Truly, though, I think an evolutionist boycott is a very bad idea. Either party who refuses to show up for a trial before a jury of fact finders automatically loses by default. The presumption on the part of the jurists is that they had no case, couldn't stand the heat, didn't care about the jury, etc.
They may not like it, but the evolutionists do not occupy a seat of power which dictates to the American people what they shall accept as knowledge - that kind of ideological power is reserved to a very few and only within religions, such as the Pope is to Catholism. (Much to the chagrin of the mainstream media, the public is becoming more independent in their thinking.)
Also, the evolutionists may not like it, but the general public is a jury with reference to this dispute of "happenstance v design" and they are the ones who will determine the "facts" they will each, personally embrace and convey to their community, family, etc.
This isn't a trial; it's a burlesque. There is no jury, but merely spectators.
I think your post makes a key point.
Regardless of which side of the argument one resides on, it is likely that different communities/states will continue to challenge the content of public schools.
Perhaps these conflicts in position will drive to the surface what I believe to be the underlying issue: Should parents be forced to pay for, and send their kids to government schools?
If so, then parents will rightfully attempt to gain control of the government structures, and thus change (or maintain the status quo) the content of public schools (i.e., this issue in Kansas).
If not, then parents must take responsibility for ensuring that their children be educated to the depth and breadth necessary for them to be successful (the parent's definition) in life.
An interesting and complex issue facing our society and its future indeed.
You can easily think of situations where you wouldn't want your side to participate. Here's an example: Suppose Senators Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, Kennedy, etc. announced a town hall meeting to discuss if the right to keep and bear arms is a good idea. The program is arranged to have seven participants -- six of whom are flaming dems, and there's a 7th seat for one token conservative. The moderator will be Michael Moore, and the audience will be from the campus of UC Berkeley.
That's the setup. They offer you the opportunity to present your side as the 7th panel member. Would you accept?