"Yet it is still as religious in nature as believing in a creator of all things, because one has to have a certain amount of blind faith in an unproved theory .."
Evolution has a preponderance of evidence available to indicate its an accurate rendition of biological diversity on this planet.
Should you choose to ignore it, its your choice. If, on the other hand, you choose to present a theological perspective in a science course you are doing both disciplines a disservice.
In the U.S.'s current deplorably politically correct environment, we will have to present other theological views of life's origin besides the Bible in science classes also - the Hindu version, the Buddhist version, etc. All of which will create an unnecessary digression from the subject at hand with extraneous subjects.
Science belongs in science classes and theology belongs in theology classes.
If you can reconcile evolution and belief in the Bible, as I and very many other biologists do, all well and good. If you can't that's your choice. But imposing your own particular religious - or non-religious - perspective in the science classroom is wrong. Keep it in the theology classroom where it belongs.
If intelligent design means that God used Evolution to create man, then I can buy it. But again, its theology, not religion. When atheist biologists state man is the product of a mere series of fortuitous accidents and this proves God had no part in man's creation, they are intruding into the theological domain and should be censured and stopped.
The belief - or disbelief - in God, has no place in science.
"Evolution has a preponderance of evidence available to indicate its an accurate rendition of biological diversity on this planet."
Really, where is that evidence? I'd like to see it.
Unless God created the scientific laws we use to prove the theories.