Return to Intelligent Design stories index

© 2006 Dendrite Forest, Inc.
Letter from Lead Plaintiff to FMHS Principal
and Superintendent

Letter dated December 5, 2005

Dear Dan [Penner],

On the evening following our conversation in your office December 01 wherein I aired my concerns about the proposed class titled “Philosophy of Intelligent Design,” Sharon Lemburg called me to discuss the matter. I understand that you had suggested that she call me to try to put my concerns to rest. Thank you for making the suggestion, and I am glad we talked. After talking with her about the subject, I am more concerned rather than less concerned.

This class is clearly an attempt to bring Intelligent Design into the public school cloaked in the robes of science. I suggested to Ms. Lemburg that ID might be appropriately discussed in the Comparative Religions class that is being offered at the same time. This was unsatisfactory to her.... In the written class description there is a statement that “Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.” This is beyond the claims of ID and well into the realm of creationism. She stated that the original title of the class was “Creationism vs Evolution.” She stated that she wanted to be a moderator and to present all sides....

I mentioned during my conversation ...that it is simple to debunk the notion that ID is science. Here it is for completeness.

The Scientific Method

Science works through a multi-step process known as the Scientific Method:

A gap in knowledge is identified.

The literature is consulted to see if anyone else has already resolved the issue and if so, is the resolution satisfactory.

A plausible explanation is proposed (a hypothesis). This hypothesis must have an important property: It must be testable. That is, it must make predictions that can be verified or not through observation. Evolution for example predicts, among many other things, that we should not expect to see vertebrate fossils in pre-Cambrian rocks.

The observations are made to test the hypothesis. If the predictions are verified, confidence in the hypothesis is increased.

The results are published, and other people will subject the hypothesis to further tests.

If the hypothesis continues to lead to successful predictions, it will become a theory.

Thus, we see that a scientific theory is an explanation with considerable testing and observation behind it, not something to be lightly dismissed as “only a theory.”

ID departs from the scientific method at the third step above. It does not make any testable predictions, so it does not qualify as a valid scientific hypothesis.

This is brought home clearly when one considers that if ID were a scientific theory, then one would reasonably expect to find that its adherents would have some significant scientific discoveries as a result of their insight. There are none. In fact, the central premise of ID—that certain things are “irreducibly complex” and therefore they must have been created by an “intelligent designer”—discourages inquiry.

Evolution, on the other hand has many predictions and discoveries, and encourages inquiry. Why do we need a new flu shot every year? Evolution. What lead us to attempt genetic engineering? An understanding of how genes work, founded on evolution.

In my conversation with you on December 01, you mentioned that two reasons that had been brought to you for why this class should be taught were based in the ideas that 1) ID should be taught out of “fairness” and 2) that the school should make an effort to “teach the controversy.”

The origins and proponents of ID come from evangelical fundamental Christian organizations. Is it fair to allow these organizations to incorrectly claim a scientific endorsement of their beliefs, and to have their beliefs presented in the public schools as science? The other major religions make no such demands.

....This class brings up significant constitutional issues as illustrated by the quote below from The Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 83:1, 2005, page 105: When intelligent design theory is analyzed under the constitutional framework used by the Court to invalidate earlier creationist mandates, it is evident that legal requirements to teach intelligent design cannot satisfy the constitutional standard set forth in Epperson and Edwards. Every major aspect of intelligent design supports this conclusion: The absence of objective scientific support for intelligent design; the strong links between intelligent design and an evangelical religious agenda; the use of intelligent design to limit the dissemination of scientific theories that are perceived as contradicting religious teachings; and the fact that the irreducible core of creationist theory is the “manifestly religious” concept of a God or supreme being. Unless the Supreme Court is willing to abandon its own recent precedents and overrule Epperson and Edwards—and there is no evidence that a majority of the Court is inclined to do so—the various efforts to legally mandate the teaching of intelligent design are doomed from the outset.

This makes it clear that any court challenge to the teaching of this class as proposed must be taken very seriously. Such court challenges are already underway in other parts of the country. Given the limited resources of our small school district, it would seem prudent to allow others who are already started to bear the cost of deciding this issue in the courts. In the future, when the courts have decided, there will be time for the district to consider this issue again if desired.

I hope that you and the district will consider these issues carefully. A class that portrays ID as a serious scientific alternative to evolution has no place in a public high school supported by people of all faiths and beliefs.
Dr Ken Hurst
cc: John Wight

Return to Intelligent Design story index