The trouble with the Ohio situation and others like it is that those convinced of the importance of the IDist assumptions want to change science to include it. It isn't science and the whole point of it is that it isn't science. The scope of science isn't limited in the way you describe. It is sufficiently large to accommodate all sorts of fields.
The IDists are not satisfied with exploring the world with new assumptions and then disseminating the findings. Probably, because they don't have any findings. They made the assumption that an "intelligent designer" designed life as we know it, and conclude that evolution must, then, be wrong and should no longer be taught in the schools. The comparison to non-euclidean geometry is at most premature.
Regarding the scope of science, we could say the conclusions of scientific thinking are necessarily limited even while it is deemed sufficiently expansive to accomodate all sorts of fields. This suggests two kinds of scope: (a) a sufficiently large scope of objects that merit legitimate scientific analysis; (b) the sufficiently large scope of information discovered about those objects.
Both of these require limitation by statements in the curriculum proposal (e.g. the confine of scientific knowledge). I don't know all that the ID proponents want--some of them appear to be kamikaze--but I'm all in favor of teaching the history of science, in science classes, both at the primary and at the secondary level.