You could just read TFA:
"[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution."
Basically, if you claim that anything other than simple biology was at work in creating animals, then you lose your funding (and possibly right to call yourselves a school).
Evolutionists frequently express confidence that as scientific knowledge advances it will inevitably become clear by what natural processes life arose and arrived at is present diversity and complexity. They don't generally claim that this is complety clear how it happened. The standard quoted above implies either that it is already completely clear or that it is wrong to be skeptical about claims that it will soon be.
Prominant aethists such as Richard Dawkins offer us a false diacotomy. They see a choice between a naturalistic world with no god or a magical freudian god who is the product our emotional needs after molding by social and political forces. This is a false diacotomy because educated theists tend to believe in a natural world with a natural god.
Think about it this way. Is it possible that the the Earth was terraformed by an advanced extraterrestial civilization? Could bioengineers from that civilization have played a major role in producing the "present diversity and complexity" of life? Is it possible that this hypothetical civilization sent representatives to Earth on rare occasions? If you admit that this is even barely possible, then you cannot say that the core concepts of Christianity and similiar religions are illogical or impossible.
What you can argue is that it is unlikely. Scientific evidence is very relevant here. If it can be shown that evolution is highly likely to occur under favorable circumstances, then the aethists win the argument. On the other hand if it can be shown that evolution is incredibly, absurdly, unlinkely, so unlikely that belief in it is comparable to belief in magic, then the theists win. As far as I know, neither of these things has happened yet.
I agree that science class is not the place to discuss claims of divine revelation. But, it is definely the place to discuss whether life on Earth is natural or artificial. This standard quoted above forbids such discussion and requires the teaching of the views of a particular philosophical school as fact. That philisophical school may not technically be religious, but the fact that it is aligned against religion makes a mokery of the concept of separation between church and state.