Nor for philsophical reasons. You need to me careful not to press the theory into the service of philosphical materialism and use it to discredit all religous authority. William jennings Bryan has been turned into a buffoon, even though his real objection was not to the science--of which he knew little--but to the social darwinism of the time, which he believed was used to justify the exploitation of the weak by the strong.
"Nor for philsophical reasons. You need to me careful not to press the theory into the service of philosphical materialism and use it to discredit all religous authority."
That is part of the problem... science is not capable of disproving religion. And that is not it's job. It is often non-scientist supporters of evolution that overstate it. We don't know where the first life came from and we cannot disprove intelligent design.
On the other hand, science class is about what we can prove and, where there is no definitive proof, what seems most likely as suggested by the evidence and right not ID doesn't fit because of a lack of supporting scientific evidence.