Panelists Discuss Banning of Intelligent Design

By Alisha Varner
Staff Writer

A federal court decision banning the teaching of intelligent design to students in the Dover Area School District was discussed by a team of five panelists on Nov. 11 at 3 p.m. in the Anthony F. Ceddia Union Building at Shippensburg University.

Panelists discussing the Kitemiller v. D.A.S.D. included U.S. District Court Judge John Jones III; Dover Area High School biology teachers, Jennifer Miller and Robert Eshbach; Lutheran Theological Seminary faculty member Warren Eshbach; and SU biology professor Tim Maret.

Kitzmiller v. D.A.S.D., decided by Jones in December 2005, stated that Dover Area School District could not teach intelligent design to its students.  The case was filed by 11 parents to overturn the 2004 decision by the school board requiring intelligent design to be taught as an alternative theory to evolution.

Discussion began with Miller and Robert Eshbach’s explanation of events leading up to the trial.  They had both testified at the federal trial.  

According to Eshbach, the controversy began when a board member brought the idea to the science department that there should be equal time given to creationism and evolution. Eshbach did not understand the controversy brought on by the school board.

“Creation and faith can go hand in hand with science,” Eshbach said.  “They were never in competition for me.”
The school board was so determined to have intelligent design taught in science classes, that it made the science department justify new textbook purchases.  According to Miller, the department had to validate the purchase several times because the book was heavy with Darwinism.

The school board refused to approve the book unless a book on intelligent design was also present. A compromise was made when 60 books on intelligent design were placed in the school library.  

Another change came for the science department when the school board wrote the curriculum for the first time, adding room for “other theories” of evolution to be taught.

According to Miller, the school board then wrote a statement that teachers were required to read to their classes explaining that intelligent design was going to be taught. Many teachers refused to read the statement, so administrators came in to read it.  Miller and some of her students left the room until it had been read.

The lawsuit was filed soon after. According to Jones, the lawsuit was based on the First Amendment.

“If you poll in the United States today you will find that between 40 and 50 percent of fellow Americans believe in some form of creationism,” Jones said.

He said that many wondered why the idea of intelligent design could not be voted in if the majority of the district wanted it.
 
This was irrelevant; however, because Jones cannot decide with the majority, he had to decide with the law.
According to Jones, The Dover Area School District spent over a million dollars in court fees on a policy that was unconstitutional. The decision was not a close call for him.

Warren Eshbach, a retired minister, also saw this decision as an easy one. He had become involved in the case because his son, Robert Eshbach, asked him to attend a school board meeting about the policy.

According to Eshbach, there were three unfair issues about the policy: the issue of religion and science, the separation of church and state and the poor leadership exercised by the school board. He said the way that intelligent design was presented, made it seem like a proven theory.

“I don’t think religion and science need to be pitted against each other in this debate because they are different,” Eshbach said.

Maret was the only panelist not directly involved with the trial. To support Jones’s decision, Maret said that intelligent design is a societal issue, not a valid scientific theory.

According to Maret, the “supernatural” cannot be tested for.

Therefore, it is not valid for science, Maret said.

“Religion is based on faith. Science is based on evidence,” Maret said. “They do not need to be in conflict.”
Audience members were given the opportunity to ask questions following the disucssion.

The debate was moderated by Joseph Shane, assistant professor of chemistry at SU.