If Evolution is taken to mean (near) universal common descent, then I can see a good case for not teaching it. The best is: its a specialized field and its not necessary to teach it. Its a massive subject and it is more value to learn about the workings of biological systems than natural history.
This means learning the basics of evolutionary theory. This can't really be avoided, the idea that populations can change over time due to certain mechanisms should not be ignored -it's an observed and important biological concept. Mendellian genetics, random mutation, natural selection should at least be given basic attention.
I'd much rather kids spend time learning what I learned at high school. The basics of genetics as above but leaving the concept of common descent. Perhaps one afternoon going over the basic ideas of common descent, for the benefit of those that wish to go into it as a career but saving the majority of that stuff for A-level (16years to 18 years old) and beyond. The stuff I learned was practical and boring (I wish we went into detail about evolution at high school biology, I might have cared about it). Stuff about Kidneys and convoluted tubules and Henle's loop and all that.
In fact, stuff like
this.
Personally, I'm happy with a quick intro to the concepts, but no real depth, like
we have now. I'm sure it would straightforward to emphasise other, more immediately practical elements of biology that should be discussed, at common descent's expense. Perhaps emphasis on health and diet could be seen as much more use to more school kids than the few that will go on to evolutionary biology.
I advise you get your biology course book and highlight all the practical stuff, and contrast that to the common descent part which is not immediately practical or some such thing.
™ Version 4.2