Sadly, you are wrong. The judge's description of ID is wrong, and his bias against any threat to Darwinism is mis-guided. I am not going to revisit the long debates about whether ID is religion or science. It is pointless. Suffice to say, this is not the last that you will hear of ID.
We'll see. Now Judge Jones has created a [nonbinding] precedent, which other, more lazy, judges would be only too happy to use as a point of reference. I hope not to hear of ID for a blissfully long time.