Apparently the argument has come down to some sort of ICR does/doesn't do science thing.
My understanding is that the Texas board rejected the ICR because the ICR program concept is either not broad enough to cover the range it should and/or is too much in conflict with mainstream scientific thought.
If the ICR is going to either ignore or reject biological evolution and the old Earth, then the judgment that they don't wish to teach proper is valid. That is the mainstream science perception, and even on the slim chance it turns out to be wrong, that currently still is the perception that counts. Someones outside of the mainstream (aka religious) perception does not get to define what science is. PERIOD.
I am posting this via the admin mode, and normally replies to moderation messages are strongly discouraged. In this situation, however, I do invite others to work off of my comments to each come up with one final closing statement.
Adminnemooseus