Nova-Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Nova-Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

This is a film in form of a documentary. The film is a production of NOVA and Vulcan productions, and with association of the Big Table Film Company. The senior executive producer of the documentary was Paul Apsell. The movie represents the case between Kitzmiler V. Dover Area School district and centered on the issue of intelligent science. The central issue about the case was whether intelligent design is supposed to be viewed as science and taught in the science class.

The movie features various interviews with witnesses, lawyers, and even judges and features re-enacted scenes. The film adopted the official transcripts of a real trial. In this movie, both plaintiff and defendants are provided with equal opportunities to air out their views and opinions about the issue at hand. The idea of Darwinism evolution has overtime elicited mixed reaction from various quarters and therefore, the case helps to create understanding through the various opinions that people elicit about evolution and the idea of intelligent design. The two topics have over the time elicited debate between scientist and the religion fraternity.

The requirement by a school board in Pennsylvania that biology high school teachers in Dover area read a disclaimer that regarded evolution, which stated that evolution theory contained flaws in its evidence triggered teachers to go to court to sue the board. The policy required that teachers use an intelligent book referred to as “of panda and people” to teach intelligent design in school. However, teachers refused to read the disclaimer hence resulting to this lawsuit between Kitzmiler v Dover which aimed at stopping the school to mandate teaching of intelligent design. Other issues that cropped up during this case were whether the defendants had knowingly aspired to introduce the idea of creationism in the public schools within Pennsylvania State.

The defendant argued that it was imperative for intelligent design to be taught in school because it was part of evolution. However, on the other hand, the plaintiff argued that it was not a scientific theory but a religious doctrine and therefore, it was not supposed to be introduced in science class. The need to differentiate between state and religious is clearly defined in the constitution and therefore, to the teachers, it was not right for the defendants to force them to teach intelligent design as a science.

The court ruling previously suggested that teaching of creationism was unconstitutional and it was violation of the separation between state and church. However, after seeking views and opinions from the scientists, the judge ruled the case in favor of the plaintiff that indeed, intelligent design was a religious theory and therefore, was not supposed to be taught in science class as a subject.

I am also in support of the case ruling. Intelligent design cannot be taught in science because it is a field that relates to religion. Furthermore, the constitution provides a clear cut between state and religion. Therefore, it is imperative that the Darwinism revolution be taught in schools. Intelligent design contravenes the idea and the requirements of science and therefore, school should not mix religion and science. The intelligent design therefore, cannot be introduced in school and taught with evolution theory of Darwinism. The ruling and the entire film was therefore a success. There is need for the two areas to be distinguished, and science should not be taught alongside religion.