If you want to find out the potential for censorship, just look at the various creation "science" organizations on the web, and see what their approach to science is. Here is a typical one:
Tenets of Scientific Creationism of the Institute for Creation ResearchIf this group, or those who believe as they do, were to be put in charge of science, I do believe censorship would be the result.
- The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
- The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
- Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
- The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
- The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
- Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
- The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
- Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
- Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.
The Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy" outlines the way they intend to replace materialistic science with theistic science. (And it isn't through scientific research.)
Anyway, I'm sorry but what those guys are proposing is first research and real science. If there's no real science behind their theory then its a dead issue. Their goals of replacing "materialistic" science w/ an alternative can only happen if the science they uncover is actual science. There ultimate goal is a debate; not a new inquisition.
Their disdain of the current "materialistic" science stems, I think, from the aggressive nature of some to use that philosophy of science as a bludgeon against religion. The Discovery Institute, imo, is a direct response to Richard Dawkins et al that would outlaw religion tomorrow if they had the chance. Personally, I don't see science as a threat to religion, sadly however, many in the scientific community see religion as a threat to science which is, I think, unfounded. Remember that in past generations, when religion in the US was every bit as prevelent as it is today, we as a nation led the way in scientific discoveries.
Finally, concerning the "Creation Science" thing in your post; in the first place those folks have no chance of being anything other than a fringe goup and secondly, if in some small rural community they happened to get a member voted on to the school board, even there, they could not stop the teaching of classic science ie evolution, physics, chemistry etc, etc. the most they could do is have a sticker placed on a biology book. You give these people far more credence than they deserve.