HARRISBURG, Pa. — A lawyer for two newspaper reporters subpoenaed in Dover’s intelligent-design trial said yesterday that the presiding judge has agreed to limit questioning of the reporters, averting a legal showdown over having them testify in the case.

Both reporters wrote stories that said Dover Area School District board members mentioned creationism as they discussed whether to include intelligent design in the curriculum. Board members have denied that.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories — and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.

“They’re testifying only as to what they wrote,” said Niles Benn, attorney for The York Dispatch and the York Daily Record/Sunday News, the papers that employed the two freelancers.

The school board’s lawyers objected on the record, creating a potential basis for an appeal, Benn said. He said the plaintiffs did not object.

Reporters Joe Maldonado and Heidi Bernhard-Bubb were subpoenaed but declined to give depositions on Sept. 27, citing their First Amendment rights. A lawyer for the school board had said he planned to seek contempt citations against the two.

The judge’s order clears the way for the reporters to provide depositions and testify on Oct. 6.

In October 2004, the Dover school board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps,” and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Eight families are trying to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. They say it promotes the Bible’s view of creation.

Testifying yesterday on behalf of the plaintiffs, a Michigan State University professor said intelligent design is a form of creationism and is not based on scientific method.

Robert T. Pennock, a professor of science and philosophy, said supporters of intelligent design don’t offer evidence to support their idea.

“As scientists go about their business, they follow a method,” Pennock said. “Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn’t really fall within the purview of science.”

Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses.

Meanwhile, plaintiff Christy Rehm testified yesterday that her 14-year-old daughter had not heard about intelligent design yet in school, but the concept was already a hot topic of conversation among her classmates. Rehm said her daughter, who is taking biology this year, has come home upset about remarks made to her by other students.

“My child has heard comments from other students, ‘Do you really think we came from monkeys?’ ” she said.