I am content to consider macro-evolution a plausible theory with holes, and repercussions extending only to the academic questions of biology. I, for practical matters, take it for granted. My theological views have no dependence on macroevolution.
So I say teach it in class, but let's be realistic about its implications. Grand conclusions on the meaning of existence should be left to the philosophers and theologians.
The contention here derives from the ability for each side to poke the other in the eye with the lack of evidence for their conclusions.
I sense smug satisfaction on the side of the atheists to say, 'ha ha stupid ignorant Jesus-freak, guess what, evolution obviates your god.'
While the other side mocks the evolutionists for lack of rigor.
As I see it, macroevolution doesn't argue against God, nor is evolution unscientific, but with a lack of data there's a lot of room for hand-waving.
The argument for macroevolution is not unlike the argument for global warming. It's a plausible scenario based on the micro-evidence scaled up to macro. I can show you natural selection in fruit flies, and I can show you that CO2 absorbs radiation in the lab. But the evidence is lacking (to thoroughly prove or disprove) the complex macro case with many unknowns, so human psychology rules the argument.
Now there's a bunch with a great track record!
Reminds me of a joke from college: "Math is the cheapest science - all you need is paper, a pencil and a wastebasket. No, philosophy is cheaper, you don't need the wastebasket"