Intelligent Design Trial Update

The Dover Evolution Trial is in its second week in Harrisburg Federal Court. In case you had not read about it the trial resulted from a lawsuit filed by a small group of local parents and the ACLU challenging the requirement in Dover area schools that the teaching of evolution be accompanied by a short statement to the effect that there are limits to Darwin's theory and that many people believe that an intelligence guided human development. The statement also includes a reference to literature on the subject, which is called "intelligent design theory" [ID] that students can pursue voluntarily.

Last week we heard testimony from scientists to the effect that intelligent design has no place in science because it is untestable and posits supernatural agency. There was also testimony from teachers and parents bringing the lawsuit, arguing that children exposed to the statement might become "confused" and if they asked to be excused from hearing the statement, would be marked as different by other students and suffer psychological damage.

Previous posts here, here, and here.

That is where the case stands so far. Testimony will begin again on Wednesday.

But it has occasioned an enormous amount of commentary much of it hyperbolic and poorly informed. Some recent articles from today's press:

The Ocala Star-Banner likens mentioning Intelligent Design to teaching that the KKK was a benevolent organization. [here]

The San Jose Mercury-News notes that this is just the first of several lawsuits filed across the nation and warns against allowing ID [which they misidentify as "creationism"] to be taught in schools on the grounds that it would produce "substandard education." In places, like Christian schools, where such prohibition would be impossible, they argue pressure should be applied by refusing to accept courses in which ID is taught as credentials for college admissions. [here]

The Guardian (UK) uses the story to slam America's culture in general. [here]

The Sacramento Bee features a Christian biologist, Jeffrey Schloss, who laments that extremists -- religious zealots and aggressive unbelievers -- have taken over discussion of the issues involved. He points out that most scientists and theologans have no trouble reconciling Darwin and Christianity and urges people to search for a "middle ground" [a point I have also endorsed]. [here]

The debate so far in the press has been one-sided. There is a staunch affirmation of the legitimacy of scientific authority, and little consideration of its limits. It would be unfortunate if aggressive secularists were able to use the ID debate to stigmatize all those who question whether scientific authority should always have the last word in policy debates, but that, I fear, is what is happening.