Creationists are always insisting on teaching "theories" that they claim are alternatives to evolution. But most scientists think this is just a backdoor to teaching religion in schools. I have a simple test to separate those who have legitimate qualms about "holes"* in the theory of evolution from those concerned about religion more than science:
Which concerns you more, the lack of space given to alternatives to evolution in science education, or the lack of space given to alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?
If they answer "evolution", they're either woefully uneducated about quantum mechanics (and so they need to study up before they talk about science education), or they are more concerned about religion than valid scientific controversy. Feel free to deride their lack of knowledge of basic science or the nature of scientific controversy.
If they answer "quantum mechanics", take the time to discuss with them their views on science education and problems with the theory of evolution***, if they have any. And feel free to discuss the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics!
* Just fyi, there will always be holes in the fossil record, since so few living beings are fossilized**.
** As a homage to this process I try to treat explanatory comments in my coding as fossils, this explaining why they are so rare and often confusing.
*** Personally, I think the platypus is the best argument for creationism/intelligent design. Though in this case it's more drunken design.