It may well come to pass and soon that new challenges to the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover ring out.
The only questions are who will lead and who will follow.
Problem 1
The very structure of the debate as "creationism versus evolution" is outdated. It appears longstanding and widespread that evolution is not really the issue. It rather appears that the origin of life itself is the issue. Granting there have been some participants in the debate very concerned about evolution and its utility to modern science, the core issue in the debate over education and the necessity of recognizing an intelligent designer is whether science can explain the origin of life, not necessarily species.
Rather than calling the expression "intelligent design" a cheat for what is really creationism, it must soon be recognized that the expression "evolution" is a cheat for what is really the lack of any theory of the origin of life, often called a theory of "abiogenesis."
It being rather plain that people have been breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin, including in the Bible, the fact that changes in species may accumulate is not creditable to Darwin or modern science.
So it is that modern science needs very much to come clean. It needs to address the real issue whether it can today, or at some near future time, explain the origin of life.
I suspect you will find it abundantly clear it cannot. It is admitted often that evolution has not been, and certainly is not now, the theory of "abiogenesis" the debate requires. There lately however have arisen claims, entirely false, that it is reasonable to expect that such extension from mere origin of species to origin of life might be realized by supporters of Darwin.
Especially problematic in this particular argument is the superstitious notion that "randomness" can assemble much at all. In the past the appeal was typically to the second law of thermodynamics to illustrate what a remarkable improbability assembling life "randomly" is. Rather more successful is a new dialectic brought to the argument. We now have the recognition that "randomness" is an illusion and all the apparent agencies of randomness have "limited characteristics of agency" meaning that there are clear limits to what such agencies might assemble.
Applying the logic, the vast complexity of the numerous interdependent systems necessary for life clearly indicate that an essential "characteristic of the agency" that assembles life from nonliving matter is an intelligence hitherto unrecognized by science, and not readily found in nature. The necessity of recognizing that intelligence is comparable to recognizing gravity. So is the case for "intelligent design" won.
Consider helping locate resources and producers for a program on the Illusion of Randomness that addresses the issue of the limited characteristics of the apparent agencies of randomness.
Problem 2
Having finally arrived at the inescapability of recognizing an intelligent designer there will no doubt be the problem of the large numbers of the public unwilling to concede any "higher" power than theirs exists, despite the fact that what sort of "power" or how much "higher" it exactly was, or is, cannot be well established by "scientific" methods.
We have at the ready just the dialectic needed for that as well.
Many people have grown comfortable lately with a theory of public law based on a "justification of coercion" by a majority.
In the past, when "higher" powers were more widely recognized, a prevalent theory of public law had been a "minimization of coercion" and the needful formulas to accomplish that. The "Ten Commandments" can be viewed as a "formula for the minimization of coercion" as can other philosophical systems around the world.
Because much of the art of the "minimization of coercion" has been lost, there is fear that any relaxing of the "justification of coercion" currently taking its place will result in serious disorder.
Consider helping locate resources and producers for a program on the Minimization of Coercion that invites various systems around the world, including atheists, to present their formulas for such minimization and to reassure the public that recognition of a higher "power" or ethic or standard of behavior is no threat at all to social order.
It might prove rather problematic to address the issue whether freedom includes sex since the late "justification of coercion" has allowed wider distribution and assignment of parental obligations than the older marriage laws that contained those. The question whether the containment or distribution better "minimizes coercion" might be vociferously contested.
Recalling Isaiah chapter 1 verse 18, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord ... "
Changes to the "conventional" wisdom are in order and will press more as time goes on.. As mentioned above the only questions are who will lead and who will follow.
Here are some source materials you ought to consider.
On the "Illusion of Randomness" -- http://www.thetownvoice.net/science/b20.htm
On the "Minimization of Coercion" see "Breakdown of the atheist dialectic" -- http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-richmond/breakdown-of-the-atheist-dialectic.
The Town Voice website and my work on Examiner.com include quite many related articles that you might also consider.