The widely publicized debate between "science" (Bill Nye) and "religion" (Ken Ham) led me to make sure I understand my terms. I have no issue understanding the scientific basis for evolution; there is an extensive fossil record. But the "religion" side may be a bit murkier. You really have
Creationism vs Intelligent Design here.
Creationism comes in different varieties, from the strictest biblical literalism, which says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, to the theistic evolutionism of the Catholic Church, which accepts evidence that the Earth is millions of years old, and that evolution can explain much of its history—but not the creation of the human soul. Between those, there are the "Young-Earth" and the "Old-Earth" creationists, who differ over the age of the planet and the details of how God created life.
The limited scope of Intelligent Design theory actually makes it compatible with a wide range of views. Some ID theorists do believe in evolution — or at least that different species can change over time — and many believe that the Earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. But there are also ID theorists who believe in a 100 percent literal reading of Genesis and stick to it.
Young-Earth creationists criticize the Intelligent Design people for encouraging a "loose" reading of the Bible, and the design theorists say that ID represents at least the "partial truth" and that it is, at the least, the best available tool for dislodging what they see as evolutionist dogma.
When all this is said and done - and I found this debate really boring and designed mostly for publicity - I think the real question we should be asking ourselves is whether we are teaching our chilldren the critical thinking skills they need to be mature adults in a changing world. If we can say that we've done that, they should be perfectly capable of making up their own minds.