I find jar's proposition quite a good one.
I can't see any reasonable person objecting to such a balanced approach.
However, as I think Anglagard hinted, we might expect substantial objections from the fundamentalist christians to having their sacred religion's fairy story of human origin being lumped in with all the other 'creation myths' in an opbjective high school classroom.
The problem is, the christian right doesn't just want their creation myth taught in school, they want it taught AS IF IT WERE GOSPEL TRUTH.
And since science is the 'gold standard' when it comes to determining what is verifiably true, they WANT IT TAUGHT AS IF IT WERE SCIENCE.
The problem is that science requires, nay demands,
mechanistic explanations of process and functionality.
Evolution provides the framework for a virtual infinity of such explamations when it comes to how living things change and have come to be as they are.
Creationism's mechanism is 'GODDIDIT' - end of story.
Not much of a mechanistic explanation there.
Science is a study of mechanisms and creationism posits none.
Ergo, there is
absolutely nothing to study in context of science.