Creation Science Law Endorses Religion

Editor's note: On June 19, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that states may not require public schools to teach "creation science" if they teach evolution. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution requires the separation of church and state, wrote Justice William J. Brennan Jr. for the majority, and the Louisiana state law in question "violates the Establishment Clause … because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." Thus, the High Court rejected the claims of the law's proponents that creation science is not a religious doctrine. The decision in Edwards v. Aguillard ends a controversy begun in 1981, when the state legislature passed a law requiring "balanced treatment" of evolution and creation science in the state's public schools and promising state support of in-service training for teachers to prepare them to teach creation science. A group of parents, teachers, religious leaders and others immediately challenged the law as violating the First Amendment. A federal district court agreed and a court of appeals affirmed that decision. Louisiana then asked the Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision. In August 1986, 72 U.S. Nobel laureates in science and a number of national and local science organizations joined the suit as friends of the court, attacking the claim of creation science to be scientific. Following are excerpts from the majority opinion; dissenting were Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. FAMILIES ENTRUST PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advanced religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. ...it is clear from the legislative history that the purpose of the legislative sponsor, Senator Bill Keith, was to narrow the science curriculum. During the legislative hearings, Senator Keith stated: "My preference would be that neither [creationism nor evolution] be taught … "Such a ban on teaching does not promote-indeed, it undermines-the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. It is equally clear that requiring schools to teach creation science with evolution does not advance academic freedom. The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to sup plant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Indeed, the Court of Appeals found that no law prohibited Louisiana public schoolteachers from teaching any scientific theory…. Furthermore, the goal of basic "fairness" is hardly furthered by the Act's discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution. While requiring that curriculum guides be developed for creation science, the Act says nothing of comparable guides for evolution. Similarly, research services are supplied for creation science but not for evolution. Only "creation scientists" can serve on the panel that supplies the resource services. The Act forbids school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation-scientist" or to teach "creationism," but fails to protect those who choose to teach evolution or any other non-creation science theory, or who refuse to teach creation science. If the Louisiana legislature's purpose was solely to maximize the comprehensiveness and effective ness of science instruction, it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind. But under the Act's requirements teachers who were once free to teach any and all facets of this subject are now unable to do so…. Thus... the Act does not serve to protect academic freedom, but has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting "evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creation science...." The pre-eminent purpose of the Louisiana legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind…. The legislative history documents that the Act's primary purpose was to change the science curriculum of public schools in order to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects …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. We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught …Teaching 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. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Creation Science Law Endorses Religion

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of