Analysis: Defining the Arguments

The pro-evolution side in this case is arguing that evolution is tested, verifiable science, while intelligent design (ID) is not, and fails to meet the verifiable standards set by science. The pro-ID side is arguing that ID is not a religious theory, but is instead a valid, verifiable scientific theory that should be taught in religious classrooms.

Primarily, religious studies are not allowed to be presented in education unless the setting is one of the instruction of religious studies, and in that case, the instruction can not favor one religion over another in order to avoid accusations of favoritism or endorsement.

To the pro-evolution side, criticism of ID is simply arguing that it is untestable, and thus cannot be science, and that its history is intractable from that of creation science and previous efforts to introduce creation science into the classroom. The pro-ID side argues that ID is simply an alternate theory to what they believe are insufficiencies regarding the theory of evolution, and that all religious criticisms are essentially smoke and mirrors by evolutionists.

In presenting the evidence, the ACLU primarily focused on both scientific arguments in favor of evolution, using scientists as expert witnesses, and on the religious nature and history of the intelligent design movement. Their efforts on the scientific front were to support evolution as a well-supported scientific theory, and while not a theory that explains everything, fits the definition of science due to its inherent testability and possibility for failure. In contrast, they aimed to present ID as inherently untestable and infallible, both of which are incompatible with our current definition of what science "is" and "isn't." By addressing the religious angle of ID, the ACLU also sought to firmly establish ID's religious origins as nothing more than rewritten creationism.

In presenting evidence in favor of ID, the Thomas Moore Law Center provided testimony from their own expert scientists, as well as suggestions that their theory was not, in fact, religious in nature and origin. The primary crux of their argument centered on the idea that evolution does not explain everything, and when something is unexplainable, it is most likely the work of an intelligent designer. Their appeal was one of simplicity, arguing in a downstream fashion towards what the simplest and least complex answer to a complex problem might be.

Evolution is far too often analyzed and tested to be considered a black box by the scientific community, but to the ID proponents they argue that it has become a black box due to its being unassailable. In the case, the ACLU argued about the evidence that supports evolution as a theory, defined what a theory is an isn't, and stressed that the single smallest bit of information could completely upend evolutionary theory and prove it to be an invalid hypothesis. They also contended that amongst all scientific theory, evolutionary theory has been subject to more tests and published papers than any scientific theory in the history of modern science. The ID proponents argued that evolution had no answers for some things yet, and their theory filled in these missing gaps, to which the evolution proponents argued that simply being unaware of the mechanisms of action, does not necessarily suggest intelligent influence, but only that we do not know all the answers yet.