A new legal precedent has been set in the battle of free speech. While Christians in particular are accustomed to having their free expression suppressed by a misuse of the First Amendment, today marks the first time it has been cited in order to silence those outside the religious community. Calling it “the progeny of Creationism” Federal District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Intelligent Design in violation of the amendment’s Establishment Clause and therefore unconstitutional.
For the sake of those who do not have the Establishment Clause memorized, it is as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is clear that this amendment was added specifically to limit the power Congress can leverage over the people it governs, so in order to be a violation of this clause, the following conditions must be met:
- Congress has made a law.
- That law either respects an establishment of religion or prohibits its free exercise.
Well, in this particular instance, Congress was in no way involved. This was a case of an elected board of school officials notifying students that there is an alternative to Darwinism known as Intelligent Design. Inasmuch as Congress was not involved and no law was being made, notifying students of alternative scientific theories is not in any way a violation of the First Amendment.
The only way a violation case can be made with any degree of legitimacy is if we venture into the void of the “[wall of] separation between church and state”; a phrase that gains its power from its vagueness. The controversy over this argument aside, it can only be pertinent if Intelligent Design is proven to have been an attempt to introduce religion into the school’s curriculum. This was, however, not the case. Intelligent Design is not inherently religious and does not explicitly claim the existence of a deity. It is not, as some claim, a veiled attempt to introduce Creationism to school children, for where Creationism claims and names God, Intelligent Design merely claims that scientific observation indicates that life on this planet was intentional rather than accidental.
Interestingly enough, neither Judge Jones III nor any of Intelligent Design’s other detractors have approached this theory from a scientific standpoint. Although scientific theories ought to be evaluated based upon a series of tests and observations, Intelligent Design is being judged based not upon its scientific merits but rather upon its implications. The opposition has not addressed the theory’s evidence but has instead dismissed it out of hand simply because it allows for the possibility of God’s existence. Such an allotment is deemed “faith” and thus impermissible in the public classroom.
But what of its claims? Ought not their veracity be investigated? If they’re junk science then by all means discard them, but they should at least be addressed before being dismissed. I don’t believe it is too much to expect that those writing science books will teach truth as it can best be determined. I don’t believe it is too much to expect that scientists will seek the truth regardless of its implications, and I don’t believe that a scientist’s faith should bias his research. Even when that faith is Atheism.
In the end, the legality of teaching Intelligent Design needs to be determined solely by answering the one question that can put a quick end to all of this senseless arguing–”Is it true?” Nevertheless, this question continues to elude the major media outlets, the Evolutionists, and Judge Jones III.
You would think that those on both sides would want to settle the matter as honestly and completely as possible. You would think they’d arrange for some side-by-side evidentiary comparison before the world’s top scientists. Yet for all your thinking, you’d be wrong, for while Intelligent Designers are eager for such a debate, it appears Evolutionists would prefer not to subject their claims to scrutiny and thus jeopardize their stranglehold on public education.