1. In 1968, in Epperson v. In Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas law that prohibited the doctrine of evolution. The Court declared the law unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning be adapted to the principles or prohibitions of a particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 pp. Ct.
266, 21 L. Ed 228) But for this strategy to succeed, proponents had to convince the courts that „scientific creationism“ was more than just Sunday school in disguise. In McLean v. In the Arkansas case (1982), a federal district court struck down the Arkansas Equitable Treatment Act, ruling that it simply omitted biblical references without actually changing the religious purpose of the law. The Court also developed a definition of „science“ and concluded that „science of creation“ does not meet that definition. Wendell Bird served as Louisiana`s special assistant attorney general in that case and later became counsel for the Institute for Creation Research and the Association of Christian Schools International. [12] Bird later wrote books that promoted creationism and taught it in public schools. The state argued that the law was intended to protect academic freedom. But the court disagreed. In its opinion, the Court stated that it would normally bow to the „articulation of a secular objective“ of a State, but only if the declaration of intent is „sincere and not misleading“. After reviewing the legislative history, the court concluded that the term „science of creation“ as used in creationist law embodies a religious belief – namely, that a „supernatural creator“ is responsible for the creation of humanity. The court noted that in passing the law, the Louisiana legislature gave preference to certain religious groups, that is, groups that believe in a divine creator.
And because the main purpose of the creationist law was to „support a particular religious doctrine,“ the law violated the founding clause. Justice Jones also relied on evidence of the events that led the Dover School Board to adopt the identification policy. Testimony showed that many school board members spoke during the debate about their belief in creationism and the need to reconcile evolution and creationism. Some members of the school board were openly religious. And one member, when asked about the allegedly anonymous donation of 60 copies of the ID manual (Pandas and Men) to the school library, didn`t realize that the money for the textbooks came from a collection he had taken with him to his church. This case and other cases of perjury led Justice Jones to conclude that there is no credible evidence of a sincere secular purpose behind the school board`s identification policy. In a lengthy statement (139 pages), the judge summarized the six-week testimony. He detailed the basis for his conclusion, namely that „the secular ends claimed by the board constitute a pretext for the true purpose of the committee, which was to promote religion in the classroom of public schools, which violates the establishment clause.“ 2. In 1981, Segraves v. In the state of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education`s scientific framework, as written and constrained by its anti-dogmatism policy, sufficiently reflected Segraves` views, contrary to his assertion that class discussion of evolution prohibited the free exercise of religion by him and his children. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions about origins should emphasize that scientific explanations should focus on the „how,“ not the „ultimate cause,“ and that all speculative statements about origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally and not dogmatically.
The court`s decision also ordered the Board of Education to extend the policy, which was extended in 1989 to all areas of science, not just those related to evolution. (Segraves v. California (1981) Sacramento Superior Court #278978) F. Elk Grove School District v. Newdow (2004): The court did not decide the case, but dismissed the plaintiff`s claim on a formal basis. The U.S. Supreme Court and a number of state courts have addressed the issue of teaching creationism in public schools.9 Virtually without exception, these courts have ruled that requiring instruction on creationism is a clear violation of the founding clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the enactment of a law that respects a religious institution. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court elaborated on the triple test of lemon to determine whether the law violated the establishment clause: „First, the legislature must have passed the law for a secular purpose. Second, the primary effect of the law must be one that does not promote or inhibit religion. Third, the law must not lead to excessive government involvement in religion.“10 Failure to comply with any of these points renders a law unconstitutional.
Although the Dover decision was rendered by a lower court, it had important implications for the evolutionary debate. The decision prompted the Ohio Board of Education in February 2006 to abandon scientific standards it had published two years earlier. Moreover, in the 18 months since Dover, the number of anti-evolution proposals in state legislatures and school boards has dropped significantly. While recent debates seem to share a common structure with evolutionary controversies, there is one crucial difference: Edwards v. Aguillard does not defend the general idea that it is unconstitutional for public schools to teach „bad science,“ but the narrower idea that teaching religion as truth is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed almost immediately. The case has moved back and forth between different state and federal courts. But unlike the McLean case, no trial ever took place. The plaintiffs included parents of children attending public schools and teachers in Louisiana. They sought summary judgment, alleging that the act was prima facie invalid. After much legal manoeuvre, his request was granted.
The verdict has been appealed. On January 5, 1982, the court struck down the Arkansas law and prohibited its enforcement. The judge ruled that the law violated the founding clause of the First Amendment for two reasons: The case went to the Supreme Court in December 1986. In addition to oral arguments, the court received written submissions from 16 organizations and individuals. One was submitted by 72 Nobel Prize winners. The pleadings dealt with the question of whether the science of creation was a science or a religion. But the Supreme Court chose not to deal with this issue. Instead, the court focused on the purpose of the legislation. In the 1960s, as the United States tried to catch up scientifically with new educational standards that reintroduced evolution, the creation science movement emerged, supposedly presenting scientific evidence of young Earth creationism. Attempts were made to reinstate the legal prohibitions, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 in Epperson v. Arkansas, which bans the teaching of evolutionary biology, is unconstitutional because it violates the founding clause of the U.S.
Constitution that prohibits the government from promoting a particular religion. [3] Following the Supreme Court`s decision in Edwards, equality of time was no longer an option for the science of creation. But the anti-evolution movement has not given up. And the decision in Edwards had left the door open to teach other theories about origin. „We are not insinuating,“ the court said, „that a legislature could never require that scientific criticism of dominant scientific theories be taught.“ (emphasis added). With this in mind, activists have developed a new approach to creationism called „intelligent design.“ Evolution Education Wiki essays, book reviews and an encyclopedia of evolution, creationism and related topics. 3. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court ruled that a „balanced treatment“ law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Arkansas law required public schools to treat „science of creation“ and „science of evolution“ equally.
In a decision that included a detailed definition of the term „science,“ the court stated that the „science of creation“ is not, in fact, science. The Court also concluded that the law had no secular purpose, noting that the law used language specific to creationist literature. The theory of evolution presupposes neither the absence nor the presence of a Creator. (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 U.S. Law Week 2412) Skeptic: Religion Scroll down for a collection of articles criticizing intelligent design and creationism.
