Minnesota Law Review

Note, Fruit of the Poison Tree: A First Amendment Analysis of the History and Character of Intelligent Design Education

Since the famous Scopes Trial in 1925, religious groups have struggled to introduce into public school science education a theory of human origin predicated on a supernatural creator. The latest theory to challenge evolution is Intelligent Design. Although this theory makes no explicit reference to religion or God, it propounds an unidentified supernatural agent who designed all life. As public school districts around the country start to consider adding Intelligent Design to their science curricula, proponents of evolution are claiming that it is merely another inherently religious idea that public schools cannot constitutionally teach.

This Note evaluates the constitutionality of teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classes. It applies both the test that the Supreme Court uses to evaluate Establishment Clause challenges in the education context and an alternative test used by some lower courts and commentators.

Intelligent Design is the latest in a long line of religious theories the teaching of which has consistently been struck down by the federal courts. Independent of this historical pedigree, Intelligent Design postulates the inherently religious idea that a supernatural designer created life. Because of this historic link to creationism and inherently religious nature, teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classes violates the Establishment Clause.

Additionally, this Note considers and rejects two commonly proposed justifications for teaching Intelligent Design: academic freedom and the furtherance of scientific literacy. However, it concludes with an explanation of how public schools can constitutionally present a comprehensive human origin education while also describing Intelligent Design and the controversy surrounding its teaching.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]


cforms contact form by delicious:days