No, I don't think so. It's an 18th century idea - basically, people were trying to be rational and spiritual/religious simultaneously, and I think we're at a point where that's no longer necessary. If one is inclined to religion and tradition, one will likely choose that intellectual path. If one is inclined toward the physical and science, then that, which was still in its infancy in the 18th century, will be the choice of path. They're now pretty much mutually exclusive. At least I don't see a way of reconciling them in the present.
As long as "Why is there something rather than nothing" is an open question, people will posit some sort of creating entity, and "Being that set the Universe into motion" is basically a god by any sort of definition, even if it isn't an omnipotent being or even a currently-existing being. There's plenty of room for Deism as a modern tradition as an answer to that simple question: "Why is there something rather than nothing."
EDIT: Although, as per my previous post, it won't be an organized movement, just, like DC Fine mentions, a kind of default position for people who have abandoned their "religion" but haven't abandoned their belief in some sort of God.
I think deism today is not too far removed from enlightenment or ancient greek notions of deism. In essence it is 'objectifying' what may simply be a natural cause/order on the basis that as humans we cannot fail to identify agents; that is hardwired into us. Even when inferring things you know deep down just to be as they are, from the wind to the motion of atoms, you cannot fail to personify them when describing them and if you go out your way to try and avoid that language then you may fail to capture anything meaningful about what you are observing.
As I have said many times, I cannot fail to be in awe of something as basic as the sun, in the manner in which we always have been. I'm in awe of the sun, it's properties and it's essentialness to such an extent that I'm only a paper thin distance from deifying it.
