This is not a question of presenting two opposing views to students and allowing them to build intellectual muscle in deciding what is right for themselves; this is a fundamental question of allowing children whom we have been entrusted to educate to embrace the irrational in the face of reason.
It would be interesting to study how many of those who object to Evolution object to Paleontology or Plate Tectonics. Hypotheses can become theories which can become laws, but these are subject to proof. No one disputes the Laws of Continent Movement; why do they dispute Evolution? Akin to Paleontology and Plate Tectonics, it has its set of theories and yes, Laws -- we know certain things to be Laws, meaning they are true, not by dictum of some authority, but by proof, if we are to trust the evidence of accumulated scientific knowledge. What is true is consistent.
Certainly individuals are free to question and reject such findings, but if they reject what has been proven to be true, then they must, to remain consistent in their arguments, reject the notion of the Scientific Process in its entirety. If so, earthquakes are caused by God's wrath, and fossils were placed by Him to test our Faith, the Earth is a few thousand years old, and Man is slightly younger.
Science is based on Induction; Religion is based on Deduction, with the axiom in this case, of "What Is Written In the Bible is Indisputably True." There's no religious argument to be made otherwise, as you cannot dispute an axiom; to do so is to negate any discussion of religious deductions.
I wonder if Evolution would have been an issue if the Ancients had timed creation in the billions of years instead of a week. To accept the latter premise in the face of evidence is to embrace the irrational, and rely on authority, or more insidiously, authority's dictum of what it decides to be true.