Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, Pa. gave Harvard professors who support evolution new ammunition last month when he rendered it unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in a Pennsylvania public school science class.

Intelligent design refers to the idea that certain aspects of life are too complex to be a result of randomized natural selection, and thus must have come from an “intelligent designer.”

Despite the ruling, some Harvard faculty members say they worry that the battle over intelligent design may just be getting started.

Professor of Biology and Agassiz Professor of Zoology James Hanken opposes the teaching of intelligent design as an accepted scientific theory.

“The court ruling validated our position that evolution is real and that intelligent design shouldn’t be taught as scientific theory,” said Hanken, who serves as the director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology and works with the Harvard Museum of Natural History, which features exhibits on evolution.

But Hanken said that staunch supporters of intelligent design will not be halted by the court ruling.

“Some on the [intelligent design] side will appeal the judge’s decision as unfair on technical grounds or simply deny that he made the correct decision,” Hanken said.

Professor of Philosophy Edward J. Hall said there is still a chance intelligent design could be taught in science classrooms.

“Keep in mind that creationist sentiments have already had widespread and pernicious effects: namely, many high school biology teachers report that they simply avoid the topic of evolution, so as not to provoke controversy,” he said.

Hanken said he attributes the American public’s unwillingness to fully accept evolution partly as a result of this circumvention in schools.

“First off, evolution and evolutionary biology are given surprisingly little explicit attention in the standard school curriculum in both K-12 and colleges and universities,” Hanken said. “Your average person has been provided with little of the abundant evidence that evolution exists.”

Hanken also cited another reason for the general reluctance toward evolution.

“Some religions, or at least sects of certain religions, see evolution as being incompatible with their religious beliefs and so attempt to persuade people that evolution is not true,” he said.

Hanken said the continuation of these trends will damage the scientific education of the American student.

“Accepting intelligent design into the scientific curriculum would mean that students get a lousy education,” Hanken said.

Hanken said that if intelligent design is discussed in a non-scientific manner, it could be acceptable in the classroom.

“If you discuss intelligent design in the context of how science exists in a larger societal context, especially along with other non-scientific alternatives to evolution, that’s a different thing,” Hanken said.

Hall said that Harvard would benefit from a course that could explore intelligent design in a non-scientific setting.

“Courses that explore the various ways in which it is completely scientifically bankrupt would be a good idea,” Hall said.

Hanken, who said that Harvard scientists have a greater opportunity, but not a responsibility, to use their visibility to support evolution, said that he will work with other Harvard scientists to support evolutionary biology.

“Many Harvard scientists will continue to participate in public outreach, through writings, lectures, and assistance with public exhibits,” Hanken said.