A decent, if abbreviated, summary. I would have liked to have seen more about the creationism trials of the 1980s and more details about the Dover case. But these are available elsewhere, so that's not necessarily a weakness of the article -- but I do think there should have been some mention of the "Wedge Strategy" -- which gives away the religious underpinnings of the ID movement, and puts the lie the claims to the contrary.
The other key element in that area -- the attempt to cover the religious nature of the movement -- can be found in this section of the article:
"The court heard extensive testimony about whether intelligent design qualifies as science and whether intelligent design took into consideration that there could be any other intelligent designer than God. The petitioners introduced into evidence early drafts of the book on intelligent design referred to by the Dover School Board, Of Pandas and People, some of which had been written before *Edwards v. Aguilard* and some of it after the opinion had been rendered. This evidence helped to persuade Judge Jones that intelligent design was just a new term for creationism"
This is followed by three things that convinced the judge of the religious nature of the movement -- and of its attempts to hide it:
"By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:
"(1) the definition for creation science in the early drafts is identical to the definition of ID [intelligent design];
"(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist) which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID;
"and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in *Edwards*."
Devastating. Add to this the evidence of lying on the part of several witnesses for the school board -- and this decision is going to provide a very strong precedent.
Now I await the inevitable claims that:
1) ID is not religious, and it is not about creationism.
and
2) Those who oppose ID are just anti-religious/anti-God/etc.
We might get lucky and hear these two claims from the same person again.
Well it seems clear that in the early years of the country people were lauded for bringing the influence of their religion into the republic. And it seems equally clear that today they are prohibited by the Supreme Court from doing so. Something changed in the middle.
Those statements both could be true. Even if the quantifier were the universal (but not likely).