Something like that, along with an acknowledgement that science cannot "disprove the existence of a higher power" is pretty much fine with me.
Again, read my posts. I'd say it was pretty obvious (despite the reactionary responses of some).
I've only been to one high school - but multiple colleges. I was exposed to evolution in three places in an educational setting before college: a church setting (yes really), a middle school, and a high school. In none of these places was I told that science sought to disprove the existence of God. Quite the opposite, actually. In fact, the VAST majority of introductions to the history of evolution I have had come with the explanation that naturalism came from the devout individuals who hoped to better understand God/Gods through understanding the natural world etc.
I guess you went to a school where they denied God, science teachers told you that if you didn't believe them you were an idiot etc, but that just wasn't my experience.
Bottom line for me: Denying that alternate theories exist and saying that "it's not science unless you interpret it the way we say to interpret it" is a mark of intellectual cowardice.
Alternative explanations you mean? Remember that "scientific theory" is quite different from "hypothesis" or explanation. Science classes do not teach every hypothesis, that would be a bit ridiculous. Instead, they focus on those hypotheses that have been widely supported with verifiable observation/calculations etc.
All I read here is that if you believe in creationism, you can't be a scientist.
hmm... I'm sorry you feel that way... but I would say that there are very few, perhaps no true evolutionary biologists that believe in creationism as it commonly advocated in the popular media. There are some who think that God could have started it all, but creationism typically forgoes a common ancestor, ID typically ditches natural selection, and I don't think there are any serious evolutionary biologists who would agree with that.