Creating a theory

As I'm sure you recall, the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania issued a ruling in November, 2004 requiring high school biology teachers to read to their students a statement questioning evolution and encouraging them to read a book generally regarded as the major statement of so-called "Intelligent Design." I expect you also remember that a group of 11 parents who were interested in having their children be educated in the 21^st century instead of the 18^th sued, arguing that the board was illegally and unconstitutionally trying to inject religion into public education.

That trial is expected to wrap up today, November 4. Although it's never wise to predict with authority the outcome of a trial, two bits of testimony reported by New Scientist magazine should be sufficient to show just how bogus the whole ID project is.

Early in October, it was revealed that earlier drafts of the very book the board cited, Of Pandas and People, repeatedly referred to "creationism" and "creationists." But just after the US Supreme Court ruled on June 19, 1987 that creationism is religion and therefore not to be taught in public schools, those references were replaced with "intelligent design" and "intelligent design proponent."

"ID proponents have said for years that they are not creationists," says Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California.... "This proves beyond a doubt that this is simply a new name for creationism." ...

The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.

Perhaps worse for the neo-creationists, two weeks later their standard-bearer, the aggressive and highly-visible biochemist and ID proponent Michael Behe, who insists that ID is a valid scientific theory, was forced to admit under cross-examination that ID is not "well-substantiated." Even worse than that, he acknowledged that he was actually using his own definition of a scientific theory, one so vague that under it, he admitted, astrology would also be considered valid science.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

That kind of response can't be a good sign for the school board and its ilk - and frankly, one unlikely to be overlooked by the court to the degree that considerations go beyond points of constitutional law and into public opinion.

The judge in the nonjury trial has given no indication of when a decision will come.

Footnote: School board elections are coming up in Dover on Tuesday. An opposition slate is running on a platform of taking ID out of the schools. They expect to draw support not only from those who know better than to accept ID but also from others who, whatever they think about it, wish the whole business will just go away.