You contradict yourself, and in the same way as I noted in #476. Why do you say there are "two sides" when you say, just a few posts previous in #821, that: "There's no evidence [...] for Darwin's theory"?
Notwithstanding the ludicrousness, indeed the blatant falsity, of this claim, IF you actually believe there's "no evidence" for evolution, then you can't meaningfully speak of it's having a "side" in any scientific debate.
Again I ask, why the schizophrenia (and embrace of intellectual relativism)? Not that it's unique to you, but rather quite common to creationists. Why do you (all) make claims -- along the lines that evolution is patently false, an outright lie, has no evidence, etc -- and then turn right around and implicitly deny obvious implications or your claims?
It should be taught as two sides to the story, creationism or ID and Darwin's theory. I don't see how hard that is to figure out, Stultis. Teach them both as theory and let the hearer sort it out. Is that so confusing?