BTW, ID is not a "creation story" any more than evolution is.
It is a philosphical approach to the answer of "where did life come from" NOT a religious one.
You know you can have it both ways. You can present the evidence that evolution occurs in science class. You can then present the idea of ID in a philosophy class. The two are not contradictory. The origin of life has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolution explains the changes that life underwent after being formed. Furthermore, evolution does not specifically require a non-designed process. Evolution simply states that the variation of allele frequencies in organism populations varies over time and that this variation gives rise to new species of organisms. Currently, we speak of random mutation as one mechanism of increasing genetic variability. However, there's no requirement that these mutations be random. What if they are the product of design, by a designer utilizing the process of evolution to produce a desired end product? Evolution would still be a valid theory in science which explains the data and makes new predictions. ID would still be a valid philosophical belief. I am not saying that this is truly what is happening, but rather I am using this as an example to point out that the two ideas are not really contradictory. What is true, however, is that as the situation currently stands, evolution does make predictions which can be tested by observations of physical evidence whereas ID does not. Therefore, evolution belongs in science while ID does not.