I think Behe's statements betrayed those ID proponents who, falsely, argued for the exclusion of the supernatural. There was no logical need in the idea of ID to rule out a priori the supernatural, but it was done to simply avoid litigation. But along came Behe and, under the pressure of cross examination, he blew it and thus showed ID to be nothing more than a Trojan Horse for the inclusion of religion into the science curriculum.
Ah, good. A conversation. I think, and I'll clarify my thoughts, that you and the the judge are still misunderstanding whether or not Behe "blew it".
ID proponents do not argue to exclude the supernatural. ID proponents would argue that if a Designer (of a system, in this case the "natural" world) exists, that designer must be transcendant from the system (or in this case, super-natural).
Behe's point, was that if you are to examine if a Designer exists you have to have a thought system that allows for the supernatural to exist.
ID proponents argue that it is in fact scientists who assert that the supernatural cannot be examined in science based on their definition of science as only including within it's realm of study (possiblity?) the "natural". Judge Jones discusses and accepts that argument in his decision. He rules that if you are talking about "supernatural" then you are talking about religion. If you are talking "science", then you can only talk about "natural".
That's the only point I was making, and I think it's a critical point. In other words, Behe didn't blow it and expose himself. He merely stated the ID position that for us to examine the evidence for a Designer, you have to allow for the possibility of transcendancy, or the supernatural - which the Judge's accepted definition of science doesn't allow for.
Read the parts of the Judge's decision where he discusses this definition of science and tell me what you think.