Do you consider estimates of the age of the Earth based on radioactive decay of Uranium to be "Darwinian"? How about the ice cores they're drilling out of the Antartic that they say go back 400,000 years by counting the seasonal layers in the cores? These have nothing to do with Darwin or evolution.
Do you have any idea how many competing theories there could be on any given issue? Basically, you're saying that if someone has a theory and some "evidence" not matter how ephemeral or disputed they get equal time in each and every classroom that addresses or mentions that particular scientific issue.
Ice cores, assuming depth = age? Heard of the “missing squadron” of WWII planes that ended up in an ice layer “thousands of years old”?
What assumptions do you base your faith in radiometric dating on?
Purity of the original sample? Lack of contamination? No mechanical interference during decay?
==Do you consider estimates of the age of the Earth based on radioactive decay of Uranium to be “Darwinian”? How about the ice cores...?
In both cases, they are interpreted in such a way as to conform to Darwin’s fairytale. And in both cases, Creationists and ID scientists are coming to very different conclusions. Once again, the evidence for and against would have to be presented so the students can decide for themselves.