by Lenny Flank
In the wake of their crushing loss at Dover, the Intelligent Design "theorists" reacted in the same way the creation 'scientists" did after their loss in Arkansas -- they issued press release after press release decrying the "biased judge" (Judge Jones was, actually, a church-going Republican who had been appointed to the bench by George W Bush.):
"The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. He has conflated Discovery Institute s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it." (DI press release, found at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3107)
To get around the substantive differences between intelligent design and biblical creationism, Judge Jones had to fixate on motive (both real and imagined); he had to assume that if he can identify one motive, he has magically ruled out the possibility of another motive playing a crucial role (in this case, the desire of ID scientists to follow the evidence wherever leads, even if it means upsetting a few Darwinists); and he had to mischaracterize ID as a religion-based theory when instead it's a theory based on scientific evidence that, like Darwinism, has larger metaphysical implications. (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/rush_limbaugh_on_dover_and_int.html#more)
Despite all their bluster and arm-waving, though, the IDers had already recognized, even before Dover, that ID would never prevail as an "alternative scientific theory", and that a new strategy must be pursued if the goals of the Wedge Document were to have any chance of success. Out of this realization, the strategy of "teach the controversy" was born.
There is, of course, no serious scientific "controversy" over evolution. No serious biologist rejects it, and while there are healthy and interesting debates within science over how evolution happens, there is no debate at all over whether it happens. The only "controversy" over evolution is the social/political/religious one created by the anti-evolutionists themselves. However, after the annihilation of ID "theory" in Dover, "teach the controversy" became the only game in town. From now on, the guiding goal of the ID movement was no longer "we have an alternative scientific theory of origins that we want you to teach"; instead, it became "our alternative scientific theory isn't, uh, ready yet, so we want you to teach about the controversy about evolution instead". Instead of attempting to push "intelligent design theory" into schools, the Discovery Institute and its supporters have been forced to retreat to the much weaker notion of teaching the alleged "scientific problems" with evolution instead. The new strategy drops any mention of "intelligent design", and instead attempts to argue that somehow, somewhere, something must be wrong with evolution. And this is the argument they presented in both Ohio and Kansas. The Dover decision, DI now argued, doesn't apply to the "teach the controversy" approach, since, they say, "teach the controversy" doesn't mention ID and doesn't attempt to teach it.
To beat this strategy in court, anti-IDers therefore need to demonstrate that (1) "teach the controversy" is nothing but the same old creation "science" and intelligent design "theory" under a different name, and (2) "teach the controversy" has the same religious motivation and effect that creation "science" and ID did.
Fortunately for us, this is not difficult to demonstrate, using the IDer's own statements. After all, the switch from "teach our alternative theory" to "teach the controversy about evolution" was explicitly made, publicly, by the very director of the Center for Science and Culture, DI fellow Stephen Meyer, during a presentation sponsored by the Ohio Board:
Recently, while speaking to the Ohio State Board of Education, I suggested this approach as a way forward for Ohio in its increasingly contentious dispute about how to teach theories of biological origin, and about whether or not to introduce the theory of intelligent design alongside Darwinism in the Ohio biology curriculum.
I also proposed a compromise involving three main provisions:
(1) First, I suggested--speaking as an advocate of the theory of intelligent design--that Ohio not require students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of intelligent design, at least not yet.
(2) Instead, I proposed that Ohio teachers teach the scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution. Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory. And Ohio should test students for their understanding of those arguments, not for their assent to a point of view.
(3) Finally, I argued that the state board should permit, but not require, teachers to tell students about the arguments of scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who advocate the competing theory of intelligent design. (Meyer, found at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1134)
As part of the new strategy, members of the Ohio Board of Education proposed a "model lesson plan" that was largely written by Discovery Institute members and supporters, entitled "Critical Analysis of Evolution". The model lesson pointed out the same supposed "scientific problems with evolution" that the Discovery Institute had been preaching for years. In March 2004, the Board passed a modified version of the lesson plan which, while erasing all of the references to intelligent design "theory", nevertheless accepted most of the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" strategy and included many of the supposed "scientific criticisms of evolution" that have been trotted out for years by the Discovery Institute and other creationists.
Meanwhile, the State Education Board in Kansas, not unexpectedly, rejected the majority report, written by 17 scientists, listing evolution as the core concept of modern biology, and adopted the Discovery Institute's new "teach the controversy" line. Board Chairman Steven Abrams stated; "The Minority Report does not mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not a code word for creationism. Teaching the arguments against evolution is not a code word for creationism. It is simply good science education. At this point, however, we do not think it's appropriate to mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design. It's a fairly new science, it's a modern science of Intelligent Design, it's a maturing science and perhaps in time it would be there, but at this point we think mandating it is inappropriate." (Kansas Hearings transcript)
In order for DI's "teach the controversy" policy to survive court challenges in Ohio and Kansas, it must survive two different questions. First, is "teach the controversy" different in any substantial way from either intelligent design "theory" or creation "science", both of which have already been ruled illegal by the courts? And second, is "teach the controversy" religiously motivated, does it imply state endorsement of religion, or does it have the effect of advancing religion? If the answer to the first question is "no", or if the answer to the second question is "yes", then "teach the controversy" fails.
So, is "teach the controversy" different in any substantial way from either ID or creation "science"? No. In fact, they are all identical. In the case of Ohio, this was made obvious by the fact that all of the "scientific evidence against evolution" listed by the proposed "teach the controversy" curriculum was lifted intact, word for word, from standard ID books and websites. Indeed, the standards even attempted to list these ID resources themselves as part of the lesson plan. All of the "controversies about evolution" listed by the proposed curriculum are standard ID/creationist boilerplate, and most of them have already been presented as part of the "scientific theory of intelligent design" and/or creation "science". None of these "scientific arguments against evolution" has appeared in any peer-reviewed science journal with any supporting data or evidence. All of them are found in ID/creation 'science' texts, and only in ID/creationist texts. The arguments are not substantially changed, in form or in substance, from the very same arguments previously made in support of the "alternative scientific theories" of ID and/or creationism.
In the case of Kansas, the absolute unity between ID/creationism and "the scientific arguments against evolution" were spelled out, in great detail, during the Kangaroo Court "hearings" that were held by the Board before adopting the "teach the controversy" policy. During these hearings, 23 witnesses testified in favor of "teach the controversy". Every "scientific argument against evolution" presented by these 23 witnesses had already been made previously by creation "scientists" and/or intelligent design "theorists". In addition, most of the witnesses testified to their belief that science should not be "limited" to "naturalistic" or "materialistic" explanations (a standard ID complaint), and most of the witnesses also testified that humans and apes have a separate ancestry, that the earth is relatively young, that evolution can occur only within narrowly fixed limits, and that life made a sudden appearance through the actions of a designer. All of these are tenets of creation "science" as defined in the Arkansas Act 590 bill, thus establishing that the arguments made by creation "science", design "theory", and "teach the controversy" are in fact identical, and have not changed at all in the intervening 25 years.
Indeed, the state standards adopted in Kansas specifically include standard ID/creationist arguments, including the "no transitional fossils" argument:
"Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in the fossil record. Evidence also indicates that simple, bacteria-like life may have existed billions of years ago. However, in many cases, the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution." (2005 Kansas state curriculum standards)
"The Cambrian explosion" argument:
f. The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by:
i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view.
ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity." (2005 Kansas state curriculum standards)
The "microevolution/macroevolution" and "created kinds" argument:
d. Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence. (2005 Kansas curriculum standards)
And the "argument from design":
c. Natural selection, genetic drift, genomes and the mechanisms of genetic change provide a context in which to ask research questions and then help explain observed changes in populations. However, reverse engineering and end-directed thinking are used to understand the function of bio-systems and information. (2005 Kansas curriculum standards)
As the lawyer for the Dover plaintiffs, Eric Rothschild, put it in a talk in Kansas shortly after the Pennsylvania trial: “These same negative arguments against evolution that have arisen out of the creationist movements — and which are outdated and discredited and just plain false — those are the same arguments that were supporting intelligent design in the Dover case. They're absolutely present in Kansas.” (Lawrence Journal-World, January 29, 2006)
The Ohio model lesson plan included in the state standards was also riddled with standard ID/creation "science" arguments, including the "no fossil transitionals" argument:
"Transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record. A growing number of scientists now question that Archaeopteryx and other transitional fossils really are transitional forms. (Ohio state standards model lesson plan)
The "Cambrian explosion" argument:
"The “Cambrian explosion” of animal phyla is the best known, but not the only example, of the sudden appearance of new biological forms in the fossil record." (Ohio state standards model lesson plan)
And the "microevolution/macroevolution" and "limited variation within kinds" argument:
The increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains demonstrates the power of natural selection to produce small but limited changes in populations and species. It does not demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce new forms of life. Although new strains of Staphylococcus aureus have evolved, the speciation of bacteria (prokaryotes) has not been observed, and neither has the evolution of bacteria into more complex eukaryotes. Thus, the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance demonstrates microevolution. (Ohio state standards model lesson plan)
In both cases, "teach the controversy" is based upon the same false "two models" approach already used by both creation "scientists" and IDers, and already rejected by courts in the Maclean, Aguillard and Kitzmiller cases. Under the "two models" view, any evidence against evolution must necessarily be viewed as evidence for creation/design. The intention of the "teach the controversy" approach is thus made apparent -- any "evidence against evolution" is viewed by both creation "scientists" and intelligent design "theorists" as support for their "alternative model", even if that "alternative model" is un-named and unspecified. The intent and aims of both "teach the controversy" and ID/creationism are therefore one and the same --- to attempt to discredit evolution in favor of a religious model of origins.
Not only are the aims, intent and arguments presented in the Ohio "teach the controversy" approach identical in every way with ID and/or creation "science", but it is the very same people presenting them as ID and/or creation science. In the case of Ohio, the "teach the controversy" policy was itself proposed by the Discovery Institute, as a "compromise" over teaching intelligent design "theory". As a matter of public record, the Discovery Institute introduced its "compromise" only after it became apparent that the Ohio Board simply would not approve teaching intelligent design "theory". At a hearing about the "teach the controversy" policy in March 2002, leading ID "theorists" Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer both spoke in favor of the policy. Ohio Board member Deborah Owens-Fink, who asserted that the policy contained nothing from ID, had nevertheless herself introduced measures in 2000 and in 2002 that would have presented ID in class as a scientific theory. Board member Michael Cochran, and ID supporter Robert Lattimer, both also spoke in favor of including ID "theory" in the standards -- and then later switched in mid-stream, spoke in favor of the "teach the controversy" policy, and declared that it did not contain any ID theory.
The fact that IDers themselves introduced and supported the "teach the controversy" policy in Ohio indicates clearly that "teach the controversy" and "intelligent design" are one and the same, with the same supporters, same financial/political backers, and same framers.
In the case of Kansas, the continuity between the supporters/framers of "teach the controversy" and Creationism/design are apparent from the witnesses who testified in support of the policy at the Kangaroo Court. Among those who spoke in favor of "teach the controversy" were Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells, all of whom were fellows at the Discovery Institute, all of whom were recognized as leading figures in the intelligent design "theory" movement, and all of whom had written extensive ID materials that were being offered as part of the "scientific arguments against evolution". Another witness was Charles Thaxton, who was one of the chief architects of the intelligent design movement's Wedge Strategy. Even more clearly than in Ohio, Kansas shows us that "teach the controversy", far from being substantially different than intelligent design 'theory", is in fact written, produced and directed by the very same people, and makes the very same arguments. There simply is no substantial difference between ID/creationism and the "teach the controversy" policies in Kansas and Ohio.
Quite aside from the fact that "teach the controversy" is indistinguishable in any substantive sense from creation 'science" and ID, if it can be shown that the policy has religious motivations, has the effect of advancing religion, or implies governmental endorsement of religion, it will independently fail on church/state grounds. And this is not difficult to show.
In both Ohio and Kansas, the IDers, faced with the likely possibility that their "scientific theory" would be viewed as simply religious doctrine, reacted in the same way -- if ID wasn't science, they concluded, then they would use legal fiat to simply change the definition of "science" in the standards so that ID could be included anyway. In Ohio, Meyer proposed that "Ohio should enact no definition of science that would prevent the discussion of other theories". (cited in Forrest and Gross, p. 232) The original standards read, "Scientific knowledge is limited to natural explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence from our senses or technological extensions. . . Explanations that are open to further testing, revision and falsification, and while not 'believed in' through faith may be accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence." (cited in Forrest and Gross, p. 235) During the Ohio fight, however, members of the standards committee attempted to change this to "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena". The part about "natural explanations", "falsification" and "not believed in through faith" were all to be dropped, since ID could not meet any of those standards. The effort to redefine science to make it more ID-friendly, failed.
In Kansas, the religious aim of redefining science was just as explicit, and more successful. The original definition of "science" in the state standards read, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us". ID proponents successfully altered this to read: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/kansas_definition_of_science_c.html)
There is, of course, only one reason why IDers in Ohio and Kansas would wish to alter the legal definition of "science" to drop any reference to "natural explanations" -- such a definition explicitly rules out ID, which is not based on any natural explanations. Indeed, ID is based on supernaturalistic explanations. It is religious doctrine.
In Kansas, the religious motives behind the "teach the controversy" policy are explicit and obvious. The Chairman of the education board, Steve Abrams, who played a pivotal role in getting the "teach the controversy" policy adopted, has made open statements to the press pointing out his religious motivations: "“At some point in time, if you compare evolution and the Bible, you have to decide which one you believe. That’s the bottom line.” (Lawrence Journal-World, Sept 24, 2005) Board member Kathy Martin, when asked if ID had a religious agenda, Martin declared, "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard. (Pitch.Com, May 5, 2005) Prior to the hearings, Board member Connie Morris asked for a list of witnesses that those opposing the policy planned to call, explaining that she would be "praying over" the witness list. (Kansas Star, April 20,2005)
In Ohio, the board members were more careful not to speak openly of any religious motives. The Discovery Institute members and other IDers who introduced the "compromise", however, have been publicly vocal about their religious motivations. One of the early IDers to show up in Ohio was John Calvert (who was also the lawyer who questioned the 23 witnesses in the Kansas hearings). The Kansas City Star reports:
"Ohio began work on its standards in 2001. It was the same year that Calvert retired early from the Lathrop & Gage law firm to devote his time to the Intelligent Design Network of Shawnee Mission, which he had co-founded. On a cold January night in 2002, Calvert was in Columbus, Ohio, to address the standards committee of the Ohio Board of Education. The committee is comprised of about half of the state board’s 19 members. One of them, evolution defender Martha Wise, remembers Calvert well. “I sat through his half-hour presentation and thought, ‘What is he talking about — a higher power?’ During a break, I remember going over to some people who are recognized as our Ohio Academy of Science and I said to them: ‘It sounds like he is talking about God’ and they said: ‘You got it.’ I was flabbergasted.” (Kansas City Star, June 14, 2005)
The conclusion seems clear and inescapable, in both Ohio and Kansas. The "teach the controversy" policy is identical in every substantive way with creation "science" and/or ID "theory, both of which have already been ruled illegal on church/state grounds. "Teach the controversy" and ID/creationism both depend on exactly the same "scientific arguments" -- none of which have ever been published in any scientific journal, none of which are accepted as valid by the scientific community, and all of which are lifted, word for word, from creation "science" and ID texts. The identical nature of the "controversy"/ID arguments is matched by a similar identity in supporters, backers and framers. The people who have put together and are pushing for adoption of "teach the controversy" are the very same people who were earlier putting together and pushing for adoption of creation "science" and/or ID "theory". And public statements from both board members and from the individuals who helped formulate and implement the "teach the controversy" policy make it clear that they are still motivated by the very same religious motives that fueled their earlier efforts to introduce creationism/ID into classrooms.
In short, "teach the controversy" is creationism/intelligent design. There is no substantive difference between them, nor can there be. After all, there simply is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design. ID was not ever anything other than a string of unrelated criticisms of evolution -- the very same unrelated string of criticisms of evolution which now make up the "controversy" that IDers want to teach. "Teach the controversy" is, transparently, nothing more than an attempt to respond to state education board decisions and court rulings banning creationism/ID by dropping the words "intelligent design" altogether, while leaving the arguments the same. And it is extremely unlikely that any of these arguments will survive court challenges.
Indeed, in Ohio, where "teach the controversy" was first introduced as a policy, the Dover decision caused some re-thinking. In early February 2006, Ohio Governor Bob Taft asked for a legal review of the state's "teach the controversy" curriculum standards. While declaring that he remained in favor of requirements to "critically examine evolution", Gov Taft nevertheless stated, "But if there is an issue here where they are actually teaching intelligent design, that’s another matter, and that’s what the court said as well." (Herald-Dispatch, Feb 3, 2006) Less than two weeks later, Ohio State Board of Education members voted 11-4 to drop all of the "teach the controversy" language from the state's science standards.
Even before the Ohio decision, however, many ID supporters had already begun to realize that "teach the controversy", by focusing solely on evolution, is likely to fail in court. Indeed, many of the court decisions (including the Cobb County Selman case and the Dover Kitzmiller case) specifically cited the fact that only evolution was singled out for "critical evaluation", thus indicating that it was religious oppposition to evolution, and not any concern for science education, that was the motivating factor. To defuse this, ID supporters have already begun introducing a new tactic. Now, instead of just "teaching the controversy over evolution", they propose to "teach the controversies" over several different topics. In September 2005, a bill was introduced in Michigan which would require the state's science standards to "(a) use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution [and] (b) Use relevant scientific data to assess the validity of those theories and to formulate arguments for or against those theories." (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/MI/410_antievolution_legislation_in_m_10_4_2005.asp) Global warming has also been the focus of intense conservative science-bashing, and by adding the global warming "controversy" to the evolution "controversy", ID supporters apparently hoped to be able to make the argument in court, "See, it's not just about evolution, so it's not religious in nature." The effort was expanded further by another Michigan bill introduced in January 2006, which dropped mention of any specific issue at all, and simply declared, "The course content expectations for science shall include using the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories and using relevant scientific data to assess the validity of those theories and formulate arguments for and against those theories." (Detroit Free Press, January 28, 2006) The Discovery Institute, to no one's surprise, immediately spoke in favor of the bill, claiming, "Clearly this language has nothing to do with intelligent design and would simply bring scientific critique of theories taught in the classroom, and makes absolutely no mention of teaching intelligent design or any form of a 'replacement theory' for those currently-taught theories that are being critiqued." (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/correction_false_fear_syndrome_1.html#more)
No teacher is going to waste class time teaching "the arguments for and against" the germ theory of disease, or the heliocentric theory of the solar system, or the atomic theory of matter. And, of course, the IDers don't want them to -- IDers want them to focus on evolution, and to use "teach all the controversies" as a fig leaf. The "teach all the controversies" approach, however, leads the IDers into a dilemma. They must, after all, sooner or later specify, in a lesson plan, what exactly these "arguments against evolution" are that they plan on presenting -- and as soon as they do, it will become apparent that these are the same old ID/creationist arguments that have already been made for forty years, and which have already been rejected by the courts. It's unlikely any such strategy will survive in court.
It was the financial effects of the Dover ruling, however, that seems to have had the deepest impact on the ID movement. Although the Dover plantiffs' lawyers worked for free and did not ask for any legal fees, they did ask to be awarded reimbursement from the school board for their expenses -- which totalled over $2.4 million for witness fees, deposition costs, and other expenditures. In the school board election just a few weeks before the ruling was issued, every ID supporter who was up for re-election was voted out of office and replaced by anti-ID activists, including several plaintiffs in the case. In the aftermath, the plaintiff attornies reduced their request for reimbursement to $1 million.
It was enough to send horrified shudders through school districts across the country. Immediately after Dover, the El Tejon School District, in Lebec, California, offered a "Philosophy of Intelligent Design" course; "This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy is not rock solid. This class will discuss Intelligent Design as an alternative response to evolution. Topics that will be covered are the age of the earth, a world wide flood, dinosaurs, pre-human fossils, dating methods, DNA, radioisotopes, and geological evidence. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions. The class will include lecture discussions, guest speakers, and videos. The class grade will be based on a position paper in which students will support or refute the theory of evolution." (http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntellDesign-stories/060106-holiday_mtg.html) The course materials included several ID and young-earth creationist books and videos, and was taught by Sharon Lemburg, who wrote in a statement, "The idea of this class was not created on the spur of the moment. I believe that this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach." (http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntellDesign-stories/060113-SharonLemburg.html). Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed suit. After being pointedly reminded about the Dover decision and "the limited resources of our small school district" (http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntellDesign-stories/060113-Community-Forum2.html ), the El Tejon District quickly caved in, and signed a settlement agreement that stipulated: "1) "Defendants shall cause the course entitled 'Philosophy of Design' or 'Philosophy of Intelligent Design' to be terminated and discontinued no later than January 27, 2006. 2) No school over which the School District has authority, including the High School shall offer, presently or in the future, the course entitled 'Philosophy of Design' ...or any other course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science or intelligent design.” (http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntellDesign-stories/060120-SuitSettled.html)
Just a few weeks later, the Manhattan-Ogden School District in Kansas announced that it was rejecting the anti-evolution curriculum standards put in place by the Kansas state board of education, declaring that the school district "does not support the redefinition of science included in the Science Standards passed by the Kansas State Board of Education on November 8, 2005; this document changed the definition of science to allow non-natural (including supernatural) explanations of natural phenomena. . . . The changes made to the science standards are based on the utterly false belief that evolutionary science, and the scientific method itself, is based on an atheistic philosophy. Promoting this false conflict between science and faith erects unnecessary barriers to student learning, discourages many students from pursuing careers in the sciences, and perpetuates public misunderstandings of the nature and conclusions of science." Board member Beth Tatarko pointed out the potential effect to the district if it followed the state standards: "If we had someone in our district teaching Intelligent Design right now, those costs would come back to us." (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/KS/283_local_school_district_rejects__2_26_2006.asp)
All of the legal rulings against Intelligent Design "theory", however, or its "teach the controversy" clone, will not end the anti-evolution fight. They will simply be back with yet another repackaged version of the same old arguments. As long as adherents of fundamentalist religion view science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, as their enemy, the fight will never end.
Return to Creation Science Debunked Home Page