HARRISBURG -- Plaintiffs in the landmark "intelligent design" trial continued to make the case yesterday that the concept is devoid of science, brimming with religion and something that shouldn't be mentioned in public schools as an alternative to Darwin's evolution.

Robert T. Pennock, a Michigan State University science and philosophy professor who did his doctoral work at the University of Pittsburgh, testified as an expert witness on behalf of 11 parents who sued Dover Area School District in York County last year. Pennock said that intelligent design -- the idea that nature's fine print points to evidence of a designer -- is a form of creationism, specifically crafted to test evolution. "The terminology is different, but the underlying concepts are straightforwardly connected to the [creationism] view," he said.

Showing that intelligent design isn't science is step one for the plaintiffs, who want U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to overturn the school district's October 2004 directive that school officials read to ninth-grade biology students a statement saying Darwin's theory has several gaps. The statement offers intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

The next step is showing that Dover's school board had God on its mind when it considered the curriculum change, violating the separation of church and state.

Plaintiffs testified yesterday that the school board discussed God, creationism and intelligent design "hand-in-hand." Plaintiff Julie Smith testified that her daughter came home from school one day and told her, "Mom, evolution's a lie. What kind of Christian are you, anyway?"

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also offered as evidence a 2004 letter-to-the-editor written by school board member Heather Geesey. In it, she wrote: "Our country was founded on Christian principles ... You can teach creationism without it being Christianity. It can be presented as a higher power."

Attorneys defending Dover Area asserted that scientists can believe in God and still be in good standing. They also tried to draw a distinction between the design concept and its proponents -- a scientific theory doesn't cease to be "scientific" just because its advocates happen to be Christian, said Pat Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center.