In other words, you do not really wish to leave the decision as to what will be taught in science class up to the individual teacher. You would put some group, or perhaps just yourself, in charge to decide what is science and what is non-science and religion.
That's a defensible position, but if it is yours please don't inaccurately portray yourself as a defender of teachers' rights to decide what to teach. You are just as determined to force teachers to say only what you agree with as are some of the Creationists and ID'ers.
You may even be right. But the issue between you and the IDers is not one of freedom for the individual teacher. You are both opposed to that. The issue is merely one of what the teacher will not be allowed to teach.
In other words, you do not really wish to leave the decision as to what will be taught in science class up to the individual teacher.
Would you wish to leave the decision as to what will be taught in any class the individual teacher?
I asked a question. I stated no intent.
Incorrect. I want science teachers to teach theories I disagree with, IF they are objectively a part of science. And because science has a professional literature, which generally reflects the ideas and principles that are actually used by working scientists, this IS an objective determination.
Our sole problem with the way antievolutionary ideas are usually taught is that it entails outright LYING to students about the status of those ideas in the marketplace of scientific ideas.
And since antievolutionists themselves would be opposed to the TRUTH being revealed on such matters -- that antievolutionary ideas can't cut the mustard as science -- it's actually a concession on our part to insist on their simple exclusion. (Also including antievolutionary ideas as failed science would invite unscrupulous atheistic teachers to use their ridicule as a means of attacking religion, which would be just as unconstitutional as a creationist teacher misrepresenting antievolutionary ideas in the other direction to advance religion.)
Sticking to science is the best policy.
If, at some future time, some anti- or non- evolutionary idea does happen to prevail, on merit, in the professional scientific marketplace, then of course it can be taught. In fact it will be taught as a matter of course. If said idea were sufficiently successful to supplant evolutionary theory in the marketplace of scientific ideas, then I would advocate EXCLUDING EVOLTION, even if I personally happened to remain an evolutionist.
IOW I would far rather acquiesce in theories I might disagree with being taught in a science class, instead of having my favored theory included on the basis of intellectual affirmative action, and instead of embracing the wishy-washy relativism and weakening of academic standards that would imply.
If I believe a false theory is being taught and/or a correct theory is being ignored, but the curricula does objectively reflect the current scientific standing of the respective ideas, then my remedy is not to go pissing and moaning to the school board or textbook committees. My remedy is to prevail upon the scientific community to undertake original research that will potentially overturn the false theory and/or advance the true theory.
Of course this is the last remedy that antievolution activists consider (if ever). Which I think is very instructive.