Double victory in Dover.

Judge John E. Jones' decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ("Victory in Dover!," February Church & State) is an unassailable legal and scientific rebuttal to the concept of intelligent design (ID).

The ID policy miserably failed the endorsement and Lemon tests; any objective and reasonable observer--either a Dover student or citizen--would perceive that both the purpose and effect of ID is a clear state endorsement of religion and would inhibit, rather than promote, critical scientific thinking.

Moreover, ID was decisively debunked as a scientific theory--it invokes supernatural causes; it has not generated one hypothesis that is empirically testable; it is not supported by one single peer-reviewed publication; it neglects plausible naturalistic explanations of phenomena, like blood-clotting; and its "positive argument" is a weak argument by analogy.

There will doubtless be newly devised, fundamentalist religious ideas to challenge scientific teaching in our high schools in the future. These ideas are appealing since they provide easy and absolute answers and relieve believers of the arduous life-long task of self-reflection and critical thinking. Nonetheless, Jones' use of the endorsement test to debunk the pretensions of ID can also serve to inspire students and citizens in our country to combat false beliefs by promoting the ideal of a "reasonable, objective observer."

All of us should strive to be as objective and impartial in weighing evidence and to be open to altering our ideas--religious or otherwise--based on the empirical evidence of the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences.

As Judge Jones notes, such an observer is admittedly "hypothetical," but this is merely another way of saying that it is an ideal worthy of our most strenuous effort.

--Lou Matz

Assoc. Prof. of Philosophy, University of the Pacific, Stockton, Calif.