"That's because it's not science. And, of course, "creationism" tends to cover about 103 different creation myths - why should they choose yours over any others to waste time on in a science class?"
True, but I don't think those pushing for "intelligent design" attempt to push any particular creation account. They simply want the children to be presented the alternative view that there is inherent intelligence in what we know about life's functioning. Intelligence implies a designer.
I do not think were are a random act of chance or even the inherent result of the right mix of components at the right time and conditions so that primitive "life" resulted and that this "life" evolved over time to what we see today.
Talk about "myths."
Then you would not object to a teacher pointing out what a poor job of design it was.
That doesn't follow. I'll make it simple though: define "intelligence" in strict rigorous terms.
You must be using a definition of "intelligence" I am unfamiliar with that makes the implication obvious.