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.
Actually astrology was widely regarded as science up to the 17th Century, Kepler was a court astrologer. The Church condemned it because the determinism that was part and parcel of it. What astrology does provide is a detailed description of the heavens. As a science it is a failed paradign, in part because once we moved beyond a terra-centric universe, the notion that we are influenced by the motions of the heavens fell by the wayside. It did not fit the new model of planetary and steller motions. I look at psychology as something similar, a quasi-science that is useful when limited to descriptions and personal counseling.