FC: Exactly.
Therefore, it should not be in a science class. Q friggin ED.
And if we're going to bring William of Occam into the discussion, please explain what entity must be introduced to cause the presence of organized matter, i.e. particle matter that retains its consistency from generation to generation.
I'd rather not change the discussion from biology to physics. Belongs in another thread.
IMO the simplest explanation is a single, almighty intelligence, without which all matter would disintegrate into NOTHING.
Whatever.
What I'm interested in here is what should be in biology texts and classes.
If I understand correctly, you've stated that there is the appearance of evolution, in particular the pattern of ERV insertions in primate genomes mimics the "family tree" that was theorized by biologists before DNA had been discovered.
So why should a designer hypothesis be feigned?
Why should Occam's Razor be violated in biology but not in other sciences?
For the same reason its opposite should be feigned. You asked "why" a designer would create something with the appearance of evolution. That question impinges upon the volition of whatever intelligence is involved. Although I am reticent to suggest science will ever know the mind and will of God, I am happy to leave that question out of science class.
Introducing Occam's razor into biology class is introducing philosophy into biology class. As long as you're going to introduce it, why not ask which is simpler: To attribute cohesiveness and predictability to a single intelligent agent, or to attribute the same to random mutations, natural selection, and physical laws that came from unguided processes?