There's a difficulty there: Yes, what they teach IS science, but it is rejected by the establishment for the same reason Galileo's teachings were rejected by the establishment of his time. We're not collectively, as a society, interested in free thought...
I've spent a good deal of time challenging the epistomological underpinnings of scientific positivism. Swinging across to the other end of the spectrum to brass tacks, it would be good if parents could choose to educate their children in either a humanistic school (public school system) or parochial school - and not be forced to fund the one or the other against their will. Pro-choice, any one?
Then where are the testable predictions? Show me how creationism or ID accounts for the fossil record and genetic results. Until they can, the "establishment" should reject them, on the grounds that they don't have the power of the esisting theory. When will DI or AiG start sponsoring fossil digs or genome sequencing? Are they afraid of something, perhaps?
The same reason Galileo ... So who's refusing to look at Jupiter or Venus through a telescope? Did Galileo's opponents have 150 years of concentrated research to back them up? No, they had some vague Biblical passages that said geocentricism is true (the Pope and Martin Luther agreed on that) and a theory that accounted for some observations, but made false predictions about what would be seen through the telescope.
I agree that school choice is a very good idea. However, teaching that something is science, when scientists disagree, is harmful.