Teaching both evolution and intelligient design as "theories' or "alternate views" would be what a true liberal open-minded education would be about. But noooo...the educrat Commies want to squash any idea about creation other than their godless vacuous religion of swiss cheese evolution. Chairman Mao would be proud.
NO, it would be more akin to teaching Ebonics along with English. Perhaps you know an English teacher who is that openminded, but I don't want him teaching anyone I'm responsible for. I'd be totally inwilling to pay his salary.
Note that this in English class. It is proper to study Ebonics as part of linguistics, or in the context of Uncle Remus stories. It is unacceptable to call it standard English, or to pretend that it is. The same applies to other politically-mandated studies, such as Afrocentric history. It is fraudulent to call it history.
ID is another such politically-mandated study.
One of the problems here is that the ID side is attempting to change the definition of what science is. This was explicit in Kansas. Politicians simply do not have the authority to do such a thing.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists, and almost all biologists, accept evolution. If kids are going to learn science, they should learn what scientists say it is.
Would you like to see ID used as an example of a nonfalsifiable, and hence nonscientific, claim, along with freudianism and lasts Thursdayism?