"Isn't it a shade inconsistent to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you would welcome legal judgments against teaching intelligent design as a viable explanation for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws?"
1) That is not what ID claims to be.
2) Students in a government school should not be subjected to religious instruction, which ID is.
3) Nobody here is saying that ID/creationist proponents can't do as much *research* as they want, nor that they can't write articles, books, make speeches, whatever, to try to persuade people that ID/creationism is correct. The line is drawn when they want to use tax dollars to teach their religious based claim to students.
I'm curious as to what is particularly "religious" about the inference that, where there is organized matter, an intelligent designer might be involved. I'm also curious as to where in our Constitution the free exercise of religion is prohibited in a public context. Lastly, as I said, I find it rather inconsistent for you to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you argue for squelching free inquiry by law.