Apparently this will shock you but apart from senior level or post-graduate symposia and the like, there is essentially no important or significant scientific debate, criticism or testing and formulation of theories going on in classrooms.
Even if you cram creationism into the highschool curricula by means of popular or political pressure, that doesn't do one thing to make it part of science. It is what working scientists engaged in original and ongoing research DO (and not, btw, what they "believe") and the theories and principles their research implicates, tests or advances, that determines the content of science.
The myopic focus of creationist and IDers on school curricula is actually adequate evidence, even without examining the doctrines themselves, that this stuff is not science, and has no potential to prevail on merit in the marketplace of scientific ideas. Its even evidence that, at some psychological level, creationists themselves don't believe that their ideas are genuinely scientific. If they did they would never take this approach. The attempt to make an end run around the process of scientific review can only discredit their ideas among the scientists they should be trying to convince.
Also, no scientist who really believed their unconvential theory had merit or potential would take, or even willingly permit, the curricula based approach to the issue that creationists and IDers have adopted. After all, if a scientist really believes they have a better idea, they're not out for some namby-pamby, relativistic, let's-try-really-hard-to-be-inclusive-and-not-upset-anyone-by-teaching-something-that-might-offend-their-cultural-sensibilities, equal time, balanced treatment bu!!sh!t. A real scientist wants to falsify theories that are wrong or inadequate, and to replace them with better ones.