I think there is a significant conflict, and the two sides of the debate are not at all symmetrical. There's a great deal of evidence of evolution as a creative force. There is no evidence of intelligent design. The only evidence anyone provides is skepticism -- "how can anyone think the complexity of life can be explained through chance?" That's not evidence, it's not science, and it doesn't even look like science. It's not reasonable to talk about Creation Science, because there is no such thing, and scientifically-minded people are likely to get annoyed at the abuse of their principles. Intelligent design advocates presuppose an answer, then seek arguments for that answer, which isn't science, and isn't even an intellectual investigation.

Then, intelligent design advocates say they merely want evolution shown alongside other beliefs and perspectives. Are they willing to accept the same kind of critique that they put forward towards evolution? Are they willing to accept a textbook that investigates the evidence (and lack thereof) that supports their theories? Are they willing to accept a textbook that investigates the theological basis of their beliefs, and the consistency of that theology and the physical evidence?

I very much doubt that is so. I don't think intelligent design advocates with a theological basis to their beliefs are willing to have their child taught to be a true skeptic, they want a reserved skepticism that's targetted towards ideas they find inconsistent with their beliefs. That's fine in the home, but I don't think that kind of education has a place in the schools.

In thinking of a reply, I just discovered something interesting about the textbooks I've read.

I always loved science textbooks. Science textbooks present not only the theories, but also a model for evaluating for yourself whether the theories are correct. For example, physics textbooks give the formula for acceleration due to gravity and the Earth's gravity constant, then they explain how you can validate that formula for yourself. The student learns how to participate in science.

When I was younger, I hated history textbooks. History textbooks generally present all information as a fact that you should simply acknowledge. For me, they were a disappointment compared with the beauty of science. Today, I realize that because history is so varied and complex, it is probably appropriate to write history textbooks that way, and I enjoy reading history a lot more.

But which textbook presents evolution to students? For me, it has always been the history textbook. History textbooks approach evolution the same way they approach any other period of time, dispensing information and providing only a little framework for evaluating that information. Because history classes only apply the scientific method loosely, and because students are rarely expected to question history, history is not the right forum for a sensitive subject like evolution.

Biology class is a better place to present evolution. The class can take the time for a little friendly debate; students would learn that science encourages questioning. As an assignment, the students would try to apply the scientific method to the idea of accidental creation. This would help them understand both sides.

If schools presented evolution in a forum where students are encouraged to decide their own opinion, surely parents would be happier.