Monday, January 30, 2006

Intelligent Design II

The discussion by Professor Wexler was enjoyable. He began by saying that he doesn't think that the Establishment Clause problem posed by the intelligent design debate is an easy one to answer. And I agree. Whether or not ID is science that should be taught is a question that doesn't bear heavily (if at all) on whether ID is enough of a religion that it's teaching violates the Constitution.

For the science question, I spent some time reading Michael Behe's testimony and his arguments aren't easily dismissed. He's an intelligent, reputable scientist who believes that Darwinian theory cannot adequately explain many aspects of life (blood clots being the famous example). But, in my opinion, ID fails as a science because it looks to a supernatural explantation for data, rather than a natural one.

For the Constitutional question, Wexler comes down on the side of ID being unconstitutional. The problem with this though is that the Court is now in flux and the endorsement test used by O'Connor might be in jeopardy and Scalia and others have expressed willingness to reevaluate establishment clause doctrine.

After the Dover case, it looks to be ID's move -- it will be interesting to see how they proceed. I might be writing a paper on the topic soon, so we'll keep you posted. As will Panda's Thumb, ThomasMore and others.