Its a perfect example of the system over working.
The federal courts were not needed here. The audacity of the separation metaphor is now apparent in your analysis.
Not only must the public schools be free of anything that someone thinks they can trace back to Christian convictions, but now private parochial schools must be confronted by the 'superior' viewpoints of the evolutionists. The free exercise of religion is absolutely gutted for private parochial schools without so much as a pause.
I hope science recovers from this near death blow in Dover.
What's truly illustrated here is the duplicity of the standards set in place by the religious community. No "evolutionist" has ever demanded that evolution be taught in a parochial school as an alternative to Creation.
You will no allow secularity into your religious cosmos, but demand that the secular cosmos accept your religious teachings.
I want a wall of separation between religion and government for the same reason that Jefferson thought it a good idea; because politicians will try to be elected based on beliefs that they don't hold true, but know that gets them votes, and ministers will preach politics from the pulpit and try to govern as unelected public servants.
"our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own"
Why on Earth would you want a secular school teacher teaching religious concepts to children?
By the way...the Federal Courts did not inject themselves onto the fray, they were brought into it by the people.