This aticle in the Washington Post highlights an “Intelligent Design” conflict in PA. Evolution Shares a Desk With ‘Intelligent Design’ (washingtonpost.com)

First, I would suggest that people learn what a “theory” is, at least in science. A searcher for knowledge makes observations and, based on those observations, puts together an Hypothesis that links and explains various observations. The Hypothesis is shared with other seekers and observers and they generate a general consensus that; Yes indeed, this hypothesis holds water, or; No, this hypothesis doesn’t float.

If the general consensus of the Hypothesis is “Yes”, then it is upgraded to a Theory. As a Theory, it will be taught in higher centers of learning; it informs the next generation of seekers of what those that have gone before have found. It does not mean that the Theory is absolute and can not be questioned, but you will need extraordinary evidence to show that the theory is wrong. Tweaks are always possible, addons that further clarify the Theory; expansions that extend the theory to new realms, although they may require new theories themselves. Theories are not Immutable.

Laws are Immutable. And there are very few laws in science. Things like :

On object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

Acceleration equals force divided by mass.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

After much experimental observation and agreement a theory may become a law. Though some theories are thought of as law since they’ve been around for so long.

Even Einstein’s Relativity work is still theory, though it may become law soon.

Either way, the “Intelligent Design Theory” is not a Theory, it is a hypothesis. Once it has been accepted by the general scientific community it can become a theory. And then it will be taught in colleges and universities and some of the kinks in the theory will be worked out.

At that point, it will be fit to be taught in elementary and high schools. Trying to teach subjects in K-12 that aren’t being taught at higher levels of education is like feeding a child mud. It might fill him up but it won’t nourish him.

If the community feels strongly enough that a subject shouldn’t be taught in a curriculum, remove it, don’t replace it with material that is not accepted in higher levels of education. If a community wants to teach the 1+1 = 3, because it works for them and higher levels of education teach the 1+1 = 2, then it is better not to teach that 1+1 = anything than to teach something that will ruin the child’s chances to live in the rest of the world.