Science is a process for discovering testable, natural explanations for events around us. Intelligent Design is based on the premise that a supernatural god — specifically the God of traditional Western, philosophical monotheism — is responsible for events around us. Belief in such a god is wedded to particular religious conceptions of the world and, therefore, promoting belief in such a god entails promoting particular religious views over others. That was the Dover school board’s goal.
Obviously it’s impermissible for the government to single out certain religions or religious views for favoritism. This was one of the reasons why creationism and creation science have been excluded by the courts from public school science classes.
-
The Supreme Court further held [in Edwards] that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and that the Act at issue “advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety.”
Because of this, one of the central characteristics of Intelligent Design is a deliberate effort to avoid identifying the “Intelligent Designer” and certainly to not mention that the Designer is God. Unfortunately for the anti-evolution crowd and fortunately for scientists, Intelligent Design advocates simply haven’t been able to remain entirely quiet on this point — something which Judge Jones cited at some length:
-
Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that the designer is a natural entity.”
-
Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered.
-
Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural.
-
[Phillip] Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing.
-
Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper.
-
...Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God.
Thus, Jones concluded:
-
It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID’s religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.
Intelligent Design advocates are in a tight spot. If they are too vocal in denying that the Designer is God, and especially the god of Christianity, it will be more difficult for them to garner support from conservative Christians — just about their only source of support. Thus it’s necessary for them to let it slip from time to time that what they are really trying to do is bring God back into public schools.
Parents and others “in the street” get the message and, not being politically sensitive enough to be circumspect about their goals, repeat it even more loudly. The end result is that everyone knows what’s really going on and Intelligent Design advocates simply look foolish in denying what they have unambiguously proclaimed in the past. Even worse, they cannot point to any instances where they have tried to correct all those people who “misunderstand” that the “Intelligent Designer” might be an alien or something other than God.
