I basically agree with your main point here about the necessary (and in fact, self-imposed) limitation of science: it is just not and cannot be in the business of testing the existence, leave alone the nature, of God. Its working assumption is that natural phenomena arise from natural rather than supernatural causes, as supernatural causes cannot be investigated.
And isn't this what is said in science classes anyway? [And a footnote: why is the big tussle about Biology classes rather than chemistry or physics?]. I really can't believe that this is not stated in some way.
Why is there so much hysteria in the scientific community at noting these limitations within science class or texts?
I don't accept the characterisation of "hysteria" here, but that is to one side. Consider what the reaction would be if lobbyists sought legislative changes to require a 'disclaimer' to be read out before any church service to the effect that religion cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Imagine your own reaction if a law required a sticker to be placed on the cover of every Bible stating that portions of scripture may be false. I would expect you to be up in arms--as I would. I assure you, I would be standing shoulder to shoulder with you in outrage over such a thing.
I do not see science gunning for religion here at all, though I do see how the basic working assumption of science is necessarily at odds with the tenants of some (by no means all, or even most) schools of faith. So I see no need or benefit whatsoever than doing anything different from at present, e.g., science and science only in the science classrooms, religion in philosophy classes, homes, and places of worship, as each chooses.
I told puroresu that I think that schoolboards should select textbooks that clearly state in the introduction what science is and isn't.
And with all the emphasis in the news lately on the boundaries of science and nonscience, any text written from now on that doesn't do that is completely worthless.
I issue a public challenge right here to puroresu to find a scientist or evo that disagrees with my premise.