Isn't science based on theory? I remember learning that the scientific method begins with a hypothesis. What's the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? My dictionary defines a hypothesis as a theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation.
It defines a theory as a scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena. Sounds like the same thing to me. So the theory of evolution should be studied, as well as the theory of intelligent design. Whether or not either has been proven by science or not, they are both theories, and will help students learn the scientific process.
The next step of the scientific process is to provide evidence to support your theory. If you can validate your theory, then it is recognized as valid. Those who support the evolution theory don't want to acknowledge intelligent design because some of the facts haven't been proven scientifically. But they say, "Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an un-testable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."
What's the difference? There are points of intelligent design, creationism, or whatever you want to call it, which have been proven. There have been artifacts discovered by archaeologists that have proven Biblical events to be accurate.
So yes, these two theories should be taught in conjunction with each other in the Science classroom.
On another note, the Bible has been proven to be one of the most accurate records of the Earth's history. If that's the case, why is it so hard for people to trust it? History is history, science is science. If the issue is whether intelligent design should be taught, rather than evolution in the science class room; maybe we should think of teaching it in the world history class room.
In fact, ID is not even teachable since it has no proofs, valid studies, prediction, or testable ideas; ID is primarily a set of arguments against a minuscule and highly selective handful of scientific discoveries. All ID arguments have been refuted soundly and repeatedly.
Your claim that the Bible shouldn\'t be questioned and proves creationism is counter to the Discovery Institute\'s policy of dissociating ID from Christianity. If you don\'t the Discovery Institute, you do not know enough about ID. Discovery Institute\'s policy of hiding the fact they are pushing a Christian agenda is essential to their goal to have religion taught as science, and your motives are as clear as theirs -- push Christianity into the public schools as science.