It is not a violation of separation of church and state to teach intelligent design in classrooms. Precedent and research demonstrates that in teaching intelligent design (ID) we have a duty to explore, or possibly mandate, which materials are allowed to be taught and what conclusions can be made within the context of the classroom. To be clear, intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism carries the premise that a divine creator acted and created the universe. By comparison, ID does not identify any creator but merely seeks to offer explanation and theory to the origin of complex life forms just as Darwinism or evolution does. ID is theory that can be researched, discussed, and tested in light of current evidence. I argue that if the particular organization or school teaching ID has a purely secular reason and the curriculum proves education for the students then it is within the law. In my argument I would like to cite two US court cases, Lemon v. Kurtzman and Edwards v. Aguillard.

Lemon v. Kurtzman is the classic Supreme Court ruling that many ID advocates and opponents refer to in critiquing any program that seeks to establish the teaching of ID in schools. When the court reached its decision in 1971 the “Lemon Test” was incepted in American jurisprudence. The Lemon test is regulatory clause that can be used to test the validity of any legislation supporting ID curriculum. The Lemon test consists of three mandates:

• The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
• The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
• The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

These guidelines can be used to support legislation that allows for a curriculum to be compiled that draws no religious or spiritual conclusion, is not affiliated with any religious group, and enhances the education of a body of students. In an article written by Jonah Avriel Cohen, a supporter of evolutionary theory, titled ‘Why Intelligent design theory ought to be taught’ (http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/why_intelligent_design_theory.html) he writes: “Fact: The theory of intelligent design goes back at least as far as classical Greece and it has been debated in nearly every century since then.  Our century is no different. Those who advocate intelligent design are not 'disguising' anything; they are not furtive men. They are offering for your consideration an idea that has intrigued the minds of everyone from Plato to Kant, an idea that possibly began when Socrates asked: 'With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of choice or design?'

Regarding the argument that ID is creationism in disguise, as some assert, Jonah replies: “Now, because the design argument can be found in Plato's dialogues, we can deduce that the theory not only predates the theory of creationism — which was but one religious response to Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) — it is also not wedded to Judeo—Christian scripture.

Edwards v. Aguillard was a case that appeared before the Supreme Court in 1987. This case ruled that those teaching creationism that advanced religious thought was unconstitutional. According to the researchers at Ideacenter.org this trial provides the “framework under which a legislature might pass an acceptable bill regarding the teaching of science” (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1184). The case concluded “If the Louisiana Legislature's purpose was solely to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction, it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind. (Edwards at 588) (Emphasis mine). Therefore, teaching the theory of intelligent design is not pushing religion on our children, it is actually bringing them up to date with history’s greatest questions and research that has created some of the greatest minds ever known. To say that intelligent design violates separation of church and state is equivalent to saying that teaching evolution is hateful rhetoric that is offensive to those people of faith. It is not; it is theory based on science and research, nothing less.

For further research:

Foundation for thought and ethics- http://www.fteonline.com/

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center- www.ideacenter.org

Intelligent Design Network- www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org