If the decision in Dover goes against ID, I think that will effectively kill ID as a scientific enterprise...I wince at the first sentence. ID has never been a scientific enterprise. He is right, though, that ID disapear as a political enterprise.
ID will find itself reduced to the same position as creation science in the late eighties. Once it became clear that the courts weren't buying the subterfuge, creation science prety much stagnated. Nowadays you hear very little about it. In the early eighties creation science was sufficiently menacing that high-powered scholars like Niles Eldredge, Phillip Kitcher and Douglas Futuyma though it worthwhile to write books on the subject. Who would bother doing likewise today?
This does not mean its shadows will not be shown for a long time to come. I've talked to a couple of evangelicals for whom "Intelligent Design" has replaced "creation science" in their vocabulary, even if their idea of "Intelligent Design" is that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Perhaps it sounds more scientific to them. Intelligent Design may get staying power from it's vagueness - fundamentalists think it means Gensis is true, more secularized folk think it just means some supernatural force had a hand in their somewhere. Also, I don't remember the 90's as a time when creation "science" was dead. It may not have been well, but I had a friend trying to show me a Dr. Dino film and saw plenty of letters to the editor on the subject. Dover may be the end of attempts to teach ID, but it is likely to survive in the cultural mind for the forseeable future - at least until someone comes up with "Biological Teleogics."