But It's Not Science

When I first heard of the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) some years ago, I didn't recognize it for what it was. It sounded to me like a satisfactory compromise between science and religion. Science answered many questions and raised many more, leaving room for religion to apply the notion of an intelligent creator instilling into the universe the perfection of mathematics, physics, music, and (with apologies to the platypus) biology.

I guess I am naive. In the intervening years, ID became code for creationism. It came to a head with the Dover PA school board's insistence that ID be offered as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The only problem is, accepting ID as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution broadens the very definition of science to include the un-testable and supernatural. Today’s decision by a Bush-appointed federal judge to bar ID from public school science classes in PA reinforces this premise. This is no case of judicial activism; it’s a case of a common-sense decision based on a preponderance of facts.

The judge’s searing decision surely has ID advocates plotting their next move (academic expression), though I prefer to think of ID proponents as misguided rather than as right wing conspirators. It must be disheartening to have your position eviscerated by a judge. But it’s common sense…if it can’t be tested, it’s not science. There’s nothing wrong with the belief in a higher power (okay, God) guiding the development of the universe. But it has about as much place in a biology class as dissecting frogs has in a church pew.