Editorial: Intelligent ruling on creationism

Opinion

A federal court judge in Pennsylvania last week delivered what ought to be the coup de grace to the claim that the idea known as intelligent design is a scientific theory. In his ruling Judge John E. Jones III showed that, beyond question, intelligent design is based on a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena. Put another way, it relies on belief and sees the hand of God in the way the world was made.

Thus, by definition, it cannot be a science because the scientific method requires natural explanations, empirical investigation and testing.

The specific context of Judge Jones' ruling was the challenge to a decision by the Dover High School board to include intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution in the curriculum. A group of parents argued that this violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution which prohibits the establishment of religion. The judge agreed with them.

His decision has far-reaching significance because the board members - who have since been voted out of office - were not alone in their endeavour to have intelligent design in the classroom. Plans to follow their lead were reportedly being made in 30 other states and the idea has received warm encouragement from President George W. Bush.

Not surprisingly, the case attracted enormous national and international attention; this was not just a minor local dispute nor even one limited to the United States. Rather it was the latest round in a historic argument at the heart of Western civilisation, namely the conflict between religion and science, specifically the one that pits creationism against evolution.

The argument has been heard and reheard in a series of American court cases dating back to the 1920s and although the creationists may have had the better of the early rounds, the courts have increasingly taken the view that creationism violates the constitution.

The response from the creationists has been to clothe their ideas in the language of intelligent design which can be used as a Trojan Horse to smuggle religious concepts into the classroom against the spirit and letter of the scientific method as well as the law.

This is both dishonest and dangerous. Dishonest because, as the judgment makes clear, the proponents of intelligent design argued in court that their idea was a science while knowing full well that it fundamentally contradicted the precepts of the scientific method.

Dangerous because evidence considered by the court shows that their ultimate intention is to change the rules so that supernatural factors - for this read God - are recognised as scientific, thus legitimising their theory. Were they to succeed, science would cease to be science and instead become religion. It does not take too much imagination to see how such an outcome would limit the horizons of Western civilisation.

However, this is not to say that beliefs and religion should be banned or banished from society. Every society - even Western, empirical, scientific society - has its gods, beliefs, religious explanations and traditions. They clearly are important, not least because they inform debate about the morality and ethics of science.

And there is no reason why such beliefs - including creationism - should not be discussed among senior students at secondary schools, even state schools. But these ideas should be seen for what they are and not made to masquerade as something else. Religion has an important place but it should leave science to the scientists.