- Edwards v. Aguillard
SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard
ArgueDate=December 10
ArgueYear=1986
DecideDate=June 19
DecideYear=1987
FullName=Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al. v. Aguillard et al.
USVol=482
USPage=578
Citation=107 S. Ct. 2573; 96 L. Ed. 2d 510; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2729; 55 U.S.L.W. 4860
Prior=
Subsequent=
OralArgument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513/argument/
Holding=Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion.
SCOTUS=1986-1987
Majority=Brennan
JoinMajority=Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor (all but part II)
Concurrence=Powell
JoinConcurrence=O'Connor
Concurrence2=White (in the judgment of the court only)
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=Scalia
JoinDissent=Rehnquist
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied="Edwards v. Aguillard", ussc|482|578|1987 was a case heard by the
Supreme Court of the United States . The Court ruled that aLouisiana law requiring thatcreation science be taught in public schools wheneverevolution 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, [ [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates] ] 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations filedamicus brief s which describedcreation science as being composed of religious tenets.Background
Modern American
Creationism arose out of the theological split over modernisthigher criticism and its rejection by the Fundamentalist Christian movement which promotedBiblical literalism and, post 1920, took up the anti-evolution cause led byWilliam Jennings Bryan . Teaching ofevolution had become a common part of thepublic school curriculum, but his campaign was based on the idea that “Darwinism ” had caused German militarism and was a threat to traditional religion and morality. Several states passedlegislation to ban or restrict the teaching of evolution. TheTennessee Butler Act was tested in theScopes Trial of 1925, and continued in effect with the result that evolution was not taught in many shools.cite journal |author=Scott EC, Matzke NJ |title=Biological design in science classrooms |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume=104 Suppl 1 |issue= |pages=8669–76 |year=2007 |month=May |pmid=17494747 |pmc=1876445 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0701505104 |url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=17494747]When the United States sought to catch up in science during the 1960s with new teaching standards which reintroduced evolution, the
creation science movement arose, presenting what was claimed to be scientific evidence supportingyoung earth creationism . Attempts were made to reintroduce legal bans, but the Supreme Court in "Epperson v. Arkansas " (1968) ruled that bans on teachingevolutionary biology are unconstitutional as they violate theestablishment clause of theUS constitution , which forbids the government from advancing a particular religion.In the early 1980s several states attempted to introduce creationism along with teaching of evolution, and 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, "creation science" had to be taught as well. Creationists had lobbied aggressively for the law, and 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.Opinion
On
June 19 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by JusticeWilliam 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."
Dissent
Justice
Antonin Scalia , joined by Chief JusticeWilliam 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 and aftermath
The ruling had great effect on the creationist movement. It only affected state schools, with independent schools, home schools,
Sunday school s andChristian school s 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 ". Drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" before being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am.html#day1am12] This form of creationism, known asintelligent 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 onSeptember 26 ,2005 and was decided in U.S. District Court onDecember 20 ,2005 in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that ID (Intelligent Design) 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. Because the Dover school board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
