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?
Yes. It is very confusing. You have claimed that there is "no evidence" for Darwin's theory. You've even said you would "LOVE" to see it banned. But you've said that banning is not the "American Way," or maybe you don't think it's practical or presently possible. And so you want this "two sides" approach.
But how can a theory without evidence even have a side? I'm confused about how you think evolution can be presented as a "side" if there is "no evidence" for it. Clearly you don't mean one of these things. Either that or you think it's O.K. to blatantly lie to students, pretending there is evidence for something that in fact has "no evidence". I would find that confusing as well.
Second, even if you think it's impractical or inappropriate to affirmatively ban evolution, why wouldn't it suffice to demand creationism be taught without saying anything one way or the other regarding evolution? Why advocate (even if conditionally on it only being "one side") teaching as science a theory which you assert is "anti-science" and for which there is "no evidence"?
IOW, why establish, even advocate, the principle that ideas with "no evidence" can, even should, be included in curricula?
And, once you've established this principle, how in the world do you expect to oppose leftist and liberal pap, pablum and lies in curricula? After all liberals and leftists can claim that their ideas, even if without demonstrable academic merit, represent "one side" of whatever issue.
Yes. How do you intend to teach ID as though it were a theory?