Those who had stood in opposition to the Christian faith, the most notable supporters of intelligent design for the time, had found a way to explain the world with out having to fall back on a designer. The opportunity was seized and slowly, very slowly at first, chance evolution was given more time and weight in presentations. Academics in higher education were even more bold, as they began to prepare the next generation of teachers to the young. Presenting to them the “intelligence” in human reason that had determined the process of evolution in opposition to the simple-minded tradition of a designer, which had been blindly followed for centuries.

And so things changed. Slowly, bit by bit, the theory of chance evolution came to be presented as fact and replaced the myth of intelligent design. But something happened that the evolutionist had not planned on. Scientist who bucked the status quo. Scientist who put as much research into proving the need for an intelligent designer to explain the origins of life. Scientist who were willing to point out the fallacies and holes in chance evolution.

And so, almost one hundred years later, the two sides return to court. Again, a group of educators were willing to challenge the status quo and present chance evolution as a theory, not fact, and equally present intelligent design as a theory.

But the Federal court has spoken. Declaring that intelligent design has no place in the classroom. Declaring that intelligent design is nothing but a subversive attempt by Christians to force their teaching into the classroom along side evolution. Even with a hope of replacing fact with an ancient myth.

I am willing to give this Judge the benefit of the doubt. I am willing to believe he simply missed the point. That those supporting intelligent design, were not asking that chance evolution be removed from the classroom, but that it be taught, as the courts had originally intended, as a theory along side other theories. For that is what they are, theories. While we may be able to prove the supporting legs of various theories, none of the theories themselves can be proven. None of us was there. In fact, no matter which theory you support, no one was present to document the events. If no one was present, then to follow any theory is an equal matter of faith. Therefore, teaching both is not an attempt to usurp fact with myth, but to lay all the cards out for review.

No, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. For to do otherwise, is to see a much darker picture. A world where a man sits in judgment of faith and not of law. A world where open discussion and free thought are squelched and children are indoctrinated with views in opposition of the tradition of their families. A world where God has no place among the intelligent. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and pray that the Supreme Court will choose to review the case and see the truth.