ID proponents are also marking the event in various ways. If you are interested in the discussion, you should read the posts on Evolution News & Views covering the Ten Myths about Dover. The first one (#10) is Ten Myths About Dover: #10, "The Intelligent Design Movement Died After the Dover Decision".
Of course the ID movement didn't die after Kitzmiller v. Dover. From the outside (i.e. not in the USA) it seems to be as strong as ever. State legislatures all over America are still trying to suppress the teaching of evolution and promote creationist perspectives. The movement has captured the attention of many (most?) prominent politicians and much of the American public still believes that scientists are wrong about evolution.
There's been a small shift in public opinion toward rationalism but that's only evident in the last five years. You could easily argue that it has more to do with the attention given to atheism than to any legal decision made in a Pennsylvania court room.
It seems to me that the "movement" is as strong as ever. It may be losing but it sure doesn't look dead.
Does anyone disagree? Is it true what Sarah Chaffee claims in the ENV article; namely, that some scientists think the ID movement was severely damaged by Kitzmiller v. Dover? Yes, it's true. There ARE some evolution proponents who think like that. Here's what Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke said in 2008 [Discovery Institute tries to "swift-boat" Judge Jones].
The fact is, the Discovery Institute took a terrible beating in this trial. "Intelligent Design," their main industry, which they have peddled relentlessly for over a decade as the Next Great Idea in science, was revealed as religion, not science at all. The DI's "wedge strategy" was exposed and established as a crypto-fundamentalist Christian ideology of politics and social change. Their alleged "experts" withdrew, leaving the defense in confusion. Their amicus briefs were ignored by the Judge, and their attempt to append the "expert witness report" of Stephen Meyer, who had canceled his testimony, was angrily rebuffed. And after the trial, the DI's Washington office head, Mark Ryland, publicly squabbled with the TMLC's Richard Thompson, who claimed that the DI had promised support and then cut and run.I think this is extremely naive. Intelligent Design Creationism is a movement not a science. Yes, it's true that ID proponents talk the language of science and it's true that they promote some of their ideas as science but that's not what the movement is all about.
It's over for the Discovery Institute. Turn out the lights. The fat lady has sung. The emperor of ID has no clothes. The bluff is over. Oh sure, they'll continue to pump out the blather. They'll find more funding, at least for a while, from some committed ideologue or another. But no one with any objectivity will take them seriously any longer as scientists. They had their fair chance, and they blew it.
And in the end, they couldn't have done anything else. Because there is no science to ID; it's just polemics. And now that's been settled in Federal Court.
Most ID supporters are Young Earth Creationists—they don't care about science or they wouldn't believe in a young Earth.
None of that changed after Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005 just like it didn't change after any of the other court victories over the past century.
Besides, most of what ID proponents do is criticize evolution and, in my opinion, most of that counts as science. Even the part that proposes an intelligent designer counts as science,1 in my opinion, because I don't accept the claim of methodological naturalism.
Look at the recent "scientific victories" claimed by Casey Luskin last January. It's a bunch of bull but ID followers lap it up. They don't care about the truth and they never will. (Although that shouldn't stop us from exposing the lies, whenever possible.) If you want to see how I think the movement should be attacked then see: Ten years after Dover - an excellent decade for Intelligent Design Creationism?.
1. It's bad science.