The "Intelligent Design" Trial

The Dover, PA school district is being sued by parents over its controversial accomodation of intelligent design in biology class. I have been critical of the creationist side of the ID discussion numerous times. But the scientific side needs to be taken to task as well. Their strategy in the case appears to be to prove evolution in court.

Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers suing the Dover Area School District for exposing its students to the controversial theory, sprinkled his testimony with references to DNA, red blood cells and viruses, and he occasionally referred to complex charts on a projection screen.

Even U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was a little overwhelmed.

"I guess I should say, 'Class dismissed,'" Jones mused before recessing for lunch.

This is the wrong approach.

From what I have read, the school district does not teach ID. The teacher is required to simply issue a disclaimer before each class session. The text of this disclaimer is available online. I have said it before and I'll say it again. There is nothing objectionable in this disclaimer. It begins by stating evolution is a theory. What scientist can object to that assertion? It goes on to say there are gaps. I'm a physicist, not a biologist, so I cannot speak authoritatively, but I would be totally shocked if this were not true. I have never seen a theory in science in which there were no holes. The disclaimer continues by giving a perfectly reasonable definition of what the word "theory" means. The creationists try to whip up doubt by confusing the scientific meaning of the word with the more colloquial. The disclaimer in question asserts the scientific version.

Intelligent design is then described as an "explanation", not a theory so as to not be confused with science, that is different from evolution. Well, yes. It is an explanation and is not evolution, so this is an accurate statement. A reference text on ID is then mentioned for any student interested in learning about it. Unless the scientists want to argue that this book is, in fact, not a reference for ID, I cannot see anything wrong.

In the final paragraph of the disclaimer, students are encouraged to keep an open mind with respect to any scientific theory. Is this a problem for scientists? Surely they are not trying to argue we should never question our theories. Where would science be if scientists never questioned the prevailing theories of the day? We would still be stuck in flat Earth, geocentric conception of the universe.

The scientists trying to fight against this disclaimer do their own cause a tremendous disservice. Apart from the fact that there's nothing they should find objectionable, fighting it reinforces the creationist notion that the scientists are simply trying to push their theory as unquestioned fact. Which is more damaging to the cause of science: passing religion off as science, or demanding unquestioned acceptance to whatever science theorizes at the moment? Both will crush the advancement of science.