That's how you deal with this:
Michael Behe told this Court that Intelligent Design is not a religious proposition but he told readers of the New York Times that the question Intelligent Design poses is whether "science can make room for religion."What exactly are you denying? Did Behe not tell the court what the plaintiff's summation claimed, that "Intelligent Design is not a religous proposition?" Did he not make the quoted statement to the New York Times, that the question ID poses to science is whether science can make room for religion? Is there no problem with the two statements? If ID is not religious, why is it asking that question? Hello? Get a story.
The Clinton technique: Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter- accusations.
Oh, you can't see the difference between the two statements. Perhaps you need to take a walk and get some oxygen circulating through that thing between your ears. He's talking about YOU.
You aren't wrankled about ID establishing a religion. It doesn't do that and comes nowhere near it. It simply posits that there is an intelligence behind our matierial existance.
You see that and read "God". Then suddenly, you go nuts.
You're so dead set against "God" that any hint that there might be one is reason for protesting against something - anything. Behe is just saying that you should shut up and allow that the possibility exists that Religion is right and you might be wrong. And he does it dispassionately while you're all out of sorts. His stance is just honesty from objectivity. Yours is rabid protest from bias. You can't allow yourself to imagine that a God could exist. Behe doesn't have a problem with it. As a result, he's not ruling out the impact it might have on his research.
Go take a walk. Breathe deeply.