In September 2005, a federal district judge in Pennsylvania began presiding over the nation’s 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’s 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’s 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.

Keywords: Law and Religion, Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, First Amendment, Constitutional Law

Size: 336 KB
Est. download time @ 28.8K: 12 seconds

Adobe Acrobat Reader v3.01 or greater is required to view this paper.
To obtain a free copy, click the button below

Jay D. Wexler Contact Information

jaywex@bu.edu
Boston University School of Law
765 Commonwealth Ave
Boston, MA 02215
USA
(617) 353-2789

Presentation and Publication Information:

Forthcoming in the Washington University Law Quarterly

On Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:

http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=815604

Click here to close this window.