Intelligent Design and the First Amendment: A Response

In September 2005, a federal district judge in Pennsylvania began presiding over the nation\u27s first trial regarding the constitutionality of introducing the concept of intelligent design (ID), a purportedly scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, into the public schools. My previous work has argued that teaching ID in the public schools would raise serious constitutional problems. In a series of writings, including a full length book and several articles, Baylor University professor Francis Beckwith has argued that public schools may constitutionally teach ID. In doing so, Beckwith has critiqued a number of arguments I have previously advanced in my own writing, calling them, for example, wide of the mark and patently unreasonable. In this essay, I respond to Beckwith\u27s arguments regarding ID, both those that specifically critique my own arguments, as well as those that stand on their own. Specifically I disagree with Beckwith in three substantive areas: whether courts should find that ID constitutes a religious belief, whether the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard casts doubt on the constitutionality of teaching ID, and whether teachers have any first amendment academic freedom right to teach ID in direct contravention of clear school policy