I mostly agree with you...except for the last sentence.
It is my position that what I call "structural/functional" biology be taught: teach about organisms as they are, and simply say that origin, etc. is a personal belief.
Firstly, evolution has nothing to do with origin of life. Secondly, biology class is a science class for teaching the findings from the scientific method. Everything is effectively under the umbrella of "this is the best answer science has come up with".
What you call "structural/functional" biology is not science, it is just observations, a visit to the zoo, a day on animal planet. It is to biology as arithmetic is to mathematics, as alphabet is to literature, as color is to art. The juice of biology is the process that it arrives at its best answers. It is the process from a foundation based on fundamental assumptions of science (that we live in a world with repeatable experiments, that our logic is sound, that A=A, that the world in your head is the same world in my head, etc) all the way to something as abstract and ethereal as macroevolution.
To make pieces of this about personal belief is akin to believing only some Books are true. Once you can accept the basic assumptions of science or theology, the rest follows. There is no picking and choosing, as belief is no longer a factor. Note this is NOT to say you cannot question. You can doubt the methods and the logical steps leading up to a theory, but not the existence of the evidence, facts. Unless you can come up with better evidence, better methods, and better chains of logic, you will have to accept evolution as the best answer until someone smarter comes along. Similarly, you can question the interpretation of the Bible, but not the words themselves (yes translation yadda yadda). If you want to convince the world of Calvinism, you must support your interpretation through Scripture (or find another bible). Change comes from within the system.
Some more ranting.
Suppose your child is a bright student who believes in Creationism. She is in high school and by this point you would hope she has seriously contemplated her faith, asked herself what exactly she believes, and at least attempted to answer why. (If she is not capable of this at this time, then she doesn't really believe in anything yet does she?)
She takes a biology class. What could happen? She learns how science attempts to answer the questions of nature based on its set of fundamental assumptions At the end of her class, she considers whether the Earth is 4.5 billions years old as science suggests or 6000 years old as theology suggests. How does she reconcile this? She looks at the chain of logic from assumptions to 4.5 billion that science follows and looks at the pages of scripture from Genesis to 6000 that theology calculates. She looks to see where the evidence could be lacking on the former and interpretation flexible on the latter. Only when this fails does she have to question her fundamental beliefs in each. If she believed in a literal interpretation of Scripture, she will probably have to discard one of the two systems. Otherwise, she could easily hold on to both in a sensical and consistent manner for the rest of her life.