That'd be fine. Except a genuinly "fair" balance of "evidence" would completly swamp the creationist/ID position.
Point out the discussions within science by looking at something genuinely controversial and actually relevant. Like whether or not their was water on Mars.
I think the really ironic thing about the ID'ers attempts to push the new "skeptical" Ohio science curriculum is that it's most likely to absolutely torpedo the ID position, if it's presented fairly. By all means, let's *do* have students examine exactly how and why science arrives at conclusions such as evolution. The students will have a much better understanding of it that way, than they would by the old method of "read and remember this for the test".
Additionally, the new Ohio curriculum actually forces teachers to spend much *more* time on evolution than had previously been the case. Most high school classes only spend a few days on it, at most. Under the new Ohio guidelines, they'll be spending *weeks*.
Lends a whole new meaning to the phrase "they know not what they do".
Critical analysis of evolution has absolutely nothing to with the creationist/ID position. Why do you evo-reactionaries have such a hard understanding it. Finding flows in evolution does not then support the creationist/ID position. Heck, if it was proved that evolution was entirely false – that would not support the creationist/ID position; it would just disprove evolution (and I not implying that is happening). The point is simple – critical analysis of one theory can not be used as supporting evidence for another theory (per se).
BTW: The Creationist/ID position is not taught in schools so your point in rendered null and void.