On September 26, an event that the national media will surely depict as a new Scopes trial is scheduled to begin. Hearings will commence in a First Amendment lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district over its decision to introduce “Intelligent Design,” or ID, into its biology curriculum. The analogy with the 1925 Tennessee “monkey trial” certainly has its merits. With a newly rejuvenated war against evolution now afoot in the United States, one being prosecuted by religious conservatives and their intellectual and political allies, it is virtually inevitable that the courts will once again serve as the ultimate arbiters of what biology teachers can and cannot present to their students in public schools.

In late July, two seemingly unconnected events transpired within hours of each other. First, President Bush nominated John Roberts, a conservative whose ideology-to-intelligence ratio remains unknown and perhaps unknowable, for the Supreme Court. Second, the American Journal of Public Health released a special supplement issue on scientific evidence and public policy, largely dedicated to excoriating a little-known but highly consequential 1993 Supreme Court ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony in court, known as Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.