I can't comment (because I don't know) the situation in the US, but we have plenty of tussles from leftists attempting (and too often managing) to introduce 'political correctness' into educational curricula over here. It is far more apparent in the humanities and 'soft' sciences (psych, sociology, &c) rather than the core sciences (biology, physics, earth sciences, &c). Darwin is no more 'controversial' here than Newton; the weight of evidence supporting the neo-Darwinian ToE is just too massive and compelling.
Spend a little time discussing the fact that science says nothing, one way or the other, about the existence of God. It's true, isn't it?
But then why not 'spend a little time' discussing that science says nothing about which music you should prefer, or why Tristram Shandy is a great book, or why original Star Trek was superior to Next Generation (or is it the other way around), &c. &c.?
And/or: should there also be a matching 'disclaimer' in every philosophy class or comparative religion class stating that 'philosophy can state nothing, one way or another, about the actual age of the earth,' or 'religion can state nothing about the chemical processes involved in photosynthesis'. Gets silly pretty fast.
It's a whole lot easier to simply teach the scientific method, which is rational investigation of the material world--anything else is out of scope. And--judging by some of the postings even in this present thread--some folks have never been taught the absolute basics of that scientific method.
But it won't happen, because it would hamper the agenda of the ACLU and others who see science, particularly evolution, as a tool to be used against religion. And that's where the real political agenda lies.
As a foreigner, I'm reluctant to comment here as well, though your Dover case received quite a bit of press coverage here, and I've read the trial transcript. And the question must be: what political agenda "against religion"? It was the school board attempting to introduce elements the court determined were religious, not scientific, into the curriculum that (unfortunately) got the ACLU involved. It wasn't a case of anyone attempting to introduce science into churches! It really does look far more like an agenda by a religious group that is genuinely threatened by science; and it is an American phenomenon, just not an issue elsewhere.
You guys get the final word tonight. I'm at work and goofing off! :-)
But I have things to do, so I'll bid you farewell for the evening and likely for a few days. Tory, I thank you for your discussion and for your observations. Prof, I assume you'll read this, so thank you as well. And the same goes for all of you on both sides!
Have a great upcoming weekend, all of you!