I would if that were the case. I do not like the ToE (in the wide sense) because it falsely assumes the name science for itself and invokes the law to gain an exclusive hearing in public school science rooms. I am not the one trying to outlaw any mention of ToE in science classrooms, however.
Like many in your shrinking club, you apply a double standard to the ToE and intelligent design. You allow ample room for inference on the part of the former, but deny it entirely to the latter, even though the latter enjoys present day, scientifically accessible processes of intelligent design. Worst of all, you demonstrate a crass disregard for what is written in our Constitution.
What do you think this is, some creature trying to make itself grander? That it just came into existence and called itself science? The ToE started as a basic idea, and its proponents had to fight their way up the sceintific food chain based on the merit of the theory. Only after it had been vetted, attacked and rediculed for years was it finally accepted as valid science. That is why it is called science and taught in science class.
But you'd like to bypass this whole process for ID and use school boards to put ID in by the back door.
Like many in your shrinking club
"Teach the Controversy" likes to say that to make people think there's some kind of scientific crisis going on. Sorry to say, the ToE is stronger today than it was when Johnson invented his evangelical tool.