People who campaign for incorporating alternatives to biological macro-evolution into public school curriculums frequently argue that evolution favors atheism and deism over theism and therefore must be mistaken. Defenders of biological evolution too often respond by defending the compatible of macro-evolution with monotheism. That response is a mistake because it implicitly accepts the false premise that the merit of a scientific theory depends on its compatibility with theism. Science education isn't defended by assertions of compatibility with any particular metaphysic or religion. Science challenges popular prejudice by its insistence on the centrality of empiricism, rigorous application of logic, and expert peer review. Majority public opinion is not science. The role of science education is to teach the evidence such as it is to the best of our current knowledge. Government has no business misrepresenting or downplaying the weight and direction of available evidence because a majority of people in some school districts deem that evidence to be in conflict with some aspects of their religious beliefs.
On the one hand, science is compatible with the supernaturalism intrinisc to many religions because it only requires methodical naturalism. On the other hand, the success of methodical naturalism has arguably enhanced the status, and even the logical attractiveness, of philosophical naturalism. Some adherents of today's popular religious orthodoxies are inconvenienced by this result. Critics of biological macro-evolution inevitably put the carriage before the horse, starting with a dogmatic commitment to a biblical or Koranic based monotheism and consequently denying the strength of any evidence they deem to be inconsistent or incompatible with that commitment. If there is no evidence that any of the 20,000 human pseudogenes (a.k.a. junk DNA) are functional then logic says there is good evidence that we are not the products of intelligent design but creationists will simply a-priori refuse to accept the cumulative weight of all such evidence. When people complain that a topic in the educational curriculum is "biased" against their preferred metaphysics the proper response is to emphasize that the compatibility or incompatibility of the educational curriculum with any particular religion is irrelevant.