Their motives have absolutely nothing to do with the strengths or weaknesses of ID theory.
For example, just because General Dynamics (Discovery Institute) can use technological advances made by NASA (ID) doesn't mean that NASA exists to advance General Dynamics.
True as far as it goes. I hope you will find time in your busy schedule to remind evolution critics that the motives of scientists also have no bearing on the value of their theories.
What makes ID special in this court case is the written record of the Discovery Instituter's use of ID to weaken the foundations of science. There is also the paper trail left by the authors of "Pandas and People" in which creationism was replaced by ID.
The real problem with ID is there is no there there. No research, no suggestions for research. If you are going to be science, you have to be in the field testing a hypothesis. ID has no hypothesis. Just a list of unexplained things. You aren't doing science by pointing out that some things are unexplained. You do science by seeking explanations.