Evolution & Creationism in Schools

More of this Feature • Part 1: Overview • Part 3: Other Court Cases  Join the Discussion Creationists typically and repeatedly drag out pseudo-scientific arguments that are incorrect or just plain non-sense. Why does this bunk continue to be recycled? Do the Creationists ever check their facts? Who thinks of this wacky claptrap in the first place? Doug   Related Resources • Supreme Court Decisions • Evolution/Creation FAQ • About Evolution • About Creationism

In addition to usually losing their political fights, creation science supporters also tend to lose in the courts as well. A 1968 case, Epperson v. Arkansas, involved an Arkansas law prohibiting both the teaching of evolution and the adoption of text books which included the concept of evolution.

When a Little Rock biology teacher found that a text book adopted by the local school board included evolution, she was faced with a difficult dilemma: she could either use the book and violate state law or she could refuse to use the text and risk disciplinary action from the board itself. Her solution was to remove the problem by getting rid of the law.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices found that the law was impermissible because it violates the Establishment Clause and prohibits the free exercise of religion. Its only purpose was to prevent the teaching of a scientific concept which conflicted with doctrines of fundamentalist Protestant Christianity. As Justice Abe Fortas wrote:

There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.

As a result of this decision, states were forbidden to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, requiring creationists to find some other means of opposing "godless" evolution. Thus, around 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.

The chief tactic was to work for the passage of "balanced treatment" laws which mandate that whenever evolution is taught, then so must creation science. Once again, Arkansas took the lead by passing Act 590 in 1981. This law mandated that in all public schools, creation science must be given "balanced treatment."

A number of people, including local clergy, sued to have the law eliminated. They claimed that it impermissibly caused the government to give special support and consideration to one type of religious doctrine. In 1981, the law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge who declared creationism to be religious in nature (McLean v. Arkansas).

Creationists decided not to appeal the case, pinning their hopes instead on a Louisiana case which they felt they had a better chance of winning. Louisiana had passed a "Creationism Act" which prevented any teaching of evolution in public schools unless the course was also accompanied by the teaching of biblical creationism.

Neither of the two topics were actually required to be taught, but the former could not be presented without being grouped with the latter. This was challenged by a group of parents who argued that any requirement of teaching creationism was an impermissible support of religion.

In a 7-2 Court Decision in 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court invalidated Louisiana's "Creationism Act" because it violated the Establishment Clause. In his majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote that the Lemon test had to be used to judge the constitutionality of the Creationism Act:

...the Creationism Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught. The Establishment Clause, however, "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma." Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.

Next page > Lower Court Cases > Page 1, 2, 3

Index of previous articles

Do you have an opinion about this article? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

Get weekly updates about what's new on the site and news from around the world: