Discover

'''Edwards v. Aguillard''', was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
In support of Aguillard, 72 Nobel prize-winning scientists, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations filed an amicus brief which described creation science as being composed of religious tenets.

Contents

Background

Decision

Consequences

See also

External links

Background

Creationists had often sought to advance their agenda through the use of legislation. Opponents of creationism countered by getting the courts to abolish such legislation on the basis that they violated the establishment clause of the US constitution, which forbids the government from advancing a particular religion. Indeed the Scopes Trial of 1925 had originally been intended to be appealed on this basis.
The creation science movement arose during the 1960s, presenting what was claimed to be scientific evidence supporting young earth creationism, though critics in the mainstream scientific community (including many Christians) denounced it as pseudoscience lacking any evidential basis whatsoever. The Supreme Court decision in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ruled bans on teaching evolutionary biology unconstitutional.
In the early 1980s, the Louisiana legislature passed a law titled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act". The Act did not require teaching either creationism or evolution, but did require that when evolutionary science was taught, the "creation science" had to be taught as well. Creationists had lobbied aggressively for the law.
The State argued that the Act was about academic freedom for teachers.
Lower courts had ruled that the State's actual purpose was to promote the religious doctrine of "creation science", but the State appealed to the Supreme Court. In a similar case in McLean v. Arkansas had also decided against creationism. Mclean v. Arkansas however was not appealed to the national level, creationists instead thinking that they had better chances with Edwards v. Aguillard.

Decision

On June 19 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:
# ''The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;''
# ''The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;'' and
# ''The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.''
However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:
:We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom," that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute."
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissented, accepting the Act's stated purpose of "protecting academic freedom" as a sincere and legitimate secular purpose. They construed the term "academic freedom" to refer to "students' freedom from indoctrination", in this case their freedom "to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence". However, they also criticized the first prong of the Lemon test, noting that "to look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does not exist.".

Consequences

The ruling had great effect on the creationist movement. It only affected state schools, with independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools free to still teach creationism. Within two years a creationist textbook had been produced: ''Of Pandas and People'' which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer". It is noteworthy that drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" prior to being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling.[1] This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism started in the early 1990s. This would eventually lead to another court case, ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', which went to trial on September 26, 2005 and was decided on December 20, 2005 in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that ID be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139 page opinion of ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research.

See also

★ ''Daniel v. Waters''

★ ''Epperson v. Arkansas''

★ ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''

★ ''McLean v. Arkansas''

★ Scopes Trial

External links

★ Text of the court decision at FindLaw.

★ Text of the court decision at TalkOrigins Archive.

★ Amicus brief of science organizations and Nobel-Prize winners

★ Affidavit of Dean H. Kenyon