It has long been established that it is perfectly proper for agents of the state to make statements about religion. For example, a statement like "Most Jews believe that nobody resembling the Jesus Christ of the New Testament was born in ancient Rome," is simple and factual, and would be entirely appropriate in discussing the difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
I would consider a statement that evolution is not anti-religious is a statement about religion, rather than a religious statement; a claim that it is anti-religious would likewise also be a statement about religion rather than a religious statement, but would need some real evidence before I'd accept its veracity.
Not to be nasty but what you or I think is irrelevant, it is what SCOTUS has held that is relevant to our discussion and SCOTUS has held that such statements are unconstitutional, the fact that their establishment clause jurisprudence is laughable not withstanding.