Randman, I have lately been lurking only at this forum because my patience had worn thin, but you have managed to drive me forth from self-imposed exile. Your utter disregard for fact and facile dodging tactics are more then I can bear.
You were asked to produce sciencetests DOING WORK in creationism or ID. Let's see how you did...
Dr. Van Dyke of NC State. His listed academic interests are mycology, plant-host interactions, and electron microscopy. The following is the list of his published scholarly work from his section of the NC State website...
Carson, M.L. and C.G. Van Dyke. 1993. Effect of temperature and light on the expression of partial resistance of maize to Exserohilum turcicum. Plant Dis. 78:519-522.
Venkatasubbaiah, P., C.G. Van Dyke, and W. S. Chilton. 1992. Phytotoxic metabolites of Phoma sorghina a new foliar disease of pokeweed. Mycologia 84:715-723.
Van Dyke, C.G. and C.W. Mims. 1991. Ultrastructure of conidia, conidium germination and appressorium development in the plant pathogenic fungus Colletotrichum truncatum. Can. J. Bot. 69:2455-2467.
As even a layman can tell, none of those have anything to do with creationism. So, Dr. Van Dyke fails to fulfill the standards asked for, in spite of your claims that he does.
On to Dr. Behe at Lehigh. Using his publication list from both the Discovery Institute and Lehigh University webpages, it is plain that since 1999, Behe has done almost exclusively popular, not scientific, publication. He has a long list of articles, consisting mostly of replies to critics in addition to his books. The one exception is a collaboration with a D. W. Snoke in 2004 for an article "Simulating the evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" which is listed as being "in press" at Protein Sci. I can find no evidence that it was actually published. While Behe is an active advocate of ID, is he doing actual science using it? No.
Both your examples fail. Try again.
Since I am jumping in so late, I will also briefly reply to the OP. I agree that presenting the facts about science is good. It will stand on it's own, with the exception of those who like their faith more then knowledge. No amount of evidence will change those people's minds. As for "showing problems" with it, that to is fine. Teaching that all science is tentative and there are always horizons of knowledge where there will be disagreement among experts is important.
The case for ID and YEC could even be presented. I would suggest doing so right after the basics of the scientific method are taught. Both of those ideologies would be excellent for showing how something does not comply with science. The teacher would simply say "Both ID and YEC require a creator entity about whom information cannot be found and on whom testing cannot be done, so neither are science. Now, let us move on..."