I'm completely confused by the posts about Planet of the Apes, Stalin, and primate salvation.
But, getting back to the Dover PA decision, it seems sensible and unsurprising. The Supreme Court rued in 1987 that creationism, being a religious doctrine rather than a scientific theory, may not be taught in public schools. A straightforward application of the separation of church and state, I would think. Now we have so-called intelligent design, and it seems laughable to pretend that intelligent design isn't simply a repackaged and slightly watered-down version of creationism, being pushed by the same religious groups for the same motives.
In his opinion, the judge said he found the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, very persuasive. She had presented evidence that the authors of an intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People, merely removed the word "creationism" from an earlier edition and substituted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/sciencespecial2/20cnd-evolution.html?incamp=article_popular_5
The judge is a life-long Republican. He grew up in a coal town to a family of miners. He was appointed to the bench in 2002 by Bush. He has political connections with Senators Santorum and Specter. He's run for Congress (I assume on the Republican ticket). He acknolwledged in an interview that Pres Bush and Sen Santorum both supported the teaching of intelligent design, but said
"It doesn't have any bearing on me." Considering all this, I think it was pretty ballsy for him to be so blunt in his decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/18judge.html