::::::: My word.  It has been in a long time.  I'd just assumed that it must have been added recently, as it should really have been picked up at FA nomination; but it seems to have survived at least two years, including two FA nominations, an FA review, a GA review and a peer review without anyone picking up an entirely unsourced assertion.  That surprises me.  
 ::::::: I think that the source given might justify a mention of Daubert, along the lines of "In a (date) article in (publication), (author) likened the judge's reasoning to the Daubert standard, which determines what expert testimony is sufficiently scientific to be admissible in US courts."  I don't know whether, even with a strong reliable source specifically saying that ID fails the standard, it would justify much more than that (it could be stronger, but probably not much longer).