Arizona Lawmaker Proposes Teaching Intelligent Design in Schools

Arizona’s educational landscape may soon find itself at the center of a renewed debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Sen. David Farnsworth plans to introduce legislation requiring schools to present “intelligent design” alongside evolution, a move he acknowledges aligns with the teachings of creationism.

Farnsworth, a Republican from Mesa, revealed the idea came from a constituent and he intends to propose it during the 2026 legislative session. “If we’re going to teach that man came from monkeys, I think we ought to give a choice,” Farnsworth stated, highlighting his belief in presenting alternatives to the theory of evolution.

Intelligent design suggests some features of life are so complex they must have been created by a higher power rather than through natural selection. Farnsworth openly admits that while he uses the term “intelligent design,” he considers it synonymous with creationism.

However, Sen. Mitzi Epstein, a Democrat from Tempe, criticized the proposal. “I think that understanding the scientific method is something that maybe we should request lawmakers to learn before they write bills,” Epstein remarked, emphasizing evolution as a scientifically supported concept. Epstein added, “I don’t know what intelligent design is the product of.”

Farnsworth’s bill, SB 1025, echoes past legislative efforts in Arizona that date back over forty years, when similar proposals failed to gain traction. In 1983, a bill requiring both evolution and creationism to be taught was passed by the legislature but was vetoed by then-Governor Bruce Babbitt.

Farnsworth acknowledges the challenges his proposal faces, especially under Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs. “Whether it is politically feasible or not is questionable,” Farnsworth conceded, though he believes in the merit of offering students a choice in what they learn about human origins.

Farnsworth clarified that his intention is not to eliminate the teaching of evolution, but to provide an alternative perspective, urging for “honest seekers of truth” in classrooms. Yet, he avoided detailing the scientific basis for creationism, stating, “I don’t need to prove that to you. To me, it’s what I know in my heart is true, besides all the biblical references.”

Epstein reiterated the significance of keeping religious teachings separate from public education, reflecting on the implications of the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision. The court ruled that a similar Louisiana law violated the Establishment Clause by mandating the teaching of creationism alongside evolution.

Farnsworth remains optimistic despite legal precedents, attributing past court rulings to a misinterpretation of the separation of church and state. He argues that current interpretations of this principle are flawed, suggesting that “there’s supposed to be a separation between church and state” does not prohibit discussions of God in government contexts.

Epstein counters that teaching religion in public schools encroaches on establishing a state religion, which court rulings consistently oppose. She noted that “if you teach a particular religion in a public school, paid for by the state, then the state is awfully close to establishing a religion.”

Previous attempts to modify educational standards in Arizona have also faced significant hurdles. Efforts in 2013 and 2018 to introduce alternatives to evolution in the curriculum did not succeed, reflecting ongoing challenges in altering how science is taught in schools.