Sorry folks, I've got this stuff in my system. In addition to foisting my online anti-government rants on you, I'll also be commenting on the ID/evolution debate for the next week or so. Anyway, I think here is a good illustration of the misrepresentation (deliberate or unintentional) of the ID proponents, and how--far from showing their dishonesty--their honesty has been used against them.
I refer to the apparent admission by Behe on the stand that (and I quote from an exchange I'm having on this very blog): "Now we have ID people who want to teach something they themselves admit is on the same scientific level as astrology."
This isn't just what one guy says on a blog, either. On the NPR account of the trial as it was unfolding, the reporter said something like, "Though on the stand during cross-x, Behe admitted that the scientific status of ID was that of astrology."
In this context, the innocent listener would conclude that Behe admitted that ID was just as plausible (at least if we rely on non-religious evidence) as astrology. But if you look at the relevant transcripts (just use your Find to search for "astrology" and you'll hit it, though you may want to back up to get the full context of the exchange), you'll see that Behe was just being honest with his definition of the word theory. He certainly wasn't admitting that ID was just as valid as astrology.
Now especially since he was on the stand and he knew how much publicity this trial had, that was a very courageous thing to do, in my opinion. He could've refused to answer the question and try to weasel out of it, but he didn't. He admitted that astrology would be a scientific theory under his definition, though of course a discarded scientific theory.