Creationists are getting more creative. Advocates of intelligent design are starting to design their agenda more intelligently. So they're not talking about creationism and intelligent design as much. Some of them sound downright . . . scientific.

The Texas State Board of Education is considering whether science classes should talk about the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. This has alarmed those who are easily alarmed by any perceived threat to scientific dogma. "Very often over the last 10 years, we've seen anti-evolution policies in sheep's clothing," laments Glenn Branch, who is deputy director of an anti-creationism outfit in California.

That's true. But the new disguise is especially sneaky, since it rests on the premise that evolution is open to question.

Which it isn't.

Or is it?

It certainly is if you're Don McLeroy. McLeroy does not believe in evolution -- period. "I just don't think it's true or it's ever happened," he says. The provable scientific evidence for evolution? "It's just not there," he contends. McLeroy does not believe the Earth is billions of years old. He believes our planet came into being just a few thousand years ago, incredible as that might seem. "I believe a lot of incredible things," he told The New York Times. "The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the God that created the universe."

McLeroy is the chairman of the Texas Board of Education. So you can see why the prospect of requiring Texas schools to teach "both sides" of the debate might alarm those who harbor a fondness for empirical evidence. When folks like McLeroy raise the possibility of discussing the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, it's a fair bet they're not interested in open-minded exploration of the issue. They're more like Yasser Arafat suggesting the need for a frank discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of Zionism. A balanced discussion is not what they're after -- and is not going to change their minds.

You know what, though? That's OK.

IT'S OK FOR two reasons. The first is that the theory of evolution is strong enough to withstand skepticism. And it keeps getting stronger, because the evidence supporting evolution continues to grow. If creationists were right about the ease of refuting evolution, then scientists would continue to find more reasons to doubt it. They don't. They find just the opposite.

What's more, a robust discussion of the strengths and supposed weaknesses of evolution could help clear up some misconceptions. For example, science teachers might gently point out that natural selection -- the process through which genetic mutations give some offspring a greater ability to survive and reproduce -- simply doesn't bear on whether God created the universe. They're entirely unrelated questions, even though creationists often confuse the two. If science classes met such red-herring objections head-on, then perhaps public understanding of the issue might improve.

The second reason it's OK to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of evolution is that we shouldn't mind when non-scientists want to employ scientific principles. In fact, that should be encouraged as much as possible, because it is so instructive.

For instance, three years ago the Templeton Foundation -- an organization that seeks to bridge the gap between science and religion -- sponsored some courses and conferences on Intelligent Design. Then it asked proponents of ID for actual research proposals. But none came in. ID's proponents were all hat and no cattle: They were happy to talk about the ostensible weaknesses of evolution, but they weren't willing or able to demonstrate the strengths of ID.

THAT'S BECAUSE creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. Scientific hypotheses and theories are open to testing, verification, and -- crucially -- falsification. That is what makes them science. By contrast, creationism cannot be tested, verified, or falsified. Creationists do not seem open to the possibility that their beliefs someday could be proven wrong.

When scientists recoil from skepticism about evolution, they sound just as hidebound, and creationists exult in denouncing their seeming doctrinal rigidity: Look! More blind faith! But the most fundamental lesson in the science classroom is not whether evolution is right or wrong. The most fundamental lesson is that science is willing to entertain both possibilities.

Could the strengths-and-weaknesses ploy end up teaching kids some misconceptions about evolution? Sure. But no lasting harm will be done if, in the process, they learn to think about such questions in the right way.

My thoughts do not aim for your assent -- just place them alongside your own reflections for a while.

--Robert Nozick.
Contact A. Barton Hinkle at (804) 649-6627 or bhinkle@timesdispatch.com.