Last year (Nov. 19, 2004), the Dover, Pennsylvania School District issued a statement to be read in biology classes which says, in part:

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book "Of Pandas and People" is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.

Parents, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit in December against the school district, which is backed by the Thomas More Law Center, a religiously grounded nonprofit law firm.

The bench trial began September 26 in Harrisburg. Intelligent Design supporters testified that evolution simply cannot explain all the complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent designer. "Of Pandas and People" (which was donated to the school district) states there is no evidence of a Precambrian fossil record. These arguments were countered in the trial by scientific evidence for evolution, including slides of Precambrian fossils. Other evidence of evolution includes the links between birds and dinosaurs, as well as the Cambrian explosion, during which life massively diversified some 530 million years ago and evolved into life today.

In Kansas, the State Board of Education (which hosted its own "trial" last May during which proponents of Intelligent Design openly criticized evolution and science) has revised its statewide education standards to include skepticism on evolutionary theory. The board will vote on the final standards at their November meeting. In 1999, the Kansas state school board revised the standards to weaken evolution. Following public outcry, the "creationists" were voted off the board, and the newly elected board members overturned the previous decision.

The Intelligent-Design challenge to teaching evolution in Kansas and elsewhere is a well-funded, long-term, subtle and sophisticated political effort with implications for science everywhere. People must realize that this is a political fight, not a scientific debate, and scientists must respond accordingly.

Part of that response should be to quit engaging in polite Sunday-school philosophical or religious discussions and to instead start playing political hardball, using the rough-and-tumble rules of real politics. Instead of defending evolution, scientists should focus on evidence that demonstrates a clear lack of Intelligent Design, such as the human pelvis, which is tipped forward for convenient knuckle-dragging at such an angle that only by extreme spinal curvature can humans stand erect, a design defect that would flunk any first-year engineering student.