Scholar says intelligent-design text intended as primer on creationism

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A textbook advocating "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in high-school science classes was written originally as a biblically based creationist text, a philosophy professor testified yesterday in a federal trial over the teaching of evolution.

Barbara Forrest, who reviewed early drafts of the book, "Of Pandas and People," said the term "creationism" was later replaced by "intelligent design" when the book's first edition was published in 1989.

"My conclusion is that [creationism and intelligent design] are interchangeable, that they are virtually synonymous," said Forrest, who teaches at Southeastern Louisiana University. She was the first witness called by the plaintiffs in the second week of the trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The book, published by the Texas-based Foundation for Thought and Ethics, was originally titled "Biology and Creation" in a 1986 draft. But its authors, Dean Kenyon and Perceval Davis, shifted to the use of "intelligent design" after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1987 banned the teaching of creationism in public schools, Forrest said.

A group of parents in Dover, Pa., sued the School Board after it approved a policy last year requiring that a statement be read in high-school biology classes promoting intelligent design as an alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The statement also directed students to read "Of Pandas and People" if they wanted to learn more about intelligent design.

Forrest reviewed drafts of the textbook as a witness for eight families who are trying to have intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum.

The families contend that teaching intelligent design effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation.

Intelligent design holds that life on Earth is so complex that it must have been the product of some higher force. Opponents say intelligent design is simply creationism stripped of overt religious references.

Forrest outlined a chart of how many times the term "creation" was mentioned in the early drafts versus how many times the term "design" was mentioned in the published edition.

"They are virtually synonymous," she said.

The plaintiffs, represented by a legal team assembled by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans for the Separation of Church and State, are seeking to halt the practice of representing intelligent design in schools, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Forrest took the stand as an expert in the history of intelligent design, despite strenuous objections from defense attorneys who argued that she was not a scientist and, therefore, not qualified to testify about science.

"She is going to claim that intelligent design is not science but she has no scientific background," said Robert Muise, a lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center, which is representing the school board.

Judge John Jones III ruled that Forrest's scholarly work qualified her to speak about the history of intelligent design.

In cross-examination, attorney Richard Thompson tried to demonstrate that Forrest, a member of the ACLU and several other civil-liberties groups, was motivated by her personal secular beliefs.

He then went on to ask whether the groups to which she belonged were similar to groups promoting intelligent design because they have a mission and espouse alternative points of view.

"No," said Forrest. "They are not promoting a religious view as science."

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.