yes but it should stay out of the science class because it is not science and atleast teach both theories considering that is more fair because if you teach only one of them the information becomes one sided and you can't make your own choice what to believe
A few things
1) That there exists two sides is simply incorrect. There are many, many, many forms of creationism. Intelligent Design, Christian creationism, Islamic, Raelian, etc. Even within intelligent design (or Christian creationism, intelligent design is directly descended from Christian creationism) there are different versions. Flat Earth, Geocentrists, Young Earth, Old Earth, and there's many kinds of Old Earth. If you begin teaching creationism in biology classes you will literally spend the
entire class giving equal time to all these theories. And each one is just as possible as others, so you can't really argue only teaching one.
2) Evolution isn't science?
What? What
is science then? The main things that make something science are: Falsifiability, testability, and ability to make useful predictions. Evolution fits every single one of these criteria.
As for celebitrainer's belief that evolution should not be mandatory.... I nearly agree. If Biology as a whole isn't mandatory. If students don't have to take biology at all, sure. Don't make evolution mandatory, since there won't be any classes to teach it in that
are mandatory.
But if Biology is mandatory, then evolution simply must be taught. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Teaching biology without teaching evolution is feasible, but only so far that teaching chemistry without teaching the Periodic Table is feasible. Only so far as teaching nuclear physics without teaching the atomic model is feasible. Without evolution biology is nothing but memorization of facts without a central idea connecting or explaining them.