In Dover Trial, ACLU's Expert Witness Mischaracterizes Intelligent Design

Sep 27, 2005, 01:00 ET from Discovery Institute

    HARRISBURG, Pa., Sept. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover
 Area School District opened in federal court yesterday with the ACLU calling
 its first expert witness in an effort to tell the court how it should define
 science. The ACLU is suing the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania for
 adopting a policy that requires students to listen to a three-paragraph
 statement about the theory of intelligent design.
     The ACLU's first expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller, testified that the
 scientific theory of intelligent design is untestable and therefore
 unscientific. Later he contradicted himself by proceeding to discuss how he
 has made various arguments in scientific forums testing design theory.
     "Most of Dr. Miller's testimony today against intelligent design was
 simply based upon a misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent
 design," said scientist Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and
 legal affairs with Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
     "Dr. Miller's testimony is disturbing because it demands that the Court
 rule on the nature of science and the validity of scientific
 theories -- matters which should be left to scientific experts and not be
 decided by courts," added Luskin.
     Miller also blatantly mischaracterized intelligent design theory as an
 argument for a "supernatural agent."
     "The scientific method has been used in many fields to detect the action
 of intelligence in the natural world," explained Luskin.  "Actual statements
 by intelligent design proponents clearly show that the scientific theory of
 intelligent design does not attempt to address religious questions such as the
 nature and identity of the designer, and thus it avoids such untestable
     Even the textbook under debate, "Of Pandas and People" (Pandas) makes it
 eminently clear that a scientific theory like intelligent design cannot
 identify the designer, and cannot state if the designer was supernatural or
 natural (see pages 7, and 127-127).
     Miller also claimed that "Pandas" offers no positive case for design, even
 though the textbook clearly states that "[i]f experience has shown that a
 certain class of phenomena results from intelligent causes and then we
 encounter something new but similar, we conclude its origin also to be from an
 intelligent cause" (page ix).
     The trial continues and Discovery Institute Fellows will continue
 reporting on the trial at

SOURCE Discovery Institute