The problem is (ok, ONE problem) that you should only teach stuff with evidence in science class, not random ideas that some small group of wack jobs think pose a problem to a particular section of science or particular theory.
Especially if those ideas are borne out of religion. There is no valid evidence for any of the ID ideas, so until then, they do not belong in science class.
My point is that scientists have always been holier than thou with their theories,
What does this even mean?
A natural part of talking about the theory of evolution is what would falsify the theory.
Perhaps so. But the place to do that is not in high school science class. You can teach your ID theories when they a) get some actual evidence to back them up and b) when they become actual science. Until then, you can teach them where they belong: church or religious studies.
And what would falsify it would be to prove ID
That is incorrect. "Proving" intelligent design would not necessarily falsify evolution (even though the ENTIRE purpose of ID is to try and do so).
The demand for falsification is there for a reason, to avoid scientists becoming zealots for their own pet theories,
Incorrect again. Falsification is there simply so we can assure we are correct. Only one group of people are considered zeaolts and they aren't the guys wearing lab coats. They're the guys that stand at podiums wearing funny hats.
and I see very few attempts in biology to provide solid falsification criteria.
I am intriugued to know how hard you've actually looked.
Might as well have the ID people do it then
There is a nobel prize waiting for them if they do. The scientific community would welcome the correct answer for the diversity of species with open arms if it turns out that answer is not evolution.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins