This June 7 marked the centennial of the greatest American science fiction writer. What would Robert A. Heinlein, a man frequently identified as being on the right, in spite of his complex views that often contradicted the dearly-held shibboleths of both liberals and conservatives, have to say about intelligent design? As it turns out, he had something to say about it, back when it was less-stealthily disguised as “scientific creationism”. I guide you to pages 549-550 of Expanded Universe (1980. NY: Ace Books):

If it suits you to believe that Yahweh created the universe in the fashion related in Genesis, I won’t argue it. But I don’t have to respect your belief and I do not think that legislation requiring that the Biblical version be included in public school textbooks is either constitutional or fair. How about Ormuzd? Ouranos? Odin? There is an unnumbered throng of religions, each with its creation myth—all different. Shall one of them be taught as having the status of a scientific hypothesis merely because the members of the religion subscribing to it can drum up a majority at the polls, or organize a pressure group at a state capital? This is tyranny by the mob inflicted on minorities in defiance of the Bill of Rights.
Revelation has no place in a science textbook; it belongs under religious studies.
If almost everyone believed in Yahweh and Genesis, and less than one in a million U.S. citizens believe in Brahma the Creator, it would not change the constitutional aspect. Neither belongs in a science textbook in a tax-supported school.