Look, the point is to teach BOTH sides.
There are not two sides to the issue! Even if darwinian evolution were proven to be wrond that doesn't mean that ID, creation, or any other theory would be right. You are making the mistake of assuming that there are two equal competing theories, there is not. On one hand you have the ToE with it's bevy of evidence, and then there's ID, which has no evidence behind it and cannot, by it's very nature, ever have any evidence, make any predictions, or perform any experiments.
Evolutionists are trying to shut ID scientists up who HAVE legitimate PhDs
So whast? Having a legitimate PhD doesn't make their pet theories any more or less right. In fact many of the ID propenents who I've seen people like yourself put forward do have PhD's, but not in the subject that they put forth as being an expert in. There are just as many more who either "bought" their PhD from a diploma mill, or had a PhD awarded to them as an honorary degree from institutions that have an ideologial stake in the matter at hand.
It's not fair
Boo-Fucking-Hoo. Science isn't supposed to be a "fair fight". If ID proponents want a place at the scientific table then the should perform the requisite experimentation and publish their findings in mainstream scientific journals for legitimate peer review. But they haven't done that, they haven't even attempted to do that.
All ID proponents ever seem to do is attack evolutionary theory as though disproving evolution would make them right by default. They don't ever publish findings or methods of experimentation because they don't have any, and they can't do any. ID cannot conform to scientific methods and therefore is not and cannot be consider science and doesn't have a place in a science classroom.
But their is no point in arguing
You're right, there isn't any point in arguing, not because we are stubborn and set in our ways, but because my argument is of sound reasoning and backed by both fossil and DNA evidence, on the other hand your arguement is based on wishful thinking, blatently untrue assertions, and evolution denial.
since you're? coming from a social Darwinist worldview
Neither Charles Darwin, nor the theory of evolution through natural selection have anything whatsoever to do with "Social Darwinism", a school of thought that arose long after the death or darwin himself. Social darwinism is not a facet of evolutionary theory and it is not described in Origin of Species. It is in fact far more closely related to the Eugenics movement and represents a form of unnatural selection and as such would by contradictory to evolutionary theory.
and I'm coming from the opposite!
Not opposite, just different. As I pointed out before, this is not an either/or situation. There are many varied views of evolution and/or creation, of which ID represents just one. Also for you to be coming from the opposite view there would have to be two equally competing theories and there are not. There is not genuine controversy between the ToE and ID in the scientific community, if fact for there to be then ID would first have to be actual science, which it is not.
And both of us are neither likely to recant our beliefs
You have a "belief" in ID, whereas I accept evolutionary theory. If a better more comprehensive theory were to come along then I would accept that instead if it were back by sound evidence. You on the other hand feel you have to "believe" in ID, likely because you need to prop up your belief that "goddidit", and most certainly because ID has no evidence for you to accept.
But when you do, let me know.
And then you'll what? Congratulate me on my succesful self deception?
As to our little "christian" troll... Is it that your faith is so worthless that you can only defend it by spewing out personal insults rather than informed rational and coherent arguments, or are you just lashing out as a means to overcompensate for some mental or physical "shortcoming"?