Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District -- Parents Challenge the First Attempt to Add Intelligent Design (ID) to a Public School Curriculum. (September 29, 2005)

Brown University Biologist Kenneth Miller

    The legal challenge brought by 11 parents of the 3700-student school district in eastern Pennsylvania centres on "the school board's decision last fall to inform students that evolutionary theory has 'gaps/problems,' and encourage them to look into ID as a promising alternative." In short can a school district require that intelligent design be mentioned in science classes? The case has evoked nation-wide attention in the US and significant interest internationally.

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California said last week, "This case is probably the most important legal situation for creation and evolution in the past 18 years."

Hearings began on September 26 and Eric Rothschild, the Philadelphia Lawyer representing the plaintive in his opening statement told the court "The board changed the scientific curriculum to support a specific religious viewpoint and in doing so they ignored the body of scientific knowledge."

Patrick Gillen of the Christian-oriented Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan representing the school board responded, "This case is about free enquiry in education, not a religious agenda," and stated that Pennsylvania standards require schools to teach students to think critically about scientific theories, and that's what the board's four-paragraph statement is designed to do.

Then  under questioning from plaintiff council, Witold Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, author of the text book used in the Dover area schools gave a three hour lecture first explaining what science is and why it is not intelligent design.

He then detailed the scientific concepts of evolution and systematically challenged a number of key points made by ID proponents and proceeded to attack the ID's flagship textbook Of Pandas and People which he said is filled with erroneous science. According to the report in ScienceNow Miller pointed out that it espouses the notion that new organisms appeared suddenly "with their distinctive features already intact." This, he said, is "identical to creation science. The only difference is that in Pandas, these creative events are spaced out over time" rather than all happening in the biblical span of 6 days.

"I believe that intelligent design is inherently religious," Miller told the judge. "And I think that the statement by the Dover board of education falsely undermines the scientific state of evolution theory."

ScienceNow also cited two examples which proponents of ID claim show that evolution is an insufficient mechanism for bringing them into existence and which Miller repudiated:

 Miller also took apart the biochemistry in the book. For example, Pandas says that the cascade of events leading to blood clotting is too complex to have evolved without a designer because all the components have to be present for the system to function. In reality, he said, nature has already performed the test: Whales and dolphins don't have the Factor XII shared by other mammals, and yet their blood will still clot.

Even the flagellum got its moment in the spotlight. Miller tore into a favorite example used by biochemist and ID proponent Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, who claims that the organelle cannot be explained by evolutionary principles because it is "irreducibly complex." Behe argues natural selection can only operate on systems that already exist. But Miller said that if you remove 30 parts from the flagellum, you are left with 10 parts at its base that closely resemble a molecular syringe used by some bacteria to infect cells.

Defence lawyers then questioned Miller focusing on the "incompleteness" of evolution theory. Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center asked, "The origin of DNA and RNA and their evolution is an unanswered question, is that correct?"

"I would rather say that Darwin was incomplete, not that Darwin was inadequate," and pointed out that some aspects of early DNA and RNA had been replicated.

The hearings continue.