"Defendants’ argument lacks merit legally and logically."

That'd be a direct quote from the finding of the judge in the Pennsylvania ID case. Go Judge Jones! The judge proceeds to systematically destroy ID as science in the judgement, going far beyond what is merely necessary to stop the current batch of foolishness, and instead creating all sorts of lovely precedents. The fruit-loops would have been much better off if they'd never opened their mouths; it used to be ambiguous, now its clearly illegal. Of course it could be overturned by a higher court, but thats not likely since the original school board has been overwhelmingly replaced by people with functioning brains, so they will most likely not appeal. It is amusing to note throughout the judges decision the number of times the witnesses for the defence (ID-ers) are quoted in support of the anti-ID arguments. Other choice quotes include:

"It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition."

"Professor Behe’s assertion [...] is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence"

"there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism."

"Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses."

"Dr. Padian bluntly and effectively stated that in confusing students about science generally and evolution in particular, the disclaimer makes students “stupid.”"

"The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no
scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two
explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science ‘evidence[.]’"

"It is important to initially note that as a result of the teachers’ refusal to read the disclaimer, school administrators were forced to make special appearances in the science classrooms to deliver it."

It goes on... I'll stop.