In 2005, a Federal Judge in Georgia ruled that any sticker or notice violated the separation of Church and state, “Due to the manner in which the sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution eduction. . . The distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make. And in doing so improperly entagles religion and education” (Larson, 318).
Creation science now had to change, and now became intelligent design. Numerous districts either required it to be taught, or required statements about it be read at the same time as the teaching of any Darwinian theory. The first case, however, to test an individual districts policy to teach intelligent design. The plaintiffs argued that intelligent design was, in fact, creationism as an alternative to evolution. This, they further argued, had been established by the Court to be unconstitutional. The suit was brought in the U.S. Distrcit Court and was tried as a bench trial late in 2005. The Judge found that any mandate which required any statement to be read was clearly unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs were correct — intelligent design was nothing more than creationism repackaged (Ibid).
In American public schools, religion may be taught about, but not taught. This means, religion may be presented as an historical or philosophical debate, as long as belief systems or spirituality are neither taught nor given predominance by the teacher. The idea of evolution is central to almost every biological and scientific paradigm in contemporary culture, and must be taught in order to students to be well informed. The idea of taking a non-scientific concept and presenting it as science does not make it science, regardless of how it is dressed up.
After Kitzmiller, creationists used the Bush administrations conservative views to introduce the idea that God could be a part of school, but couched in terms that were more palpable to the intelligentsia.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that intelligent design is scientifically improbable and historically and conceptually aligned with creationism, the teaching of evolution in the public schools remains controversial and under siege in some communities. It is a challenge to teach something so controversial, but it is essential for the intellectual development of children.
Indeed, the idea of presenting fairness in a classroom situation is untenable when trying to teach a religious-based concept next to a scientific-based set of principles. When we teach the Civil War, we do not typically teach the point-of-view of the religious fundamentalists who argued the pro-slavery stance. Indeed, it is not the job of the teacher to “teach” every point-of-view. Instead, the modern teacher should focus on presenting standard curriculum ideas and then the means and ability to find additional materials, analyze and synthesize source materials, and come to a considered conclusion. One cannot argue faith, nor should one. One can, however, ask students to accept that there are numerous points-of-view held at different times in history. These points-of-view, for example, National Socialism, may not be acceptable from a modern moral standpoint. Therefore, the key to a free thinking and intelligent student is to take responsibility for ones education and thought, research the situation, and then consider what answer might work for the individual. The science curriculum, however, should not be up for debate. The Court has decided that creationism and intelligent design are not science, and any presumption or warning about the teaching of evolution is contrary to the Constitution. Let creationism or intelligent design be taught in the Church, let evolution be taught in the schools. Let students, as they mature, come to their own conclusion or adapt the information for their needs. Above all, teach to think, teach critical questioning, teach ways to find out facts and opinions, and above all, teach to remain open minded. Only in this way will we protect the precious intellectual tradition and responsibility we.