You've actually inadvertantly hit the nail on its head on this one. The problem with any non-scientific alternative explanations to anything is that they go by the lazy route and try to convince the ignorant masses to achieve their agenda. In science, everything is tested over and over by experts. But in non-scientific disciplines like ID everything tend to forego the rigorous testing part and goes straight to being taught to students and the public. Since when did we qualify students to be capable of rigorous criticism of a discipline?
This whole "teach the controversy" bullshit relies entirely on the student's incapability to tell the difference between reality and bullshit. I know for a fact that back in high school had I been taught that the derivative of x is x^2 instead of 1, I would have accepted it whole-heartedly. Why? Because I didn't know any better. That's why I was a student instead of a teacher.
By advocating we let the students decide on the issue of ID versus evolution, it's the same as letting them decide between the derivative of x being x^2 versus derivative of x being 1. Without external influence, we would expect it will be half and half.
What's next? We should let the students decide between the heliocentric versus geocentric model? What about alchemy versus chemistry? How about modern medicine versus prayer?
Teach the controversy and let the student decide is nothing but pure bullshit.
™ Version 4.2
(1)