I completely agree with your summations. Before the Dover decision, I believed that ID was "IT", according to the Discovery Institute, and ID was pretty much becoming the prevailing theory among scientists. After Dover, I first felt that the defendants' attorneys had done a bad job and I looked into what they had done wrong. So I've studied the issue in detail since (NOT on the specific scientific issues) .It turns out, it wasn't the attorneys, it was the Discovery Institute and ID!!! And, OMG, the misleading legal statements from the ID'ers afterward!!! If the DI's science is as good as their legal positions, they must not be allowed in schools!!!
I'm delighted that the free flow of information has been so beneficial. It's excellent that you've resided the tidal wave of propaganda the DI has been putting out.
So then, let's follow that line of logic ... if one can't present a legal case well, then one can not publish a science book, nor teach a science class. Do I have that right?