Which one is really the "belief"-based theory?

Today, President Bush proclaimed his support for the Intelligent Design theory of creation to be taught alongside the evolutionary theory of development. Of course, he was attacked right and left for his support of teaching something "with no scientific basis to support it" and "no educational basis for teaching it." So what makes evolution any more valid? What they don't understand is that evolution is still a theory and still takes as much faith--if not more--to believe happened than creationism does. It has still not been proved, and there are huge gaps in the macroevolution that scientists claim have happened. Certainly, microevolutionary adaptions occur in nature, but to say that humans were created from "goo to you by way of the zoo" is scientifically ludicrous. That holds less credibility and reason than to think that there might be an intelligent Being who actually brought us into existence the way that we are. Additionally, if it is being proposed as being taught along with evolution, what are they so afraid of? For being so "tolerant" in their perspectives, they're awfully closed-minded on this one. (kind of like the ones who are freaking out about the elective Bible study class)

(8/8/05) David Limbaugh's commentary on this very issue posits about the Darwinian scientists' double-standard when it comes to a theory not their own: "Indeed, it appears many Darwinists are guilty of precisely that of which they accuse ID proponents: having a set of preconceived assumptions that taint their scientific objectivity."

(8/9/05) Even though I believe in absolute truths, Mr. Harris has a legitimate argument that even Darwin would have allowed the debate of his own theory in the classroom, and that children should be taught to think about theories and ideas and decide for themselves. He actually agreed with Bush's statement that "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is 'yes,'" and further stated that "So this time Bush got it right, and the critics that are pouncing on his statement are getting it mostly wrong. There is no harm in teaching children to discuss and debate the ultimate questions -- indeed, the greatest danger is that we may raise a generation that is never challenged to think about such questions at all. If an open-ended debate about evolution stirs up the kids, then, for heaven's sake, let the stirring begin."