From "The Wedge Strategy" of the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture:
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions [emphasis added].
So, to answer your question, yes I do think that this is censorship by Creationists. They are attempting to defeat or overthrow (in other words, censor) the scientific method as used by science in general and evolution in particular in favor of a "Christian" and "theistic" and "non-materialist" worldview (i.e., the Christian religion).
You don't really think this is about advancing science, do you? Or about advancing the creation stories found in the world's approximately 4,200 other religions?
Michael Behe and his theory of Intelligent Design is the topic under discussion coyoteman.
Because Behe's work is referenced by someone who doesn't believe in scientific materialism does not make Behe responsible for their ideas or him a "Creationist".
That's a broad brushed "straw man" argument for sure.
"The Wedge Stategy" ? So what?
There's a million and one stategies out there by a million and one different "groups".
Point being...why are you concerned with The Wedge Stategy in this topic?
The "Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture" is not affiliated with Behe, from what I can see, and Behe is not making this argument.
What we have in the Dover case is clearly evolutionists trying to censor a paragraph that alludes to alternate opinions in an otherwise unaltered book . Evolutionists are clearly the only ones you can point a censoring finger at in this topic.