Harrisburg, Pa. – Although he denied that the concept of intelligent design advances religious belief, a leading proponent of the movement has said the idea is less plausible for those who question or deny the existence of God, according to presentations made in federal court here Tuesday.
Michael Behe, a tenured biochemist at Lehigh University, took the stand for a second day as the first expert witness called by the defense in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District.
Entering its fourth week, the suit was brought against the district and school board by 11 parents of Dover students over a requirement that ninth-grade biology students be informed of intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution.
The parents contend that the requirement is religiously motivated, thus violating the constitutional separation of church and state, and breaches the Supreme Court’s ban on teaching creationism in public schools.
The parents are represented, at no charge, by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, and the Philadelphia law firm of Pepper Hamilton.
Intelligent design is critical of Darwin’s theory that all life – including humans – shares common ancestry and developed through random mutation and natural selection.
The plaintiffs argue that intelligent design – which posits that some aspects of life, yet unexplained by evolution, are best attributed to an unnamed and unseen intelligent designer – really is a disguised version of creationism, the adherence to the biblical account of creation.
Not so, said Behe, during often heated exchanges with counsel for the plaintiffs during cross-examination. “Creationism is 180 degrees different from intelligent design,” he said. “Creationism is a theological concept. Intelligent design is a scientific theory that relies on physical, empirical, observable evidence in nature plus logical inferences.”
