Here's where we probably part company.
I'm all for ID being discussed, just not in a class devoted to the natural sciences. I think ID is currently in the realm of philosophy, and given that was my college major - in the '70s, I don't say that as a knock at all.
I'd even go so far as to suggest that more than a few of things we refer to now as science started out as philosophy, and became science as the philosophical position was tested with stuff from the material world.
As it stands now, just because Behe is a scientist, and he examined some natural processes and structures in his book, does not necessarily make his position on ID "science". It may yet get there (or not), but until it does, why is it a problem to study it in its natural environment (philosophy)?
Again, JMO.
Frankly, the parts of my science classes in 8th and 9th grades devoted to all this were minor, but memorable because of my young Christian belief and the sensitivity to
the issue created by radio preachers I listened to back then. We need to lighten up. Darwin himself would be shocked at how dogmatic people are about his ideas. All the
board wanted in light of the 1987 Supreme Court decision
was for a disclaimer to be read in class, not a denial of
evolution.