This sounds interesting, please elaborate.

2 beings originally inhabited the Earth. They were having a cookout and with beers in hand, they began to grill cheeseburgers for lunch. They had some leftover bacon from breakfast so they slapped it on the burgers, upon tasting this they proclaimed that there should be more people enjoying this AMAZING combination. Thus using the powers of modeling clay, humanity was born.
Pretty sound huh? LOL

So what are you proposing: that anyone teaching evolution or gravitational theory or quantum theory begins each session with a "Now, this isn't established fact, but..." disclaimer?
I don't see the advantage or need to do something like this. I guess I don't understand your point here.

Quite frankly, yes. People,. such as those in this very thread, seem to think "Scientific Theory == Fact", which is just wrong. Regardless of what the topic is, but especially when it is a controversial one.

I think the most sensible approach would actually be to include some kind of "Introduction to Science" course in the high school or junior high curriculum that covers things such as what the scientific method is, the epistemic basis for science, what scientific hypotheses and theories actually are, etc. Basically lay the groundwork for general scientific thought before throwing specific disciplines at the students.

It sounds like a hippo. And if we're quoting the Old Testament to prove points, I can come up with some really interesting ones.

Like how the bible predicted porn stars like Mandingo & Peter North?
"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." - Ezekiel 23:19-20

And don't forget that YHWH sent she-bears to maul a group of kids because they insulted a prophet's bald head.

There is a difference between a theory and a fact. Gravitation is a fact. I'd like to see you try and debate that.
There is also a difference between a scientific theory and just a theory. Evolution as it stands, is a scientific theory - albeit a strong one - all our observable results to this day support it.
Intelligent design is a theory, however it is not scientific. There is no logical reason to mix scientific theories with those that are unscientific, as that opens up a whole wasp's nest of possible issues.
The only reason you are left with then, is that it is a move by the fundamentalist christian right-wingers, who basically want to punch out as much of science as they can from the curriculum. It's a low blow - and only designed to give science as little "prime time" as possible, when you basically suggest teaching theology in science class.
Somehow I doubt there will be much science taught in theology class to make up for the inadjustment.

Tyrannosaurus Rex was widely known for it's ability to hide behind some reeds in a marsh, I hear. A few lotus flowers on top of that and you'd hardly see him even from three feet away.
Oh, brother.

They're very BIG lotus...

With a tail like a cedar?
Retrieved from http://lexicorient.com/e.o/cedar.htm
The bottom line is if you staunchly believe in evolution than no matter what is presented it will not be seen as valid at any level. There really is little middle ground.
In the end both beliefs (Evolution or Intelligent Design) are a matter of faith since there is no empirical proof for either in regard to how the universe came to be.
EDIT: silly quote system

Yes, that would be a very good idea, really.

True, after all other than an overwhelming number of fossils that show clear progression from simple to complex, there's nothing to distinguish it from "Bam, MAGIC!"