“Intelligent Design on Trial” by Larry Witham
This article is about the court trial between an evolutionist and the rulings of a school board to allow Supreme Design to be mentioned in class when evolution is being taught. The evolutionists were arguing that this is unconstitutional and that it sparks the students’ minds into a whirlwind of confusion over whether they should stand behind their religion, or the experimentally tested science. The defendant on the side of the school maintaining its current curriculum argued well against the attacks of the evolutionists. They argued that numerous theories about the origin of the world should be taught, and that this is within the bounds of the constitution.
Experts offered testimony on the nature of science and the meaning of creation. The meaning of key words such as politics, theology, creation, education, and science were heatedly discussed. Kenneth Miller said that God created the laws of evolution. Haught said that “ID is a form of natural theology.” It offers an "old theological argument to prove the existence of God.” It is an "appalling theology," he said, “since efforts to understand or limit God through nature lead to idolatry." Throughout the trial, the defense argued that the religious beliefs of ID theorists are irrelevant to their scientific practice. But since the plaintiffs had made personal beliefs an issue, the defense probed the beliefs of evolutionists. In cross-examination, Haught confirmed that many evolutionists are materialists who deny God.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
