View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 4 I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CREATION THEORY AND THE CONSTITUTION .......... 6 A. The Supreme Court and Creationism............................................... 7 B. The Evolution of Creationism......................................................... 13 1. The First Edwards Factor: The Conflict Between “Creation Science” and Mainstream Science....................... 14 2. The Second Edwards Factor: The Historical Linkage Between Creationism and Religion........................................ 15 3. The Third Edwards Factor: The Inherently Religious Nature of a Supreme Being..................................................... 18 C. The Further Evolution of Creationism: The “Intelligent Design” Movement.......................................................................... 19 * Matthew J. Brauer is Research Staff, Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University; B.A. (1988), University of California, Berkeley; M.S. (1988), University of Texas; Ph.D. (2000), University of Texas. Barbara Forrest is Professor of Philosophy, Department of History and Political Science, Southeastern Louisiana University; B.A. (1974), Southeastern Louisiana University; M.A. (1978), Louisiana State University; Ph.D. (1988), Tulane University. Steven G. Gey is David and Deborah Fonvielle and Donald and Janet Hinkle Professor of Law, Florida State University; B.A. (1978), Eckerd College; J.D. (1982), Columbia University. The authors appreciate comments and support from Dennis D. Hirsch, Capital University Law School; Daniel Brumbaugh, American Museum of Natural History; Robert T. Pennock, Michigan State University; and Glenn Branch, National Center for Science Education. 1 Washington University Open Scholarship p 1 Brauer Forrest Gey book pages.doc 9/1/2005 2:31 PM 2 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [VOL. 83:1 II. INTELLIGENT DESIGN’S RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND RELEVANT PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES........................................................................... 24 A. Intelligent Design as Religion......................................................... 27 1. ID’s Religious Roots ............................................................... 27 2. ID’s Religious Essence ........................................................... 32 3. Intelligent Design’s Religious Structure and Content........... 38 4. ID's Rejection of Naturalism .................................................. 44 a. Error 1: MN as Arbitrary and A Priori......................... 48 b. Error 2: MN’s Supposed Entailment of PN (and Atheism) ....................................................................... 52 c. Error 3: A Thinly Disguised Supernaturalism .............. 58 5. ID’s Religious Motivation and Goals .................................... 59 B. ID as Traditional Creationism........................................................ 69 1. ID’s Creationist Supporters ................................................... 74 III. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN .............................................................................. 75 A. What Constitutes Controversy?...................................................... 77 1. The “Endosymbiosis” Controversy ....................................... 77 2. The “HIV/AIDS” Controversy ............................................... 79 3. The “Origins Controversy”.................................................... 80 4. Inventing a Controversy ......................................................... 82 B. Intelligent Design’s Contributions to the “Origins Controversy” ................................................................................... 85 1. Retreat from Objectivity: The Pseudo-scientific Methodology of ID.................................................................. 85 2. Retreat from Rigor: The Vagueness of ID Theories.............. 90 3. Retreat from Exposure: How ID Shields Itself from Scientific Criticism.................................................................. 94 C. A Vast Scientific Wasteland ............................................................ 97 1. Why teach ID? ........................................................................ 97 2. How to teach ID?.................................................................... 98 D. Science in the Subjunctive Mood .................................................. 100 IV. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FLAWS OF “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”.................. 101 A. Intelligent Design and the Epperson/Edwards Schematic........... 101 B. The New Legal Battlegrounds Over Intelligent Design Creationism ................................................................................... 105 1. Intelligent Design in State Science Standards and Achievement Tests................................................................. 106 2. The Defeat of the Santorum Amendment and its Aftermath ...................................................................... 111 https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 p 1 Brauer Forrest Gey book pages.doc 9/1/2005 2:31 PM 2005] IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM SCIENCE? 3 3. Textbook Disclaimers ................................. 115 4. Textbook Adoption Controversies........................................ 118 C. The Intelligent Design Plan for Circumventing Edwards and Epperson ................................................................................... 120 1. If It Isn’t Religion, Then What Is It? .................................... 120 2. Intelligent Design and the Problem of Religious Speech by the Government ................................................................ 130 3. Is it Science Yet? ................................................................... 144 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 149 ABSTRACT On several occasions during the last eighty years, states have attempted to either prohibit the teaching of evolution in public school science classes or counter the teaching of evolution with mandatory references to the religious doctrine of creationism. The Supreme Court struck down examples of the first two generations of these statutes, holding that they violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A third generation of creationist legislation is now being proposed. Under this new generation of creationism legislation, science teachers would present so-called “intelligent design” theory as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent design theory asserts that a supernatural intelligence intervened in the natural world to dictate the nature and ordering of all biological species, which do not evolve from lower-to higher-order beings. This article considers whether these intelligent design creationism proposals can survive constitutional scrutiny. The authors analyze the religious, philosophical, and scientific details of intelligent design theory, and assess these details in light of the constitutional doctrine developed by the Court in its previous creationism decisions. The Article discusses several factors that pose problems for intelligent design theory, including the absence of objective scientific support for intelligent design, evidence of strong links between intelligent design and religious doctrine, the use of intelligent design to limit the dissemination of scientific theories that are perceived as contradicting religious teachings, and the fact that the irreducible core of intelligent design theory is what the Court has called the “manifestly religious” concept of a God or Supreme Being. Based on these details, the authors conclude that intelligent design theory cannot survive scrutiny under the constitutional framework used by the Court to invalidate earlier creationism mandates. Washington University Open Scholarship p 1 Brauer Forrest Gey book pages.doc 9/1/2005 2:31 PM 4 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [VOL. 83:1 INTRODUCTION