Intelligent Design and Judicial Minimalism: Further Thoughts on the \u27Is It Science?\u27 Question

A few years ago, at a conference on religion in the public schools sponsored by the First Amendment Law Review at the University of North Carolina, I argued that although I thought Judge Jones\u27 opinion in Kitzmiller\u27 was mostly correct, the judge erred by deciding that Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. Although I continue to believe that teaching ID in public schools is unconstitutional-I have argued this point for a dozen years and will not reiterate my reasoning here -I also continue to agree with my original assessment of the judge\u27s treatment of the so-called is it science? question. In other words, I continue to believe that this particular aspect of the decision was unnecessary, unjustified (the judge did not explain why he was deciding the question), in excess of the judicial role, and unpersuasive, given the judge\u27s lack of training in the philosophy of science