Yes, I did follow the link. But I also didn't respond with "I was a fish!". You stated that humans had gills during a stage of development, I simply responded with information regarding that statement.
Evolutionary theory is the framework that most scientists work through. Creation is another framework. Both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence, but they interpret it through these two differing frameworks.
There was something similar that happened in history, unfortunately in which the Church got a bad rap (but deservedly because they compromised their views). The Ptolemaic Theory of the solar system was the "Holy Grail" of the scientists of that day in astronomical theory.
Even when their own mathematical calculations didn't come out correctly, they put in "fixer-uppers" that would adjust the end result.
When their pet theory was put to the test by Galileo (inheriting his ideas from Copernicus), they viciously opposed Galileo (and convinced the Church that belief in an earth-centered solar system was Scriptural --- it isn't).
I've no problem with school's teaching and evolutionary framework, but I'd also approve of the addition of competing frameworks that have peer-reviewed scientific information supporting them. Let's be real: there're plenty of scientists who aren't creationists that point out difficulties with evolutionary theory.
There are also many scientists in astronomical, biological, mathematical, and other disciplines who are just as accredited, degreed, etc., that prefer the creationist/ID framework as those who prefer the evolutionary model. Personally, I'm tired of people getting angry with each other over this; the fact of the matter is, there are many creationists with valid reasons (both theologically and scientifically) for believing the way that they do. For perhaps similar reasons, there will be those who subscribe to the evolutionary model.
If someone from one camp prefers to continue viewing someone from another camp as ill-informed after debating the issues (not just slinging the "strawmen" that exist on both sides), fine. But be adult about it.
I've never seen Copernicus/Galileo versus the Catholic Church spun as you do. Scientists convinced the church that Ptolemy was scriptural? What were Copernicus and Galileo, farmers? Laymen can lie to the Pope about the Pope's job?
You say creation is a "framework." It looks more like blinders to me.