That maybe so but that court case was many years ago and we have discovered much more. For example the results of ENCODE were not released until 2010 five years after the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case. Many scientists have come to recognise the specified complex info in the genome since then.
We use a certain criteria for determining ID in human made things and don't seem to have any issue with that. So what is the difference with the natural and living world. Its about a criteria for determining design that is recognized by rational minds and logic tells us there is something going on beyond chance occurrences.
Like I said Dawkins and even Darwin recognised this. They just put it down to be the result of nature itself. But the point is amy recognise its there. There is something destinct about the living cell that many scientists have recognised is beyond a chance occurrance. No one can even begin to explain how it came about by a blind and random process.
Other great scientists have recognised the apparent ID in what we see in nature and no one seems to want to call them creationists. For example
Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. —Fred Hoyle
“People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” —Physicist Paul Davies,
“God created everything by number, weight and measure.”
“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” —Sir Isaac Newton
“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” —Albert Einstein,
“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” —Charles Darwin