For the last few weeks, the ID folks have been having their say in the Dover, Pa., "intelligent design" trial. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones 3d may rule as early as mid-month.

At issue is whether the Dover school board can order teachers to read a statement about "intelligent design" (ID) before they teach ninth-grade biology classes on evolution. ID argues that life's complexity did not arise by chance (as in Charles Darwin's view) but rather is the work of a knowing, planning designer.

Judge Jones should rule against the Dover board. ID deserves passing mention - sidebars in textbooks, perhaps, and some class discussion - but not mandated inclusion in science classes. Why? Because as science, ID just doesn't cut it.

Here is the pro-ID strategy, and why it just doesn't hold up:

• Poke holes in Darwin's theory of evolution.

  The ID side talks of "gaps" in the evolutionary record - but such claims have been decisively disproven. They say evolution can't account for the origins of life. True - but then, it doesn't claim to. Evolution is an account of the development of species, not the beginning of life. That does not weaken one of the healthiest, most richly demonstrated theories in all science.

• Refute the notion that ID is "religious."

  Lehigh University biochemist Michael J. Behe, a major pusher of ID, said that this theory doesn't commit you to any single religion. And crafters of ID have been careful not to mention the word "God."

  True, accepting ID does not make you a Catholic, a Hindu, a Jew, or a Jain. It does, however, posit an unseen creator. That's so close to "religious" that it's wrong to mandate it - even four paragraphs of it - in public school science classes.

• Assert that ID is a "scientific theory."

  Not. ID, so far, can boast no experimental evidence, and only a handful of scholarly papers, out of thousands published each year. Far from an "alternative" to Darwinism, ID remains but a pale objection.

  True, as Steve Fuller, a sociologist at the University of Warwick in England, testified, science welcomes new ideas. But not just any ideas. To fly as science, a theory must undergo a brutal battery of questioning, experiment, replication, and debate. ID is now undergoing that process - and doing very poorly.

  That doesn't mean God does not exist. Random mutation might be God's plan in action.

  Yes, ID is "new." Yes, it does challenge scientific ideas. But mere novelty doesn't give you validity. Neither does mere disagreement. What gives you validity is whether you can strut your stuff, and so far, ID has neither stuff nor strut. It cannot be tested or demonstrated.

• Portray this as an "academic freedom" issue.

  Yes, students deserve to hear as wide a range of ideas as possible. But in science, they also deserve the best ones. It does students a terrible, unforgivable disservice to make the science classroom an anything-goes playground subject to the whim of special-interest groups.

Judge Jones' ruling will directly affect only the Dover school district - but it will affect science teaching in all our secondary schools. Best say "no" to the Dover school board - but encourage students, teachers and textbook writers - everyone - to acknowledge the human wonder at that great mystery: Why we're here.