of faith and the natural world.
Stomping feet in protest to evolution being taught doesn't make it NOT true. What disproves the theory is evidence. Bill Nye said himself at his debate with Ken Ham "You have evidence against evolution? Bring it on! You would change the world! I would gladly reject evolution in the light of evidence." (paraphrase) Also, in my science class, it was taught that evidence would disprove the theory. There are several ways to disprove it - if Christians really wanted to do that, they would be digging away relentlessly at the fossil record, rather than arguing about "two kinds of science."
In my class, it was not taught as a dogmatic, philosophical worldview, but a theory that has been formulated due to certain evidences in the fossil record and other places, and just because it is a viewpoint about the past, doesn't make it invalid, anymore than a creationist perspective is automatically invalid because it is in the past. We have developed many theories and conclusions about the way civilization in the past worked - with archeology. But I don't see Christians jumping to say that the Egyptians didn't worship multiple gods because the statues were examined under a bias. And the same could be applied to things we've learned about other cultures not mentioned in Scripture. The evidence is there, and we examine it.
The issue at hand is that we haven't been around long enough and been aware of this idea long enough to see such progression that the theory suggests... but we see it in the fossil record. And that is tangible evidence in which we can make a prediction that will take a while to test in its entirety, not merely a preconceived notion based on a bias. That's what science is - making a prediction, testing it many many times, recording the results, and examining the data.
This is not to say there isn't evidence for YEC. However, I personally feel the arguments are lacking, in light of what I have learned. This is not an invitation to discuss anything in particular, I am just stating.
