Not in science class, no! Science classes should be teaching kids what the consensus view of working scientists is. And that's evolution, overwhelmingly.
How are we supposed to function as a nation if half the people aren't taught what the other half believe, at least enough to understand the way they think and where they are coming from?
I don't see anything wrong with that. But the underlying debate in the school boards across the country is more what the official curricula and textbooks will be. That's quite different than discussing a fringe theory in class when a student asks about it.
I think a good analogy is discussing astrology in astronomy class. Should astrology be included in the textbooks? Hardly. (Except to point out why it can't be right.) Or discussing Communism in economics class. Sure, it's historically important, but should the textbooks describe it neutrally, as in "here's another theory that some economists hold"? I would hope not!
Well, intellectually & professionally, creationism is just as far from the consensus view of science as those two. I say HS science classes should treat it with the same amount of deference. (Ditto for undergrad college courses.)
Now, in upper level college classes, it might be different. I wouldn't mind seeing a graduate level seminar in ID, if a professor wanted to teach one. Colleges seem to be the place where any damfool idea can get a respectful hearing. :-)
Science classes should be teaching kids what the consensus view of working scientists isI highly disagree. The consensus view of 'working scientists' right now is that global warming is a fact. Thirty years ago the consensus view was that global cooling was a fact.
The things which are facts should be taught as facts. The things which are theories should be taught as theories-- with the predominant counter theories also explored.