The proponents of ID being religiously motivated has nothing to do with whether or not it is scientific.
Evolution as an explanation of the multitude of species begs the question of origin of life such that most young students who have been exposed to it think it covers the issue of origins.
ID contains the only current scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.
ID is not scientific, per court decision and per common logic. Where would be the life origins of "intelligent designer"? It is called "reductio ad infinitum" fallacy.
"Evolution as an explanation of the multitude of species begs the question of origin of life such that most young students who have been exposed to it think it covers the issue of origins."
And that is exactly the point where a good Biology teacher should step in and explain that science cannot provide a REASON for evolutionary mechanisms and that the respective student should ask his or her parents about that.
Science is lot like "connect the dots" - it provides a hypothesis about what the lines in the picture might look like. What it does not provide is a statement about the painter or his intentions.
Therefore it is essential to point out to all students before discussing evolution that the theory of evolution is no more than the sum of certain mechanisms, such as natural selection - the same way calculus is a set of mathematic tools.
A teacher who tries to prove God's existence through evolution (which is basically what ID does) is the same type of fool as a teacher with a radical atheist agenda who tries to prove that God does not exist by quoting Darwin.
Yes, I am in favor of teaching evolution in schools. No, I'm firmly against presenting ID in Biology classes. But I also believe that every single teacher should be instructed, if a student should ask WHY there's evolution, to reply along the lines of: "That is not a question science can answer. Science doesn't cover the "why". You should discuss that with your parents instead!".
If every teacher acted thus - there would be no problem whatsoever with Darwin and the theory of evolution. That is exactly the modus operandi we should strive for - and NOT teaching ID in schools.
To believe the only motive for advocating ID in schools was to present an "alternative explanation", is naive. No such thing is needed. Purpose is no scientific category. Or does any of you really think a Physics teacher should discuss WHY such a thing as nuclear fission exists. To kill all infidels? Or should we also teach animal-rights-activist bullcrap in Biology, just because it is an alternative view?
And that is also why the judge is right about the discussion being dishonest.