Here in Missouri, the annual intelligent design bill has died with the end of the legislative session. Every year, several representatives from Missouri's rural areas introduce some sort of creationism bill. This year, the bill contained the latest anti-evolution line - students must analyze the "strengths and weaknesses" of the science evolution, with the weaknesses being defined as whatever creationists say they are.
As long-time creation/evolution watchers know, modern creationism/intelligent design was never much more than an attack on evolution, instead of a positive theory. By requiring that 'weaknesses' of evolution be taught in school, creationists aren't really doing anything new; they're just trying to open a legal door for the same material they've been peddling for decades.
The interesting thing about the Missouri bill, as the National Center for Science Education points out in its report, is the long explanation of what the bill supposedly isn't:
This section shall not be construed to promote philosophical naturalism or biblical theology, promote natural cause or intelligent cause, promote undirected change or purposeful design, promote atheistic or theistic belief, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or ideas, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
Well, saying so doesn't make it true, but in any case, isn't it odd that a bill about science isn't intended to "promote natural cause"? Physics, biology, chemistry, geology - the natural sciences are all about understanding natural causes. Why shouldn't a science bill be construed to be about natural causes?
The bill's authors are giving the game away - it's no secret that Intelligent Design proponents don't like current definitions of science, and they want to redefine science to include supernatural causes, as the Kitzmiller court found in the Dover, PA intelligent design trial:
First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.
Fortunately, Missouri has been spared this redefinition of science for another year.
