The Secret Goals of the Intelligent Designs Proponents

Surely you are aware that a Pennsylvania school district is currently embroiled in litigation regarding a requirement that students learn the so-called "intelligent design" explanation for the current state of nature in biology classes.

This case took an interesting turn this week when Alan Bansell, the President of the school board, was caught in a lie, and caught by the judge no less. Bansell had stated in two depositions that an unknown donor gave $850 to buy textbooks on intelligent design. A former board member, William Buckingham, testified in court that he did not know who donated the money. Later in court however, Bansell admitted that the money was given to him, as a check (not very anonymous), from Buckingham himself (This walks very close to the line of conspiracy to commit perjury, aside from the two separate perjury charges these individuals should face - reminder, you are under oath in a deposition).

Covert Motives
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing a religious practice or ideaology or being employed to promote the religious ideals of some group or individuals. The school board argues as their defense that intelligent design does not promote a religious doctrine or ideaology - if it does, using public school to teach it is unconstitutional.

Former school board member Aralene Callahan testified that Bonsell, “while at a district-sponsored retreat in March 2003, said he ‘did not believe in evolution’ and that if evolution needs to be part of the science curriculum, it should be balanced out ‘50-50’ with lessons on creationism,” long ago declared unconstitutional. Buckingham also advocated at board meetings for a textbook that included the biblical view of creation. “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross,” he said. “Can’t someone take a stand for him?”

A fourth board member, Heather Geesey stated in a letter admitted as evidence at the trial that, "You can teach creationism without its [sic] being Christianity. It can be presented as a higher power." Sounds like she is advocating teaching religion under pretext. The same letter also commented that "Our country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles."

If you have any remaining doubt about the religious motives behind this policy consider the statement by Albert Mohler Jr., the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in defense of intelligent design: “Evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality . . . Debates over education, abortion, environmentalism, homosexuality and a host of other issues are really debates about the origin -- and thus the meaning -- of human life,” Mohler said.

Teaching evolutionary theory, Mohler argues, is a "rejection of traditional morality."

In court, the argument the argument is starkly different. There, the school board members proclaim that intelligent design is a scientific theory. Is it science or religion? And aren't they upset because evolution is 'only a theory'?