Summarizing the Judgment on Intelligent Design

Last week, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III filed a 139-pageopinionthat bars the school board in Dover, Pa., from implementing its "intelligent design policy" in local schools.

Jones's ruling in Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. came after a trial in Harrisburg, Pa., that lasted from Sept. 26 to Nov. 4. The following excerpts focus on the judge's reasons for finding that intelligent design is based on religion rather than science, and why he concluded that intelligent design is an updated version of "creation science," which the Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional in its 1987 ruling, Edwards v. Aguillard. (For readability, legal citations have been removed.)

On November 19, 2004, the Defendant, Dover Area School District, announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in ninth-grade biology classes at Dover High School:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

At trial, proponents of intelligent design asserted that it was rooted in science, not religion. Jones concluded otherwise, focusing on testimony from two professors who strongly support the intelligent design concept, biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University and microbiologist Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho.

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs [11 parents of Dover students, represented by the lawyers for the ACLU and others] and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID (intelligent design) is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. . . .

Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend [William] Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design.