Both are theories; neither can be proven either way. They can be considered competing or related theories, the kids should be allowed all the info so they can make up their own minds. This, however is something libs cannot allow as most of their ideas don’t hold water. If kids learn to think about things they will reject liberalism.
At some point, you have to ask THE question -
what is the ultimate source of truth?
Is it humanity’s ability to fathom nature?
Is there any “truth” derived this way that hasn’t fallen short or been wrong?
Cholesterol anyone?
Right here is the core essence of your problem: the Bible is in no way, shape or form a "theory", period, much less a "scientific theory".
The Bible is the opposite of a scientific theory.
Modern science -- natural-science -- begins with and is founded on the assumption of naturalism, meaning: only natural explanations for natural processes.
So science -- for example, evolution theory -- is what you get when you exclude all possibility of supernatural explanations.
In that sense then, there is no serious "competing" scientific theory to evolution.
By stark contrast, the Bible has nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with today's natural science.
The Bible is the opposite of natural science in that it begins with, and is based on assumptions of supernatural creation and interventions in the natural realm.
The Bible assumes and asserts that God is responsible for a large number of supernatural events, events which natural-science can neither confirm nor adequately explain.
Point is: you cannot use scientific standards to measure the Bible, any more than you can use Biblical standards to measure science -- neither is intended to weigh the other (morality and ethics aside, of course).
Bottom line: it's no more appropriate to teach religion in science class that it would be to teach math in gym class, or visa versa.
DeweyCA: "As an evangelical Christian, I don’t know that I want non-Christian teachers presenting their opinion on the Bible in classes.
However, I definitely think that both the strengths and the weaknesses of naturalistic evolution should be presented.
That’s just good science.
Once students see the gaping holes in naturalistic evolution, the facts will speak for themselves and they will be much more open to listening to an alternative viewpoint that should be presented at their churches."
You are closer to the right answer here.
The entire scientific method is all about questioning and skepticism -- take nothing at face value.
Applied to evolution, such questions can help a student keep clearly in mind how much we actually know from physical evidence, and how much of our overall picture is reasonable speculation or theory.
But the role of "intelligent design" in evolution cannot be taught in science classes, and has to come from religion classes, as explained by each pupil's church teachings.
Since no two denominations teach precisely the same doctrines, there is no possibility that often atheistic public school science teachers are going to tell their students what the parents' churches wish the children to learn.