[Steven] Stough, who teaches life science to seventh graders in a nearby district, is one of the 11 parents suing the Dover district. For him the notion of teaching "alternatives" to evolution is a hoax.

"You can dress up intelligent design and make it look like science, but it just doesn't pass muster," said Mr. Stough, a Republican whose idea of a fun family vacation is visiting fossil beds and natural history museums. "In science class, you don't say to the students, 'Is there gravity, or do you think we have rubber bands on our feet?' "

The defendants will call experts to argue that teaching the controversy is beneficial for students. Trouble is, there is no scientific controversy to teach. The argument that "alternative views" should be taught in science class would make sense if those competing views were based on science, not religion.

[Evolution] is the foundation of biological science, with no credible challenges within the scientific community. Without it, the plaintiffs say, students could never make sense of topics as varied as AIDS and extinction.

The plaintiffs plan to demonstrate that intelligent design is creation science in a new cloak. The Supreme Court decided in 1987 that public schools can't advance religion by teaching creation science. The plaintiffs also intend to discredit intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution. Welcome to the modern version of the Scopes trial.

Witold J. Walczak, legal director of the A.C.L.U. of Pennsylvania, said the plaintiffs would call six experts in history, theology, philosophy of science and science to show that no matter the perspective, "intelligent design is not science because it does not meet the ground rules of science, is not based on natural explanatio