You were asked to sign a statement indicating your opinions. ANd whether your opiniosn are in line with those of the ID movement - which the document is being used to support is certainly relevant. I don't think you can reasonably dismiss that with a claim that it "doesn't matter".
Even if Behe is not a creationist (something that is not certain) most of the ID leadership consists of creationists. The only ID textbook
Of Pandas and People started life as a creationist textbook - substituting "intelligent design" for "creation" - even the definition of "intelligent design" is the definition previous drafts used for "creationism".
Given that ID has no curriculum and no texts to teach the surprising thing is not that they changed their views on including ID in science classes, but that they actually intended to include it in the first place - before they had anything to teach. Dembski even wrote an article (in July 2002) arguing that ID needed to be included in the classroom
http://www.designinference.com/...ents/2002.07.Mike_Gene.htm
The I movement is not interested in improving science teaching. They want to shape it closer to their own ends. Thus they want to change the teaching of only some parts of science - even though your points apply equally well to all science. And singling out some parts of science hardly addresses your concerns. Worse they want to add assertions critical of evolutionary science whether they are true or not.
f
™ Version 4.2
