I have a notion God created the heavens and the earth.
Because of my notion I have studied the Bible and have come to believe certain things. I have found like minded people and we fellowship together. I dare say everyone on this site will say that is a religion.
Of course it is. But not because it's a belief a bunch of other people share. If that were the case, being a Republican or Democrat, being pro- or anti-choice, being a Nazi, a hippy, or a fan of a specific musical group would all be religions. Religions ALSO share other things, as mentioned in the definitions: a definition of the "cause" or "purpose" of the universe, rituals, rules of behavior and morality, worship, and others are typical practices of religions. Another, much larger trait shared by every religion I've ever heard of is the unfounded belief (ie, faith) in the supernatural, though the specific supernatural belief of course varies wildly.
Being an evolutionist is not a religion. Believing dinosaurs once roamed the Earth, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that the Theory of Gravity accurately models the attraction of bodies with mass are not religions, despite being "notions or beliefs held by a lot of people." Your half-definition falls short - which is why it was intentionally misleading of you to post only the part of the definition that matched what you were trying to say, and not the rest.
To tie this all back onto the topic of Behe before we spiral hopelessly off-topic:
Behe and his ID buddies share a common set of beliefs: that there was some intelligent designer who created or caused to be created all life on Earth (at the minimum). These beliefs have no actual validity - every argument their proponents put forth is defeated as unscientific at best and patently ridiculously uninformed and idiotic at worst. They are without scientific or evidenciary basis and are therefore taken "on faith." The "evidence" is then made to fit with the predetermined belief in a designer, as opposed to following the evidence to an unbiased conclusion. This is religious apologetics, not science. Furthermore, the IDists, while trying to propose non-specific language when describing their "designer," they invariably believe the designer to be the Judeo-Christian God (granted, not always, but in the vast, vast majority of cases).
The arguments put forth by Behe and other IDists are motivated by religious beliefs. Not just a set of ideas and values they all share, but actual religious beliefs, and this is all that actually constitutes their arguments. There is no science in any of them - not one bit. There has never been a single peer-reviewed paper published on ID. There is no research being conducted - only PR and flim-flam intended solely to sway the uninformed, and to counter occasional deconversions due to the crisis of faith evolution CAN (but does not always) cause.
The motivations and claims of ID are ALL religious in nature, and have literally jack and shit to do with science. Behe specifically avoids actual science - he only participates in public debates and his own books, which are venues where "sounding good" and appealing to the public's preconceived religious bias and/or ignorance can win over actual reason and science.
It's fine to believe in ID, or God, or Thor, or any other manner of belief. But these are NOT science. Apologetics try to SOUND like science - they use "sciency" words, and argue with or even use real science to try to prove their point. But the IDists are still no different than any other apologetics - they're trying to force the square peg of the evidence into the round hole of their preconceived conclusion, and it is NOT SCIENCE. As such, it does not belong in a science classroom.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.