There may be some truth to that. But the sensitivity level seems awfully high on the side of evolution. As many have said, if the theory is so sound, why not give a voice to those who are "dumb enough" to challenge it?
Scientists are the challengers of the status quo. Scientific inquiry leads to improvement and change of current theory. New theories have more and better explanatory power than the previous. These challenges are given voice in scientific journals.
The IDers seek to destroy current science in the hopes that some new system in their favor will automatically take place. A revolution that leaves the populace holding nothing but banners will result in chaos or tyranny. The IDists are welcome to do science and discover support for their theories. When they do, the results will be passed on to students.
In primary education that's a problem. Things can't get off the ground when the beginning principles are not believed. But skepticism is also problematic in higher education everywhere. There too, the popular acceptance of a democratic rights ideology (e.g. free speech arguments for anything) hampers effective critical challenges even in higher education.
When there are two or three major debates being entwined, it's no surprise things are complicated and agitating. And one party's misunderstanding of another's theory is not cause enough to take and run with a presumed autonomy of fields of thought and pass judgment where that autonomy ceases to exist--while at the same time contending that education is content neutral. A real scientists tries not to do that.