I'm sorry my earlier statement was easily misinterpreted. I have friends who are scientists and are deeply religious and are able to do both. The results of the science are open to interpretation, but the science itself does not/should not have an agenda.
Bringing it back to politics, my worry about bringing non-scientific theories into the science classroom, besides separation of church and state, is that they make that issue cloudy and that is a very dangerous thing when introducing science as a subject. This agenda does not have to be religious, sometimes it is about putting forward a political end game or making money.
I don't think either of the two main parties is anti-science, but I do believe that in recent history one party has supported science more than the other. A great example of when the religious views of politicians gets in the way is RU486. There was a period in the 90's when the drug was made illegal even for research because of its abortion implications. When it was made illegal there was a study underway where it was proving effective at helping to treat a particularly deadly and difficult to treat type of childhood cancer. The researchers either had to either stop their work or move overseas. By not understanding the nature of drugs and the wider view the politicians involved may have prevented potentially life saving treatment. Drugs are funny that way... thalidomide caused horrific birth defects, but is great at treating leprosy... and poisonous substances similar to mustard gas have been used to treat certain types of cancer due to their short half life and the increased rate at which cancer cells take up nutrients.
When politicians, and general society don't understand the science they either mistrust it, or are prone to listening to the voices yelling the loudest. The only way I know to make this happen less and less is to keep science in the classroom science, so that when students leave the classroom they at least understand the basics.