HARRISBURG -- Pen in hand, Matthew Chapman blended in easily with the other journalists covering the landmark federal trial over whether public schools can teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution.

Mr. Chapman, though, was the only one whose ancestor's reputation was on the line.

	Carolyn Kaster, Associated Press
	Matthew Chapman, the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin.

Mr. Chapman, who is writing for Harper's magazine, is the great-great-grandson of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution has been central to the case.

Eight families are suing because Dover High School's ninth-grade biology curriculum requires teachers to read a statement about the theory of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution and refers them to a library for more information. The families say intelligent design is a thinly veiled version of Biblical creationism, and that presenting it violates the separation of church and state.

In defending its decision to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design, the Dover Area School Board has argued throughout the trial that Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has "inexplicable gaps."

Evolution is as well-established as the theory of gravity, Mr. Chapman, 53, of New York City, said after listening incredulously to 21 days of testimony, which wrapped up yesterday.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said he will try to issue a ruling by the end of the year, but it could take longer.

"This issue is important to everyone so I'll try to get it in, at latest, by early January," he said.

Call it nepotism, but if Mr. Chapman were judge, he'd side with supporters of his progenitor's famous theory.

It's one thing to tell students that the theory of intelligent design exists, but it should not be presented in science classes as an alternative to evolution because it has no basis in science, Mr. Chapman said during a break in the trial.

"I equate it to teaching about the Holocaust. I don't think you'd want Holocaust denial taught in history. Here's a topic as fringe to science as Holocaust denial is to history."

Proponents of intelligent design have argued that evolution does not fully explain the origin of life so it must be the result of an unnamed intelligent designer.

The fact that proponents don't name a designer doesn't mean they aren't talking about God, plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild said yesterday during closing arguments.

"This board imposed their religious views on the children of Dover High School," he said. Parents "did not agree to have this board commandeer the religious education of their children."

Defense attorney Patrick Gillen argued that his clients were motivated not by religion but by the desire to encourage students to think critically.

"This was about teaching how to think, not what to think," he said.

During the arguments, Mr. Chapman stroked his chin and leaned forward in his chair in the jury box, where journalists were permitted to sit.

"All of this is so unnecessary," he said during a recess. "People can believe in God and they can believe in evolution, too."