Intelligent Design is good science and requires no 鈥渞eligious commitment鈥�, one of the movement鈥檚 most ardent proponents told a landmark US trial on Monday.
A veteran public debater of ID, biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, who is also a practising Catholic, was the first witness called by the defence at a Pennsylvania court scrutinising the teaching of ID in a school.
The trial pits 11 parents from the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania, against their local school board. The legal dispute was sparked in November 2004 when the board鈥檚 nine members voted to read a statement during a biology class which cast doubt on Darwinian evolution and suggested ID as an alternative.
Advertisement
The parents, financially backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, claim this was an attempt to introduce creationism into the curriculum through the back door and that the school board members were motivated by their evangelical Christian beliefs.
It is illegal to teach anything with a primarily religious purpose or effect on pupils in government-funded US schools. To win the case, the defence must convince the judge that ID is good science and not based on creationism.
鈥淚rreducibly complex鈥�
ID is the hypothesis that some things in nature are simply too complex to have evolved by natural selection, and therefore must have been 鈥渋ntelligently鈥� designed.
In Behe鈥檚 testimony he cites the miniature molecular motors, called flagella, that allow bacteria to swim as an example of this. The development of flagella and the blood-clotting mechanism, which requires at least 30 different proteins to work together, are 鈥渋rreducibly complex鈥�, he argued.
鈥淏ehe has made the argument he always makes. This was very standard Behe stuff,鈥� says Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science education in Oakland, California, which is advising the plaintiffs in the trial.
Critics of ID say it is merely the latest incarnation of creationism, and that it is not science because it makes no testable predictions.
Although, some ID supporters say it is not based on creationism, others have stated that the intelligent designer is God. Behe insists that ID is strictly a scientific hypothesis, which may happen to have philosophical or religious implications.
鈥淪cience has not answered who the designer is,鈥� he told the court. He admits, however, that he personally believes the designer is God.
Casting doubts
Showing that ID is science will involve improving ID鈥檚 reputation within the science community, as well as attempting to cast doubt on evolution, says Matzke.
Behe listed over 28 institutions where he had presented his ideas about ID. He also pointed out books in which he has written chapters on ID, alongside other prominent contributors to the debate. 鈥淚D relies on observable, empirical and physical evidence from nature, and logical inferences,鈥� Behe said.
He cited only one peer-reviewed journal article that he claimed dealt with the concept of ID, which he published in 2004, though admitted that the article contained no outright mention of irreducible complexity or, indeed, ID itself.
Behe will be cross-examined by the plaintiffs Tuesday. The trial is expected to run until 4 November 2005.
