Your analysis is, I think, drawn from a faulty initial premise, highball -- that ID is a Trojan Horse for a species of Christian creationism. I just don't see it that way; and so I respectfully disagree with your characterization.
You'll have to take up your disagreement with ID's proponents, then - that's exactly what it is, by their own admission.
Additionally, in this very case the school board members were caught admitting that in bringing ID into the science class, they were specifically intending to introduce "creationism" and "Christianity."
The text book that the board wanted to direct students to was a Creation Science textbook with the words "creation science" cut out and replaced with the words "intelligent design."
I'll agree that not everybody who wants ID in the classroom does so because they're interested in pushing "a species of Christian creationism." But you cannot deny that the major players certainly are, the organizations behind it certainly are, and the people involved in this case certainly were.
As if it matters, whether by stealth or directly, that the scientific model of intelligent design controverts the atheistic assumptions of a handful of folks. It does not matter whether the people involved in this case try to make their point directly or indirectly. The reaction from those who prefer to see the government establish atheistic principles in the science classroom will be the same. As usual the issue is twisted into one of methodology vs. substance, much as democrats do when they whine about how the memo was obtained as opposed to what the memo says.