Although a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled it is unconstitutional to teach Intelligent Design as a science in public schools, several ISU professors want the discussion to continue.

District Judge John E. Jones III sided with eight families who argued that “intelligent design,” which attributes the existence of complex organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause, is biblical creationism in disguise.

“The decision said explicitly that ‘ID is not science,'” said Hector Avalos, associate professor of religious studies. “After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

Last August, Avalos created a petition for faculty who do not support the teaching of Intelligent Design as a science. More than 120 signatures were obtained from faculty at Iowa State and the University of Northern Iowa.

“ID miserably failed its first big federal court test,” Avalos said. “The decision reiterated powerfully what ID critics in Iowa have been saying all along: Intelligent Design is a religious concept, and not a scientific one.”

Thomas Ingebritsen, associate professor of genetics, development and cell biology, taught an honors seminar last semester titled “God and Science.” He said Intelligent Design was discussed in the seminar.

“It’s a very minor part of the course,” Ingebritsen said. He said the decision made in Pennsylvania isn’t mandatory on college campuses and he plans to continue to discuss Intelligent Design.

“I don’t think [the decision] will affect my course because we look at several different views,” Ingebritsen said. “I don’t necessarily promote ID, but rather talk about why it’s controversial.”

John Patterson, professor emeritus of materials science and engineering, said he hopes the decision doesn’t make the issue die away, but rather generates more discussion as to why Intelligent Design doesn’t work. Patterson said he became involved in the debate in 1978 when he discovered some classes at Iowa State were teaching scientific creationism.

“What I’m concerned about is that this issue will die away because of the decision, and the real discussion that should be had will never be had,” Patterson said. “That discussion has to do with what is the nature of science and why is Intelligent Design not qualified to be taught in science classes.”

Patterson said that he would not be against teaching Intelligent Design as a “counterfeit science.”

“I wouldn’t mind seeing some of these pseudo-sciences included in the science classroom, as long as they are included as what science is not,” Patterson said.

Avalos said Iowa State will be offering an honors seminar on the nature of science. A lecture is also scheduled for Feb. 2 about why Intelligent Design is not a scientific endeavor.

Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy and Intelligent Design advocate, was unavailable for comment.