On Dec. 20, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that schools may not inform students of the theory of intelligent design (ID) in science classes, giving the enemies of religion another victory in the "Culture Wars." In his ruling, Federal Judge John E. Jones III said that such teaching violates the constitutional separation of church and state and concluded that ID is religious teaching and not a scientific theory. The case arose in late 2004 when the Dover Area School Board passed a resolution saying that students would be made aware of gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution and would be taught other theories, including intelligent design. The resolution specifically stated that the origin of life would not be taught in school. The board adopted a statement to be read to ninth grade biology students. A number of parents reacted by filing suit to block the board's plan, which would have been implemented in January 2005. The controversial statement What could have aroused so much controversy and led some parents to believe they must take legal action to protect their children? Ninth grade students were to hear the following: "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. "Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments" ( Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, pp. 1-2, www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf). "Congress shall make no law..." The court said this statement is unconstitutional because it would be perceived by parents and students as a state endorsement of religion. Judge Jones's 139-page opinion includes references to legal precedents and labyrinthine reasoning to be expected in a court document, but despite its formal language, it conveys some simple messages very clearly. Challenges to teaching evolution as established fact will not be tolerated by the U.S. court system; the subject of religion has no place in American schools; and those who believe in a Creator God are deluded fanatics. The role reversal of the past few decades in the United States is amazing. In the early 20th century, religious people used terms of dogmatic condemnation and contemptuous dismissal in discussing the theory of evolution, but now those favoring evolution use similar language for those who espouse a view of intelligent design. Has blind faith in evolution become a religion itself? The whole tone of Judge Jones's ruling indicates that belief in evolution has become fundamental to our society. Some educators are pleased by the ruling's thorough summary of ideas. However, others are bothered by the fact that while the judge has barred teaching ID in science classrooms, he stopped short of forbidding it in social science classes. Many will not rest until mention of God and religion has been entirely banished from schools. This is reminiscent of the Orwellian idea that if the words describing certain ideas are eliminated from the language, the ideas themselves will soon cease to exist. Matching the change in belief among American leaders of higher education, there has been a dramatic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution in recent decades. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This was to prevent the mandating of a state religion, as well as the use of federal taxes for the support of any particular church. In 1789 several states did financially support their dominant church, so political leaders wanted to make sure that the national government did not use its greater resources to give any one denomination preference throughout the new country. Mountains of evidence exist to show that the founding fathers did not at all believe that the first amendment prohibited the government from allowing religion in general or Christianity in particular. "Not establishing religion" becomes "not mentioning religion" It was not until a century and a half later that people would reinterpret the clear meaning of this amendment into saying that the federal government could have no association with religion at all, rather than that it could not financially support a specific church. The same type of reasoning wrung from the 14th amendment an interpretation saying that the same restrictions applied to state and local governments. This would prohibit, among other things, prayer in public schools and the teaching of creation as an explanation of the origin of life. The actual purpose of the 14th amendment was to give U.S. citizenship to former slaves who were emancipated after the Civil War. Judges and lawyers have no excuse not to know the genuine interpretation of these laws, which any high school history teacher could explain. Courts have made an inexplicable leap from prohibiting Congress from "establishing" a church to forbidding any action in a public school that might possibly be considered as "endorsing religion." As frustrating as incorrectly interpreting the Constitution to ban religion from schools is to Christians, Judge Jones's ruling breaks new ground by declaring intelligent design to be religion and not science. His opinion devotes considerable space to his reasons for this conclusion, and it includes some readily evident flaws. Judge Jones says that while intelligent design may be true, it cannot be science because it leads people to believe in a Creator, and it has been established that believing in a Creator is nonscientific. By an ironic circle of reasoning, creationism is condemned because there is no scientific evidence for it, but then intelligent design is condemned because its analysis of scientific evidence may lead people to a belief in God. The ruling condemns intelligent design as science because it cannot be tested and proven through experimentation, but the ruling makes no mention of the fact that evolution as an explanation for the origin of species (much less of life itself) also cannot ultimately be tested and proven through experimentation. Further, the court cites as evidence that ID is not science the fact that peer-reviewed scientific journals have not printed articles in support of ID. This criterion makes the acceptance of ID as a scientific theory dependent upon the very people whose reputations and careers would be destroyed if it were accepted! Another inherent contradiction in the judge's opinion says that those promoting the teaching of intelligent design impose a "contrived dualism" that insists that creation and evolution are the only two explanations for the origin of life. But the decision requires teachers to teach only one idea about the origin of life by default—that it must have evolved. Brilliant but uninformed on the most important knowledge A student of the Bible reading Judge Jones' opinion would almost surely be reminded of the apostle Paul's letter to the church in Rome and believe that he had prophetic knowledge when he wrote: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:18-20). This court decision applies only to the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district, but it will have wider ramifications. It will surely be used as a precedent by interest groups going to court in other areas to prevent schools from teaching an alternative to evolution. Activist judges are certain to cite this case as a precedent. In Kansas, new statewide standards deliberately cast doubt on evolution and will almost certainly spark a legal challenge. The Dover case or a similar one will probably be appealed and will most likely reach the U.S. Supreme Court. This adds importance to the battle between conservatives and liberals in the Senate over President George Bush's nominations to the nation's highest court. The potential for overturning the protection of abortion afforded by Roe v. Wade dominates discussion of the Supreme Court's future, but its impact on education should not be overlooked. If the court upholds the continued expunging of any reference to religion or a Creator in schools, our society will continue further on a course wherein our future leaders, "professing to be wise, they become fools" (Romans 1:22), that is, unknowing about the most important type of knowledge—the spiritual. On the other hand, a more conservative court that could overturn previous rulings banning religion from schools, might also remove safeguards that protect those with nontraditional religious beliefs from persecution. Such a change in the legal environment would have serious implications for many readers of this publication. Whichever direction the courts go in the future, Christians will do well to pay close attention.WNP