What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own.
Once again, the issue isn't the motivation of the proponents. It's how the idea itself if described by its proponents. While Dawkins and Eugenia Scott and Steven Weinberg may be atheists, and they may consider evolution to be something that supports their atheist views, they do not define evolution as a theory of religion or lack thereof. In contrast, most IDers have, at one stage or other, said that ID is in fact a religious idea or a strategy to promote religion.
It really isn't a difficult point. Why are you having such trouble understanding it?
So it's ok for atheists to say the ToE supports their religious beliefs and to also claim their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their support of evolution?
Although it doesn't surprise me, it is intellectually dishonest for these atheists/evolutionists to claim that IDers can't separate their faith from their science.