There are so many things wrong with this it's ridiculous. First, it obviously takes more than 2 years to pass or change such an amendment, and the pace of science moves faster than that. So even if the requirements are true now (which I don't grant), it risks having inaccurate science be ingrained in the Nevada constitution in the future. Things that change go in the bylaws (i.e. laws), not the constitution.
Second, why single out this particular topic? Economic theory has tons of holes in it, as does the theory of how to deter crime. Why don't we teach our children that we don't know how effective the punishments that are law in our system really are. Let's single out history. After all, we know that "history is written by the winners." So everything we know about the past is skewed and can't be trusted. Even the laws of physics have been changing, so put that in the constitution, too. We don't know anything about physics and alternate theories should be considered. After all, there is so much extra time in high school, we can waste it on conceptual dead ends in our children's educations.
Third, it'll get struck down by the US Supreme Court anyway as religiously motivated. So why bother. Come to think of it, maybe this guy is really against ID. Maybe he knows this and is just trying to tighten the noose by getting another more restrictive federal precedent set. Who knows.
Of course, it may pass. Between that and the Hamas election, I wonder if it's really a good idea to let a bunch of religious fanatics vote.