See blogspot 36 for case presentation.
The Decision (December 20, 2005) 139 pages:
Included in those pages were the following statements:
-“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
-“A significant aspect of the ID movement is it describes ID as a religious movement…[T]he writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.
-“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
-“In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath…is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.
-“After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation. (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s, and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.
-“Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause…The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it 
abundantly clear that the Board’s ID policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not…
-“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of those individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind ID policy.
-“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional case on ID…The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.”
After the trial there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. Judge Jones specifically named Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham for having lied in their January 3, 2005 depositions. No prosecutions proceeded. A NOVA documentary entitled Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial was aired on PBS in November, 2007.
Consequences:
It is relatively early in the life of this decision to be able to assess its consequences. The decision and ruling cannot be used as a precedent outside the Court’s jurisdiction. However, it has been cited frequently in cases outside Pennsylvania when the issue arises, and its cogent presentation and arguments form the basis for the fairly prompt withdrawal of proposals to introduce Intelligent Design in yet another public school district. It appears unlikely that there will again be a serious effort by a school board to go down that rocky and expensive path.
However, none of the cases described above have a bearing on home schooling or private institutions. Creationism or Intelligent Design will likely flourish in such schools, and more of them are created every year, some for the very purpose of instilling faith-based, non-critical educational experiences for children of religious groups. It is to be noted, that ID or even frank and transparent creationism could, under the law, be taught in religion class in public schools at the discretion of school boards or schools.