Did you not bother to read the pleadings of each side in this case? If you had, you will discover that the Law Firm representing the Dover School Board (a firm that sought a "test case" on ID) made no such argument. Can you guess why? Because legally, the argument is rubbish. See next paragraph for elaboration.
Did you also not attend Civics Class when they discussed the 14th Amendment, and the effect it has on application of the 1st Amendment? I believe the legal phrase is "incorporation" -- a doctrine upheld by the Supreme Court that incorporates most of the Bill of Rights and applies them to state and local government. You may not like incorporation, you may have a legal argument against it, but it is a moot point, because for the present, the Supreme Court says that's what the 14th amendment means. That's why the religiously motivated law firm representing the religiously motivated School Board members chose to NOT make the argument you are proffering -- it won't fly, because it is contrary to well-established Constitutional law.
I see no constitutional authority for a federal court to usurp the authority of the local school board in order to require the teaching of one "theory" over another.
No one said it "required the teaching" of anything; what it did say, in part, is this:
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 test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. 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. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
>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 test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. 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. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Man, someone sure forgot Law Rule #7. "Never Poss-off the Judge!"
After discussing some of the facts, the judge spent several pages discussing the jurisdictional issues. He was very careful to review the precedents, and laid out precisely why he had jurisdiction over the case. Those who want to deny this are free to do so, but they're misinformed. And the information is so easy to find.