Here is a copy of my letter to the editors of First Things concerning law professor Robert T. Miller’s essay on the Kitzmiller case, along with Miller’s reply to me. I’m very pleased to have had my letter published in FirstThings, a journal I esteem highly (notice that my letter follows one by Mike Behe).
In his reply to me, Miller says I understimate “how unusual Kitzmiller was.” Maybe, but I don’t think so. I don’t think it was an “unusual” case at all. Rather, given the record concerning the school board’s motivations, I think it was right in line with a long string of “creation science” precedents.
Miller also criticizes the notion that “intent” is enough for an establishement clause violation. He sides with Justice Scalia’s view of the establishment clause, which requires a substantive evaluation of a challenged policy, not merely an examination of legislative intent. I might agree with Miller that the establishment clause should be read as Scalia suggests (though I would probably disagree with him that this should compel a rejection of an ID-teaching policy), but that is not the law as it now stands or as interpreted and applied by Judge Jones. Judge Jones applied Justice O’Connor’s “intent” based test, found the school board’s policy wanting, and then went ahead and pronounced on the philosophy of science anyway. I think that was a misuse of the judicial office, even though I think the end result was problably correct under the circumstances of this particular case.