For instance, the sidebar to Jill Lawrence’s “‘ID’ ruling traces idea’s problems” stated, “Proponents of the idea usually say they don’t know who or what that intelligent designer might be.” Such a characterization makes design theorists appear disingenious, suggesting as it does that we are trying to hide our religious convictions. But we have been quite clear about who we think the designer is.

For instance, Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet, has also written The Untamed God, a work of Christian theology delineating an orthodox view of the Biblical God’s triune nature. And Michael Behe makes no secret of being a Roman Catholic. He also notes, quite logically, that scientific evidence doesn’t tell us the identity of the designer. The microscopic rotary engine called the bacterial flagellum possesses the clear hallmark of design, Behe argues, but there’s no signature on the bushing of the motor that reads, “Created by Jehovah.”

The sidebar misses this point, but the Judge’s error is greater. Setting himself up as an expert on science, Jones argues that the scientific arguments of design theorists must be ruled out of the Dover classroom because these scientists are also interested in the positive cultural effects of overthrowing Darwinism.

But such fallacious reasoning also disqualifies the scientific arguments of Darwin defenders like Daniel Dennett, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins, for all are passionately interested in the metaphysical implications that Darwinism has for their anti-religious agenda.