first of all, if it can't be tested scientifically, it can't be taught as science. plain and simple. you want to teach it in philosophy, fine. give it a try.
Or to be more exact, if it can't be shown to be false... The problem with creationism is that it explains not only how things are, but any other way, conceivable or even inconceivable, they might be: "That's how Go^h^h the Creator wanted it." Its problem is that it explains too much.
that still doesn't excuse the fact that the philosophy is based on faulty logic. one of the best answers I heard for "intelligent design" is that, just because something's been designed, doesn't mean there's a conscious designer. Look at language for example. We have a a complex system of sounds for communication, there fore it must have been designed by someone? False! To whom do we give credit for designing the English language? no one. it simply developed out of a need and continue to evolve through use, and mostly by shear accident, with both flaws, ambiguities, and contradictions, as well as beauty and poetry.
Yes, language evolved, and has all the imperfections of anything that evolved. For example "the querty effect". Like a typewriter keyboard, once everyone is used to it, no matter how bad it may be, it's very hard to change, because you have to change the thing and its users at the same time. That's why spelling reform (like Webster's plow, boro etc in the US) is so fitful and imperfect (how do you spell "timbre"?) and why Shaw's [beneficiaries'] alphabet reform, elegant, compact and functional as it is, never caught on.
But Creationists will just say "but intelligence
was at work in creating language, just distributed, not individual".
For that reason, I think my way, of showing some very clear, simple ways we could have been
better designed, undermines the IDers more easily.