The science community is all about arguing different concepts about how things work. But at some point issues become settled, and the controversy moves.
For example it's now well understood that the earth orbits the sun, the moon orbits the earth, and everything is kept synchronized by gravity and conservation of energy. There is no scientific controversy on the basic orbital concepts. But there IS serious controversy over the operation of the entire universe. How does dark matter effect universe expansion/contraction, whatever. Science does not understand all there is to the movements of celestial bodies, but there are some things that are beyond question. Bodies do orbit one another in space, that's a settled issue.
The scientific understanding of how species operate is a similar situation. There is zero genuine scientific argument about whether evolution occurs, and that the various species are the result of it. The human/primate ERV DNA sequences are affirmative proof of that, and a mountain of other things. But there is scientific controversy about the mechanisms of evolution. I don't understand the subject to describe those controversies, but if you wanted to teach students those controversies, fine. But the fact that evolution happens is settled among the scientists who study the subject of life on earth.
Even some of those rare scientists that promoted ID as a method to describe creationism without the "G" word, are beginning to talk about "intelligent evolution". They have run into the brick wall of evidence for evolution, just as the creationist scientists who attempted to prove a "young earth" in the 50's ran into a brick wall and gave up. But even "intelligent evolution", is just faith that there just simply MUST be something running the universe. There is no affirmative evidence of any outside entity guiding the changing of life on earth. If there were, it would cease being an "outside" supernatural entity, and we would study God scientifically and He would become part of the natural universe.
After centuries of effort, no one has be able to scientifically observe God. That's why they call it "faith", while we have evidence of evolution, which makes it "science".
Your note is what I envision for the class - to rationally point out the strengths and weaknesses of the "Theories" (I'm stretching here to be kind to the non/semi-scientific theories). Trying to educate both sides of this discussion -
From that we see -
1.) What is settled.
2.) What is controversial
3.) etc.
Evolution will do fine in a head to head comparison. What I do wonder about though is the willingness of many to extend the reach of evolution into areas where it is not settled science, and for which there is little evidence.
It seems to me a bit that the anti-religionists like to use evolution for political purposes, and oversell it.
I mean - just for fun - let's say evolution is the perfect mechanism for developing plants and animals (which it appears to me to be). OK - well who designed a system that could be run by this perfect simple rule. If evolution is perfect, from what did it evolve to become perfect? Just kidding - Etc.