Ultimately, the topic of debate then is, whether abject refusal to discuss that other people have other ideas is ultimately worse than accepting that other ideas exist, acknowledging them, and then explaining the scientific ideas. What are people's opinions on mentioning teleology as a way of leading to explaining natural selection as a design-argument-buster? On providing historical context on the various beliefs and ideas that preceded Darwinism (not just the religious ones)? And how some of those ideas remain in popular belief?
Each way of handling the situation has its own pitfalls, so which is ultimately better?
In spite of some of the comments on this thread, creationism is a religious belief, and it, along with associated ideas such as a young earth, have no scientific evidence to support them.
Creationists apparently want their beliefs considered, respected, and, most importantly, not refuted in science classes so that those students who hold those beliefs are not made to feel bad or to doubt their religious beliefs.
Sorry, science is not in the "feel good" game. Science can't teach students that those religious beliefs are supported by scientific evidence because they are not. Science can't avoid confronting the subject because to avoid the evolutionary sciences, biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and all methods of dating would essentially gut the scientific curriculum.
And science can't avoid drawing conclusions from data. Someone on this thread suggested teaching just the data and avoiding the conclusions. That won't work. Science is facts
and theories. As Heinlein has noted, "Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness. A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts."
So the problem comes down to whether you teach science in science classes and let feelings be hurt on occasion, or whether you censor science for all students in order to protect a small number of students from learning what has been discovered by mainstream science.
Since the Enlightenment, we no longer have to kowtow to religious authority and science is free to go where the data leads. The answer then is obvious--teach science in science classes.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.