Classroom ban on 'intelligent design'

Published on Wednesday 21 December 2005 01:23

THEORIES of "intelligent design" are based on unscientific, religious beliefs and cannot be taught as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution, a United States judge said yesterday in a landmark ruling.

Judge John Jones launched a scathing attack on supporters of intelligent design (ID), accusing them of lying "time and again" about their motivations and condemning the "breathtaking inanity" of a decision by a school board in Pennsylvania to teach teenagers that evolution is not a fact, that is has "gaps" and that ID is a realistic alternative view.

ID holds that some aspects of nature are so complex they must have been the work of an unnamed creator rather than the result of random natural selection. Opponents argue it is a thinly disguised version of creationism - the belief that the world was created by God, as described in the Book of Genesis - which the US Supreme Court has ruled may not be taught in state schools.

The latest "theory of evolution" case, brought by a group of parents against Dover School Board, was one of the highest-profile in the US for 80 years. It was closely watched in at least 30 states where Christian conservatives are planning similar initiatives.

After the ruling, ID campaigners claimed those opposed to their theory were "anti- religious" and wanted to tar people who believe in God as "irrational".

In October 2004, Dover became the first school district in the US to include ID in its science curriculum. Yesterday, Judge Jones ordered that it should be removed.

"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not and, moreover, that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," he said in a written ruling.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy."

The students and teachers of Dover High School "deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources", the judge said.

He criticised supporters of ID for making the "utterly false" assumption that teaching evolution contradicted a belief in a supreme being and religion in general.

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," the judge said. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

The claim by board members who supported ID - all but one of whom have since been voted out by parents - that they simply wanted to improve science education for secular reasons was "belied by the fact that most, if not all ... conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is", the judge said. "Any asserted secular purposes by the board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective."

However, Judge Jones conceded that advocates of ID "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavours" and he did not believe the concept should not be studied and discussed at all.

"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," he wrote.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution, dating back to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which a Tennessee biology teacher, John Scopes, was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution.

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.

The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about ID before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory was "not a fact" and had inexplicable "gaps", and referred students to an ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, for more information.

David Clounch, of the US-based Intelligent Design Network, said ID had not been disproved and, therefore, it was a theory that should be taught to schoolchildren.

"Are these people saying science has concluded there is no design? I think it's completely unscientific to draw that conclusion," he said. "The plaintiffs want to tell everybody's kids if you believe there is design in the world, that's irrational and science doesn't say that. But science doesn't say anything about that.

"Which scientist decided there isn't any design and, if there aren't any, why is this debate happening? There's really something else going on - it's called anti-religious [feeling]."

However, Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science, said he was "heartened" by yesterday's decision. "It recognises that intelligent design was injected into Dover's biology classes for religious reasons rather than scientific reasons," he said.

"On behalf of the entire US scientific community, we are grateful for the courage of science teachers and parents in Dover, who worked so hard and took such risks to preserve the integrity of science education in our public schools."

He went on: "We should stick to teaching science in science classes — that's best for our students, and best for the long-term scientific and economic strength of our nation."

Eric Rothschild, the main lawyer for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong".

It is likely that there will be further challenges to evolution and the case could end up in the US Supreme Court.

But Judge Jones insisted his decision was based purely on the law and not on his own personal beliefs. "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge," he said.

"If so, they will have erred, as this is manifestly not an activist court."