That is our disagreement. A court cannot define science any more than a court can define capitalism. Both refer to a process, and there is always a danger of identifying it with scientism.which I think the court did. Popular evolutionism is more a body of philosophical opinion than “science” per se. It is grounded in 19th century materialism and makes constant assertions that are unproved, such as on the origin of life. And from the start it has leapt far beyond biology, where it has a narrow application, to an overarching theory of everything. Certainly it is the cheap weapon of modern atheism—the grand theory, anyway. So we get the constant barrage about life on other planets, the whole Startrek fantasy of a universe teeming with quasi-terran life forms. Yet we cannot be sure that the “laws” of science do apply beyond the range of our vision.
All of modern science is grounded in materialism. More correctly, methodological naturalism. This idea goes back to before Socrates, but its modern use began with 17th Century Francis Bacon who, BTW, was religious. We call things outside this method pseudoscience, such as astrology and clairvoyance. The purpose was not to overturn religion, since most of the people who used it were religious, even Darwin was highly religious when he set off on his Beagle voyage. He had studied to be Anglican clergy and went on the voyage looking for evidence of creation. The evidence is what changed his mind.
Remember, Behe admitted the definition of science would have to be changed to include the likes of astrology in order to include ID. The helped the judge recognize that ID is outside the bounds of modern science, and thus can't be taught as science. From the other end the board admitted they had a religious motivation, bring in the problem with religious indoctrination in public schools.
OTOH, I do not mind ID or even creation (pick your version) being taught in non-science classes. I don't even mind the Bible being taught in a non-indoctrinating way, since it is an extremely relevant piece of literature to our culture. My objection is to ID being passed off as science.