The school board in Dover, Pa., added "intelligent design" to the 9th-grade biology curriculum.

* The school board in Dover, Pa., added "intelligent design" to the 9th-grade biology curriculum. Some parents, and almost all scientists, are outraged. They say that intelligent design is "not science." Even some proponents of ID concede that it would be premature for their theory to be taught in the classroom. But the question that is now before a federal court is not whether teaching ID is wise or foolish. It is whether it is illegal, a violation of the First Amendment. That amendment was originally intended (in relevant part) to keep Congress from either creating a national established church or interfering with states' established churches. It has been reinterpreted to empower federal judges to dismantle state laws and even local school boards' policies when those laws and policies are based on religious beliefs. ID proponents say that there are non-religious arguments for their approach. To strike down the policy, a court would have to determine that those arguments are weak or, more precisely, that they do not actually exist. Along the way it would have to issue an authoritative statement about the philosophy of science. Yet there is clearly no constitutional warrant for the courts to ensure that every public school in the country have an excellent science curriculum. If the courts returned to the original understanding of the Constitution, they would find that it makes for a workload that is more suited to their actual capabilities.