Phil, you have stated yourself that it is a theory. So, teach it as a theory. I've taken too many classes where theories were taught as fact.
If you had your way, everybody would have to believe as you do. However, this would result in great boredom, and your life would have no meaning because you'd have nobody with whom to argue.
hootie,
I think you missed the point. You are conflating the definition of a scientific theory with the colloquial use of the term theory. Colloquially, we misuse the term 'theory' when we mean a hypothesis. In other words, one person might have a hypothesis that team A will win the game tonight, and another person might have a theory that team B will win. Each person might have good reasons for their hypothesis, but they are just guesses.
There is part of the theory of evolution that is considered as much of a fact as gravitational attraction. The fact of evolution is called 'descent with modification'. This means that any organism is descended from its parent and is genetically different from its parent in one way or another. It is descended from its parents and it is a modified version of its parents.
The theory part of evolution is the explanation of how these modifications come about, and what forces harness those variations generation after generation to produce novel traits and new species.
A scientific theory has a much stronger status than a simple fact. It is an explanation that unifies the observation of millions of facts. A good scientific theory does that so well, that it predicts future observations over and over again with incredible accuracy.
A scientific theory, in order to have that kind of power, must make extremely bold and audacious assertions. The value and power of a theory is in what it forbids, because this allows it to be easily falsified. For example, if I say that some objects are not attracted to the earth, it is a weak theory because it forbids almost nothing. It doesn't actually forbid any particular object from being attracted to the earth, because of the use of the word 'some'. Therefore, it make no predictions on any particular objects attractiveness to the earth. And therefore, it is unfalsifiable. It turns out that in scientific theories, predictive power and falsifiability are two sides of the same coin.
Whereas, if I say that any (this means 'any' with no exception) two masses in the universe are attracted to each other by a force equal to g(M1 * M2)/(R * R), then I have a really good scientific theory. It is a good one because it forbids any object in the universe from violating that formula. Therefore it could easily be falsified by any two objects if it were not true. This theory makes a prediction on every object that has ever existed and every object that will exist. It has massive predictive power, and conversely it is easily falsified.
So if after a couple of hundred years of experimentation no one has been able to falsify it, one can see why the theory of Universal Gravitation is more powerful than a simple fact. You can also see that it predicts future events, such as the future position of planets or the path a rocket should take to get to the moon.
The modern theory of evolution enjoys this same kind of support. It says absolute things like, "any two organisms, living or dead, are related by a common ancestor." So far, this has held up for 150 years of concentrated rigorous reasearch and not only did it survive the discovery of molecular biology and genetics, but it anticipated them and is vindicated by them. The anatomical, molecular, and genetic maps of the evolution of the generations of an organism overlay beautifully and support each other completely.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand has never even been stated as a scientific theory, let alone supported by a shred of evidence. I defy you or anyone to actually find a definition of Intelligent Design that makes a positive assertion. (In other words, not stated as simply a negative statement about evolution).
Since ID has never actually been stated as a theory, it has not yet entered the scientific world. It has no evidence to support it and it has no predictive power. Furthermore, 99.9% of the energy of its proponents go into unsuccessfully refuting evolution.
ID is ultimately a con game. The very fact that an educated person like you still think that there are no transitional fossils is proof of how successful the con game is. I hate to be the one to inform you that since all offspring of a set of parents are genetic variations of each other and their parents, all organisms are transitional organisms and all fossils are transitional fossils.
But if you want dramatic fish with gills and lungs, or reptiles with feathers and wings, or 17 steps in the evolution of the elephant or the modern horse, or a train car full of very different hominid fossils, they all exist and can be easily seen by anyone who is not in a state of denial.
The reason why ID and Creationism do not represent anything like "the other side of the argument" is because they don't actually have any substance to them. They have not entered the world of science and should not be taught in science class. They are no more scientific than astrology. In fact, one of the chief proponents of ID, while questioned under oath in Dover, PA admitted that the definition of science would have to change in order for ID to be admissable, and also admitted that such a change would allow astrology to be considered a science.
Science is a special and powerful way of knowing, that is more powerful than observing a fact. The theory of evolution has been confirmed for so long in so many different ways that we might be more certain about it than any other scientific theory. ID, on the other hand has not even been stated yet as any kind of scientific assertion, so it cannot even enter the courtroom of scientific inquiry. Being unfalsifiable (like my 'some objects are not attracted to the earth' hypothesis), it is not testable, therefore it is not science.
There has never been anything that has been shown to be Intelligently Designed instead of evolved. There are no active research programs anywhere on Intelligent Design, despite the fact that The Discovery Institute (the chief and only proponent of ID) is funded in the $millions every year. They spend none of it on research, since it is nothing but a PR firm focused on lobbying for changes in public policy regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools.
By the way, I happen to be a devout Christian and believe that ultimately God created the universe and is responsible for life. But I don't confuse that with the denial that in the process God created a universe full of natural processes.