Well, there's a difference between facts, theories, and hypotheses. I certainly wouldn't mind a science course that covered those differences and said that most of what we think we understand about how the universe works is theories. It's singling out evolution that I object to.
a few paragraphs detailing the most common objections to evolutionary theory and the most popular creation science arguments. These could be presented as theories, as well. I think that would be perfectly fair
It sounds fair, but objections to a theory and popular arguments do not themselves make a theory--they're not even hypotheses. Hypotheses are derived from observations, not from forcing observations to fit into a pre-existing belief.
“Hypotheses are derived from observations, not from forcing observations to fit into a pre-existing belief.”
There are plenty of observations that form creation science, not Scripture alone.
You may not agree with the creationist interpretation of the observations, and I may not agree with the evolutionist interpretation of the observations. But observations galore exist in both schools of thought.
It's the evos that single out evolution. The rest of us want it taught just as the rest of science is, that the ToE is a theory, just like the rest of science holds.
The ToE is the only theory that raises this kind of ire when challenged.