HARRISBURG, Pa. — A school district’s policy to read a statement about “intelligent design” to high school science students creates misconceptions about evolution, a university professor testified yesterday in federal court.

“I can’t think of anything worse for science education than to engender needless misconceptions,” said Brian Alters, an associate education professor at McGill University in Montreal.

Alters was a witness for eight families suing to have the concept of intelligent design removed from the curriculum at Dover High School.

The families contend the policy promotes the Bible’s view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

Intelligent-design supporters 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.

The intelligent-design statement says Charles Darwin’s theory is “not a fact,” has inexplicable “gaps,” and refers students to a textbook called Of Pandas and People for more information. The science teachers have refused to read it to students, so administrators are doing so instead pending the outcome of the trial.

Alters called intelligent design a form of creationism that involves “breaking one of the ground rules of science” — the scientific method. Alters also said that reading a statement about intelligent design amounted to teaching.

“It’s a mini-lecture. I’m not saying it’s good teaching, but it’s teaching,” he said.

Robert Muise, a lawyer representing the school board, noted in his cross-examination of Alters that Pennsylvania’s science standards call for students to “critically evaluate” scientific theories, including evolution. He asked Alters whether he thought that was a “valid educational objective.”

“Yes, as long as one understands what it means in education,” Alters said. “It doesn’t mean you trash something.”

Two Dover parents who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Cynthia Sneath and Steven Stough, also testified yesterday.

Stough said he called the state’s American Civil Liberties Union chapter to complain about the curriculum change in November, after the school district issued a press release about the intelligent-design statement.

“This was the thing that put me over the edge,” said Stough, whose 14-year-old daughter is taking biology this year at Dover High School.

Sneath mentioned that her 7-year-old boy, the older of her two sons, has a strong interest in science.

“I depend on the school district to provide the fundamentals, and I consider evolution to be a fundamental of science,” Sneath said.

The trial is in recess until tomorrow, when Stough is scheduled to resume testifying.

Earlier yesterday, the school’s science department chairwoman, Bertha Spahr, was cross-examined on her prior testimony that the school’s science teachers objected to the curriculum change the board approved in October 2004.

Spahr said the teachers agreed with the board’s idea that they should point out problems with evolutionary theory and make students aware of other theories, but were opposed to mentioning intelligent design in class.

The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to last up to five weeks.

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being defended by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

(For more information on the trial, see the York Daily Record’s Web site.)