No place for design in court
> (Photo: www.manfredmakowski.de)<span>

United States District Court Judge John E. Jones III released a strong, broad, and clearly-worded ruling in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. The order states that the Dover Area School District can neither require teachers to “denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution” nor require teachers to refer to the “religious, alternative theory” of intelligent design (ID).

Judge Jones accurately noted that the Dover ID policy “singles out evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.”

Hoping to “prevent the obvious waste . . . which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial,” Judge Jones also noted that ID isn’t science. ID’s potentially legitimate arguments are philosophical and theological; otherwise, Judge Jones observed, they’re illogical or refuted by science.

Bad science teaching is rarely illegal by itself, so remedies can’t always involve lawsuits. I’m certainly glad our national and state constitutions prohibit endorsement of any particular religious view in public schools, but we’re lucky that the intent and effect of Dover’s ID policy were so obviously unconstitutional.

I agree with Judge Jones that the theory of evolution “in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.” Some may perceive Judge Jones’ words to “establish” theistic evolution as the “preferred” religious perspective, but he was merely identifying the unspoken religious assumption on which the Dover ID policy was based: that evolution and theism are incompatible. As theologian John F. Haught noted in his written statement to the court, it’s inappropriate for ID proponents to “push their own implicitly theological agenda as the only plausible religious ‘alternative,’ especially since many other theists find their theological assumptions to be deeply flawed (emphasis in the original).”

Simply acknowledging one’s philosophy or religion as a personal choice, and distinguishing them both from science, can only help clarify these debates in the future. For example, Roman Catholic Michael Behe, though he vigorously promotes ID, is one of few ID advocates to accept that the neo-Darwinian evolution he rejects is nonetheless compatible with theism. Non-theists Eugenie Scott and Michael Ruse as well as Roman Catholic Kenneth Miller, all prominent opponents of ID as science, likewise carefully distinguish between evolution as science and evolutionary materialism as worldview. Scott, Ruse and Miller no doubt will continue (fortunately!) to oppose Behe regarding ID, but at least their disagreement is not about religion. If others could follow their lead, then maybe, just maybe, we can imagine a future in which such debates need not occur in judge’s courtrooms.