My experience with this sort of issue has been in teaching astronomy classes for gen ed students in which we deal with the Big Bang. In this context (which differs somewhat from yours), I think it's a good idea not to completely shut down questions about religion.
A student who is a business major may have very little understanding of how science works and how it's different from other ways of knowing things. They only learn this if we give them a chance to see the contrasts by actively discussing them.
Shutting down discussion of such issues can seem authoritarian to students. This makes them feel that they are just being told contradictory things by two different authority figures, e.g., their priest and their professor.
Many students have mistaken ideas about their own religion's doctrines. E.g., they may believe that the Catholic church opposes the Big Bang theory, denies evolution, or teaches that the soul begins its existence at conception -- none of which is true.
Science can be confusing and counterintuitive. It's counterintuitive that humans can evolve from microbes. It's counterintuitive that the Big Bang can be an explosion without a center, and without any preexisting time or space. The risk is that they will see these ideas as absurd on their face, while religious teachings seem to address the same questions in a way that makes more sense.
However, I would not suggest spending a large amount of class time on this sort of thing. After teaching the astronomy class a couple of times, I put together a handout addressing these issues, and I just handed it out without soliciting discussion.
Since you're teaching a subject that naturally touches on evolution, you will probably want to work out some responses for this sort of thing that come off as evidence-based rather than authority-based. For the specific example you give, I would try something like this: "You're asking a question about God, but for the most part, science and religion have separate spheres these days. The scientific question that would be of interest here might be this. If it's an evolutionary advantage to have sophisticated language like human language, then why hasn't such language evolved in all species?" Then you can address this question, which is an interesting question involving evolutionary biology. You can point out that evolution isn't directed toward an end, that some higher molluscs have visual communication systems that do things that ours can't, that not all animals are social, and so on.