The Teaching of The Teaching of EvolutionEvolutionPages 69-75

By Gerald Card

Title and CitationTitle and CitationEdwards v. AguillardSupreme Court of the United States, 1987

482 U.S. 578

Level or Type of CourtLevel or Type of CourtSupreme Court of the United States

FactsFactsBalanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in public school instruction Act adopted as Law in Arkansas and Louisiana La.Rev.Stat.Ann.17:286.1-17:286.7

• Law states Biblical account of creation is a scientific theory and deserved equal time in the classroom• It forbids teaching evolution unless

accompanied by creationism

IssueIssueThe sponsor Senator Bill Keith meant to narrow the curriculum by eliminating both

The act supplied creation science guides, research services, only creation scientists could serve on panels for resource services, and the act protects creationism teachers and not evolution

Epperson v. Arkansas tried to stop evolution without adding a religious aspect-it was denied because of their motivation was to stop the only theory that denied divine creation

HoldingHolding1st Amendment – State cannot require that teaching and learning be tailored to principles and prohibition of any religious sect

Creationism has a supernatural creator and conforms to belief of a particular religious viewpoint

Acts violates the 1st amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of the government to achieve a religious purpose

HoldingHoldingJustice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist felt the act constitutional even though the motivation behind it was unconstitutional ultimately defeated 7-2.

Legal DoctrineLegal DoctrineThe 1st Amendment-prohibition against establishment of religion

The courts decision affirms the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment because it took the motivation of the proposed law into account. The motivation was not to teach creationism, but to stop the teaching of a topic that denies creationism. If this was found constitutional the U.S. Government would have been backing religious ideals.

SignificanceSignificanceCreationism has evolved into Intelligent Design

The battle continues with Freiler v. Tangephoa Parish Board of Education, 185 F. 3d 337 (5th Cir 1999) A disclaimer is issued before teaching evolution. Found unconstitutional because it protected and maintained a particular religious viewpoint.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (PA.2005) involved pointing out the gaps and problems in evolution and intelligent design. Found unconstitutional because ID is coupled with creationism and is not a science.