Intelligent design theory is philosophy, not science

Political proponents of "intelligent design," from local school board members in Dover, Pa., to U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., have been trying for years to say that intelligent design is a scientific theory, not religious doctrine. But a conservative U.S. district judge in central Pennsylvania issued a 139-page ruling that clearly exposes ID as warmed-over creationism.
Not that there is anything wrong with creationism -- in its proper place, which is any church, seminary or private school that ascribes to it. But as Judge John E. Jones III made clear over and over again in a well-reasoned opinion -- whether it is called intelligent design, scientific creationism, old-fashioned creationism or Thomist philosophy, it does not belong in a public school science curriculum.
Judge Jones' opinion is so well written, the evolution of creationism to intelligent design so nicely laid out and the subterfuge employed by some school board members in the Dover Area School District to give ID equal weight with scientific evolutionary theory so well documented, that others who have gone down the design trail should beware. Among those is the Ohio State Board of Education, which last March approved by a 13-5 vote what it called a "Critical Analysis of Evolution" plan. Some of the fingerprints on the Ohio plan belong to the same people who helped intelligent design advocates on the Dover school board.
Some background
The Pennsylvania case arose when the Dover school board voted to require science teachers to read a statement that implied that intelligent design had equal scientific validity with Darwin's theory of evolution, which, moreover, had "gaps" and "problems."
The board's order referred students to the book "Of Pandas and People," which, the court learned, had been edited to replace "creationism" with "intelligent design" after a definitive 1968 U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down teaching creationism in public schools.
The judge found that the board "consciously chose to change Dover's biology curriculum to advance religion," a decision, he said, of "breathtaking inanity" leading to an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
A couple of years ago, Santorum, writing an opinion piece in the Washington Times in support of Ohio's proposed action, said that since "a number of scientists contend that alternate theories regarding the origins of the human species -- including that of a greater intelligence -- are possible ... intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Judge Jones made no such leaps of logic. Instead, he looked at the history of intelligent design, which can be traced philosophically to the 13th century, when Thomas Aquinas posited: "Whenever complex design exists, there must have been an intelligent designer. Nature is complex, therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer."
That may be excellent philosophy or theology, but it isn't science. As a federal court ruled in 1982 in a drawn-out Arkansas case, "creation science is simply not science" because it depends on "supernatural intervention" that cannot be explained by natural causes or be proven through empirical investigation.
No defense
As Judge Jones wrote, not one defense expert in a trial that stretched from Sept. 26 to Nov. 4 was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by intelligent design could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition.
He found a wealth of evidence that the district's purpose was to advance creationism, an inherently religious view, by promoting intelligent design and disparaging evolution. He also noted that the record reflected that witnesses either testified inconsistently or lied outright under oath on several occasions. "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 intelligent design policy," he wrote.
There is also some irony in that Judge Jones was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President Bush, who a few months ago took the casual view that he didn't see why both theories -- intelligent design and Darwinian evolution -- shouldn't be treated equally in the classroom.
The reason is, they are not equal. They are apples and oranges. Darwinian evolution isn't "just a theory." It is a scientific theory that, while imperfect or incomplete, can be subjected to scientific analysis. It is an appropriate subject for a high school biology class. Intelligent design would be appropriate down the hall, in a comparative religion class. It would be even more appropriate presented from a pulpit to willing listeners.