Actually, thinking about it...

The question is not specific enough.

Most of us seem to have presumed (I admit I assumed- and we all know the cliche about that) that this was referring to-- as a required course, in government mandated curriculum.

Going on that presumption, the question really is WHY?

For the education that we all are required to pay for (tax supported), I would say that what should be required is only those subjects that are essential to prepare the student for life.
Which is essentially the "3 R's" as the old cliche goes- Reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic.
History, government, and economics may be considered essential, simply because citizens of the US have a voice in our government, which requires some knowledge to exercise responsibly.
"Health" is included really, only because so many parents do not teach necessary basics in this area. (But I would differentiate between basic biology and "sex education").
Certainly, the "scientific method" is a good thing to learn, but then, basics of philosophy (which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been a required course) would be just as beneficial.
In this perspective, I am reminded of a comment by my H.S. geometry teacher. At the very beginning of the class he said (can not testify to verbatim- it's been a loooong time!):
"Some of you will be asking 'Why do we have to take this course. What good will it do us?' Honestly, most of you will probably never use what you are expected to learn here, but you will have to pass this course, because it's required by the state."
Now I actually have had occasion to use basic geometry (and even trigonometry).
But then, that was before PC's were so commonplace that one could simply look up formulas.

So how does knowledge of Darwin's theory (or even the contribution of such notables as Madame Curie, Mendelson, or Pasteur for that matter) fit into being essential, and therefore a legitimate requirement? Especially when our education system seems to be failing to produce graduates that even meet reasonable standards of spelling, grammar, and mathematical skill?

So how does knowledge of Darwin's theory (or even the contribution of such notables as Madame Curie, Mendelson, or Pasteur for that matter) fit into being essential, and therefore a legitimate requirement? Especially when our education system seems to be failing to produce graduates that even meet reasonable standards of spelling, grammar, and mathematical skill?

whats worse when things about it get proven wrong they still teach it anyway.

You're probably right , I have serious issues , with American education .

Yes lud he had doubts of course science had no way of proving he was correct in 1859, however some people have advanced past the time when a small wound could cause gangrene to and be sawn off by surgeons.
DNA is proof darwin is right, fossils prove darwin was right.
Unless someone chooses to live in the dark ages.

remain ignorant, nobody cares

So present the facts already.

I can't afford to go to New York. Just present your evidence here. Do you have a videotape of a human baby being born to a gorilla?

Most of the simple but common "arguments" against evolution stem from serious misunderstandings of the science and principles that underlie it. Exploring the confusion behind the question is key to answering it. "Why are there still monkeys?" involves two major errors:
First the psychological essentialism of folk biology. Research has shown that people (adults and children alike) tend to be "intuitive creationists." The phenomenon of psychological essentialism causes people not to engage in population thinking, but to lump all individual animals of a certain "natural kind" (in this case, monkeys) together as more or less identical. In this misconception of evolution, it is individuals that simultaneously "transform" rather than populations that evolve.[4][5]
Second the question misinterprets evolution as a linear process: an upward-sloping line, like the old, pre-scientific idea of a "Great Chain of Being". This is a simple way of viewing evolution and changes are easily visualized in a linear fashion—the famous picture of human ancestors walking behind each other is a prime example. However, this traces just one twig of a much more complicated tree of life.
Many people are deeply reluctant to consider the possibility seriously, and treat it as asking "Do you want to be descended from a monkey?" But, of course, science and history are about what reality is and was, not what we would want it to have been.
There is also the related question: "If monkeys changed into humans, why aren't today's monkeys changing into humans?" Many people are under the mistaken idea that:
evolution is finished;
evolution states that one animal only evolves into the next animal—that if we started again, the exact same evolution would happen.
some modern animals are descendants of other modern animals.
The reality is that evolution is still happening, even in humans over the past few thousand years—the most famous and clear example being lactase persistence, which developed in Europe 10,000 years ago and separately in Kenya 3,000 years ago. Evolution has a multitude of possible paths, with specific changes depending on the environmental pressures at any particular time. Evolution is not random, but is affected by random factors—the best results of those random factors are what survives.
[edit]Serious answers

Key rebuttals address the misunderstandings behind the monkey issue:
Evolution is the change in populations, not in individuals.
Evolution is not a process in which species universally progress up a "ladder".
Humans are not descended from any modern species of monkey; both monkeys and humans are descended from some long-extinct ancestor pre-dating both. Although this species, if it were transferred to today, would be considered a "monkey", it is not any living species of monkey.
Evolution explains how humans developed from a primate ancestor, but not an extant species of monkey or ape. Modern primates include: bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, baboons, macaques, lemurs, gibbons, and humans. None of these is a descendant of any other.
Speciation can occur by branching into two or more reproductively isolated populations (cladogenesis) or when a single population changes over time to such an extent that the later population is considered a different species (anagenesis).
[edit]Disappearance of ancestors
The question assumes that ancestral forms must disappear as evolution takes place. This is not the case—species can often go millions of years with little in the way of change (hence "living fossils"). If an ancestral form is well adapted to a particular set of conditions (i.e. it "fits" an ecological niche) and these conditions do not change, then there is minimal selection pressure to drive evolution; this is what is really meant by "survival of the fittest": those who best "fit" in their environment. If a sub-population of this species migrates to a new habitat with new conditions (e.g., new food or a new predator) then selection pressure is placed upon it to evolve. As this sub-population evolves to fit a different set of environmental conditions, it may diversify enough to form a new species while the ancestral form stays relatively unchanged. But there's no rule that says the original species must go extinct to make way for the new one.
This sort of change drives much of evolution, with populations being split and forced by nature to adapt to new environments. Separation of this type often leads to one species splitting into two separate species. Indeed, it was observations of this sort that initially led Darwin to propose natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.
[edit]Branching family tree of cousins
Some report[6] success with the cousins analogy: species are extended groups of distant cousins with a long-dead (great-great-great-) grandparent. The current configuration of life is a snapshot of the living; the dead are long gone and no one wrote down the family tree, so we have to work it out from available evidence. Richard Dawkins uses this analogy in his book River Out of Eden. Asking If humans are descended from monkeys… is the same as asking If I am descended from (misleading, the correct term would be "related to") cousin Bob, why is cousin Bob still alive?[Note 2]

As always, you missed the broadside of the barn! !!!

It's a theory because they can't prove it!!!!

You will admit that many people buy in to evolutionism so that they can deny a personal and real God, won't you?

All those similarities between man and those other species are enough to base the conjecture that man evolved from those species. Those similarities are not proof.

We don't know, from purely scientific evidence, if humans evolved from other species or were created directly by God.

I never flat out said the evolution hypothesis was false, only that it is merely an unproven hypothesis and should be taught, but not taught as absolute fact, in schools.