These are some of Attorney Eric J. Rothschild’s closing remarks at the recent Dover, PA Intelligent Design trial. I think they sum up the case against teaching ID very well indeed.
Michael Behe told this Court that intelligent design is not a religious proposition, but he told the readers of the New York Times the question intelligent design poses is whether science can make room for religion. He acknowledges that the more one believes in God, the more persuasive intelligent design is. The religious nature of intelligent design is also proclaimed loudly and repeatedly in the Wedge document. The other indisputable fact that marks intelligent design as a religious proposition that cannot be taught in public schools is that it argues that a supernatural actor designed and created biological life. Supernatural creation is the religious proposition that the Supreme Court said in Edwards cannot be taught in public schools. And it's obvious why this has to be the case. When we talk about an actor outside nature with the skills to design and create and build biological life, we are talking about God. The experts that testified at this trial admit that in their view, the intelligent designer is God. The Discovery Institute's Wedge document's first paragraph bemoans the fact that the proposition that human beings are created in the image of God has been undermined by the theory of evolution. Professor Behe admitted that his argument for intelligent design was essentially the same as William Paley's, which is a classic argument for the existence of God. Intelligent design hides behind an official position that it does not name the designer, but as Dr. Minnich acknowledged this morning, all of its advocates believe that the designer is God.
The case for intelligent design as a religious proposition is overwhelming. The case for it as a scientific proposition, by contrast, is nonexistent. It has been unanimously rejected by the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and every other major scientific and science education organization that has considered the issue.
There's a reason that science does not consider the supernatural. It has no way of measuring or testing supernatural activity. As Professor Behe testified, you can never rule out intelligent design. Defendants' comparisons to the big bang or Newton's work make no sense, for those, as with many scientific propositions, we may have at one time attributed natural phenomena to supernatural or divine action before working out the natural explanations that fall under the heading "science." Intelligent design is moving in the opposite direction, replacing a well-developed natural explanation for the development of biological life with a supernatural one which it has no evidence to support.
Personally I feel that the attempt to get Intelligent Design taught alongside Evolution in American science classes is a crude and rather ham-fisted attempt to get the State to teach Fundamental Christianity. Also I can’t help thinking that ID is a crock of $%&* so laughable that I’ll take bets that the judge had a hard time keeping a straight face. I look forward to the verdict.