Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
Evolution, Creationism, & Teaching Religion
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
It is true that state governments do and should have the authority to decide what sorts of things taught in public schools; nevertheless, just how far should such authority extend? Many state governments have in the past outlawed the teaching of evolution - but is that a valid use of state power? Are there any secular reasons for banning the teaching of evolution, or are there only religious reasons?
Background Information
As the site of the Scopes trial, Tennessee is probably the most famous of the states which outlawed the teaching of evolution, but it wasn't the only one - and it wasn't their anti-evolution law which was challenged before the United States Supreme Court.
An Arkansas teacher challenged the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution in all schools, included universities. In Arkansas, no teacher was permitted "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory.
In Little Rock, a high school biology teacher found herself in a dilemma when she realized that her district had adopted a book containing evolution: she could either use the book and violate a criminal law, or refuse to use the book and risk disciplinary action from the school board. She chose to try to eliminate the dilemma by eliminating the law.
Court Decision
In his majority opinion, Justice Fortas argued that the Arkansas law was impermissible because it violated the Establishment Clause and prohibited the free exercise of religion. Although the Court agreed that control of the curriculum of the public schools was largely in the control of local officials, the Court nonetheless held that the motivation of the statute was a fundamentalist belief in the literal reading of the Book of Genesis, and that this motivation required the voiding of the law:
The law's effort was confined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its supposed conflict with the Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, the law is contrary to the mandate of the First . . . Amendment to the Constitution. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.
The State is not permitted not tailor the education of students to the principles of any religious group. The law was not neutral because it did not prevent all discussions of the origin of man.
Significance
This decision prohibited state governments from using any particular religious tenet as a basis for education, a prohibition which was absolute because otherwise the religious belief is supported by the government.
As a result of this Supreme Court decision, states were forbidden to ban the teaching of evolution, even in public schools. Because of that, creationists had to find some other means to oppose "godless" evolution. At this time "scientific creationism" began to be developed by those looking for a way to challenge evolution in the science classes with something that did not appear to be as overtly religious.
Further Information
Evolution & Creationism...
Is evolution a science? Is creationism a science? What is science? Is there evidence for either? Religious fundamentalists often attack evolution, but rarely from a positions of really understanding what evolution is and how it works. This FAQ will not only teach you more about the nature of evolution and evolutionary theory, but it will also explain some of the more common complaints and where they go wrong.
Back To: Court Decisions on Religious Liberty (main page)
-->