Thus, it seems clear that intelligent design should be considered a religion for First Amendment purposes. - Eugenie Scott

ID, like creation science, has goals that are primarily religious.

Creation science argues that there are only two views, special creationism and evolution; thus, arguments against evolution are arguments in favor of creationism. Literature supporting creation science is based on alleged examples of evidence against evolution, which are considered not only proof against evolution but also positive evidence for creationism. Understandably, there is nothing in the creation science canon providing a positive scientific case for the sudden emergence of the universe in its present form at one time, let alone for its specific doctrines a six-thousand-year-old Earth and universe, the occurrence of a worldwide flood responsible for the fossil record and geological features such as the Grand Canyon, and the impossibility of evolution except within sharp limits.

By now it should be clear that “teaching the controversy” is not about the concern for good pedagogy but about advancing the antievolution agenda.