Ok, let's assume that it did, bcause that's what the relevant portions of the court transcript, which have been pasted into this thread several times now, demonstrates.
Now get out your copy of the CONSTITUTION and then explain to me and all the lurkers exactly how simply making a statement that ID as a viable scientific alternative to the TOE is "an establishment of religion" as referenced in the first amendment.
By virtue of the fact that the Dover supporters of ID failed conspicuously, to the point of committing obvious, rather brain-dead perjury, to hide the fact that their motivation, and a fair measure of material support, was overtly religious. I don't see cold fusioners or crystal healers, or UFOlogists displaying the energy to get their mottos posted on science textbooks, over the objections of scientists, by force of law, and any of those have a substantially better claim to being a legit science than ID does.
Also by virtue of the 1st Amendment, and the post-civil war amendments, which pushed constitutional rights and restrictions down upon local governments--which includes schools paid for with taxes, governed by elected schoolboards, and insisting on compulsory attendance. You might not like this, but in itself, that is unsufficient reason to consider the Supreme's current interpretation of these historical events innaccurate.
I didn't think you could do it. I was right.