Conclusion: Where does the argument go now?

The players:

The four continuing players will be the National Center for Science Education, the ACLU, the Thomas Moore Law Center, and the Discovery Institute. The NCSE is dedicated to a robust scientific curriculum in schools, and will still face criticism and attempts to challenge evolution with intelligent design arguments. The ACLU will continue to argue and challenge instances where it believes religion is being introduced into science. The Thomas Moore Law Center will continue to be a foil to the ACLU, and will argue for increased integration of religion and schooling. The Discovery Institute will continue to argue for intelligent design, arguing that their theory is valid science and explains the natural processes for the origin of life in a more substantial way than evolution does. After their stinging rebuke in the case, the Discovery Institute will most likely repackage intelligent design in a way that fits closer to the guidelines of science that were re-affirmed by Kitzmiller.

Subsequent legal examinations of this case will be elaborated on in the next post.

As for the nature of science, this case has reaffirmed the traditional definition of science being constrained to observations of the natural world, and explanations for those observations are guided by natural laws. Supernatural or otherworldly explanations for natural phenomena are not allowed in scientific discourse, which is a black box that certain people would definitely like to see opened. Should the court case have determined that ID is in fact science, it is possible that other, untestable hypothesis would be subsequently allowed as well. Perhaps it is best that the foundation of all modern technology and progress be kept a closed, black box.