Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

A US federal court this week began hearings on whether intelligent design deserves an airing in high schools as a viable scientific theory. The idea, which suggests that an intelligent creator shaped the course of evolution, is seen by many as an attempt to sneak creationism into the classroom.

On 26 September, scientists, legal experts, reporters and local families crowded into a ninth-floor courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to hear the opening arguments in the case. At issue is whether a school district in the nearby town of Dover has the right to require that intelligent design be mentioned in science classes.

The trial, observers say, is the most public airing to date on whether intelligent design should be taught in schools, and its outcome is likely to have ramifications for the teaching of science nationwide.

“This case is probably the most important legal situation for creation and evolution in the past 18 years,” Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, said last week.

Last November, Dover's school board ordered that a short statement be read at the beginning of biology classes, which pointed to “gaps” in Darwin's theory of evolution and endorsed intelligent design as an alternative. Eleven parents filed suit against the district, claiming that the statement violated the required separation of church and state in lessons.

Eric Rothschild, a Philadelphia-area lawyer representing the parents, hammered home the point in opening arguments before Judge John Jones, who will adjudicate the suit. “The board changed the scientific curriculum to support a specific religious viewpoint,” Rothschild told the judge. “And in doing so they ignored the body of scientific knowledge.”

But Pennsylvania standards require schools to teach students to think critically about scientific theories, and that's what the board's four-paragraph statement is designed to do, said Patrick Gillen of the Christian-oriented Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who is representing the board. “This case is about free enquiry in education, not a religious agenda,” Gillen said.

The plaintiffs' first witness was biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, author of the biology textbook used in Dover classrooms. In more than three hours of testimony, Miller explained the scientific concepts of evolution and sought to show how they could explain things that intelligent-design advocates claimed were evidence of an intelligent creator.

“I believe that intelligent design is inherently religious,” Miller told the judge. “And I think that the statement by the Dover board of education falsely undermines the scientific state of evolution theory.”

During cross-examination, defence lawyers questioned Miller aggressively about the completeness of evolution theory. “The origin of DNA and RNA and their evolution is an unanswered question, is that correct?” asked Robert Muise, also of the Thomas More Law Center. Miller responded that some aspects of early DNA and RNA had been replicated, but that many questions remained unanswered. “I would rather say that Darwin was incomplete, not that Darwin was inadequate,” he told the court.

The plaintiffs' testimony is likely to continue for at least a week before the defence takes over. A ruling is not expected until November.