Monkey See, Monkey Do

CBS' Andrew Cohen On The Intelligent Decision Court Ruling

(CBS)  There is literally nothing in the long opinion that ought to give aid and comfort to supporters of Intelligent Design, who of course are free to continue to believe it in outside of the context of the public school system in Dover.

"Intelligent design" has a "religious nature and aspiration()," Judge Jones found, and "not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by (Intelligent Design) could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition…. The evidence at trial demonstrates that (Intelligent Design) is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."

How bad was it for the school board? Even its own expert, the judge noted, "stated that the disclaimer about evolution was "misleading."

Moreover, the judge found, "every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether 'Intelligent Design' is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such… Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science."

The panda book, meanwhile, to which students were supposed to be referred as part of the disclaimer, was determined by Judge Jones to contain "outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even defense experts in the case."

And, just in case supporters of Intelligent Design were hoping that Judge Jones would find something in their case evidence to humble the theory of evolution, he found that their positive evidence in favor of Intelligent Design "demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution."

In other words, a tactic designed to undercut the theory of evolution may actually have bolstered it. The judge was careful to note that he expressed "no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation." But his thorough analysis of Intelligent Design as a so-called science, and especially in comparison to the theory of evolution, leaves little doubt that he considers it bunk.

If Intelligent Design itself was unable to withstand the intense glare of a federal trial, then its supporters on the school board fared even worse.

In November, they were tossed out of office, eight out of nine of them (with the ninth in a recount), by an angry populace embarrassed at being ridiculed throughout the rational world. And in Judge Jones' ruling, their testimony was mercilessly dissected. One former board member, the Judge noted, couldn't even get the words of "Intelligent Design" correct; she referred to it repeatedly during her testimony as "Intelligence Design."

The story of what happened to and by the school board of Dover, Pa. is truly worthy of an Arthur Miller play. According to the evidence as evaluated by Judge Jones, a bunch of manipulative board members in Dover decided that they wanted to inject into the science curriculum of their public schools a religious element that they knew or reasonably should have known to be impermissible under the First Amendment.

Yet they tried anyway, going to somewhat comical lengths to try to get around what they knew or should have known was well-established and well-reasoned law. In so doing, they subjected themselves to scorn and the notion of Intelligent Design to the kind of scrutiny it clearly could not withstand.

It may be decent fodder for a college philosophy or religion class but, if Judge Jones is correct, Intelligent Design has no place swimming with the big boys of science.

The moral of this case is that a rose by any other name is still a rose or, as Judge Jones wrote over and over again in his order, religion by any other name is still religion that is prohibited in public schools by the Constitution.

In the end, as the judge declared, the folks who pushed Intelligent Design didn't come off looking very intelligent at all. And the folks who opposed it ended up advancing the theory of evolution more than they could have dared dream they would.

Darwin would be proud of this ruling. And come to think of it, so would Clarence Darrow.