Consider this analogy: if prior to an investigation, a racist detective excludes all white people from being the murderer, then we would not expect his methodology to reliably determine the actual murderer. Along those lines, opponents of ID speaking as scientists who subscribe to methodological naturalism need to be honest in their presentations of evolution. Instead of presenting it is the true — or most probable — account of the origin of life on Earth, these scientists need to present it only as the best naturalistic account.
Of course, speaking as philosophers or theologians, they could claim that evolution is the best overall explanation of life on Earth. Even making this distinction, however, means that some minimal philosophy of science must be discussed in the classroom, leaving an opening for ID even if, following Judge Jones in the Dover case, one does not consider it science.
Any detective excluding white people from being the murdered would be more then racist, he would be stupid. Because he does have evidence that white people exist and may be murderers.
And indirectly trying to assimilate those scientists who subscribe to methodological naturalism to racists is evil.
On the other hand, there is no evidence of existence of one or more supernatural beings, thus, including it/them as a plausible explanation for the origin of life, is much as if the detective would consider small green ETs as plausible murderers. Silly no?
But I do agree with Collins that philosophy of science must be taught in class, not at science classes, but as philosophy. And I think that religions, a general overview of all religions, should be taught in class, along with mythologies and legends.