Legal Issues
Santorum Amendment
Legal Opinions Relevant to the Creationism Controversy
-
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
This case was the first salvo in the modern legal debate over creationism. Arkansas was one of many states that passed a law in the 1920s that banned the teaching of evolution in state-supported schools. In 1967, Arkansas schoolteacher Susan Epperson faced disciplinary action for teaching evolution in her high school biology classes. She sued on the grounds that the state statute was unconstitutional. While the state courts ruled against her, the United States Supreme Court ruled in her favor. The Epperson ruling declared that laws which simply banned the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional.
-
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
In 1969, a Rhode Island law offering extra pay to certain schoolteachers was challenged in court on the grounds that in practice the extra pay went almost exclusively to teachers in Catholic schools. The resulting case led to what is now called the "Lemon test" for judging whether a law violates the First Amendment's religion clause. If a law or regulation fails the Lemon test, then it's unconstitutional.
-
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision: Daniel v. Waters (1975)
In 1973, the state of Tennessee pioneered the tactic of requiring "equal time" in biology classes for creationism and evolution. A number of people and groups united to fight this law. In 1975, the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Lemon test and ruled that the Tennessee law violated the First Amendment.
- U.S. District Court Decision: McLean v.
Arkansas Board of Education (1981)
In 1981, the state of Arkansas passed Act 590, which explicitly required the teaching of "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. The law was immediately challenged in court by an alliance of scientists, teachers, and mainstream religious leaders, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ensuing trial of McLean v. Arkansas before US District Court Judge William Overton became a classic for the power of the pro-science testimony and the total collapse of the creationist side. Overton's widely-reprinted decision said that creationist laws which ordered "equal time" for teaching creation and evolution were unconstitutional. The State did not appeal, so Judge Overton's ruling stood. A private group is currently working on transcribing as much as possible of the McLean trial court transcript into electronic form.
- U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Edwards v.
Aguillard (1987)
The state of Louisiana also passed an "equal time" law in 1982. Like Arkansas' Act 590, the Lousiana law required that "scientific creationism" be given equal time with evolutionary theory in public school science classes. This case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, and became the definitive ruling on "equal time" laws, as Epperson was on bans of evolution. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court concurred with lower court opinions and ruled all "equal time for creationism" laws unconstitutional.
-
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision: Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (1993)
In 1993, creationist John Peloza, a California public school biology teacher, sued the Capistrano school district on the grounds that evolutionary theory was a religious belief, and that forcing him to teach it was a violation of his First Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit Court dismissed the claim as baseless, because evolutionary theory is not religious in any way. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court flatly denied the creationist claim that the 1961 case Torcaso v. Watkins defined "secular humanism" as a religion.
-
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision: Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (1999)
In 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education decided to require that all biology textbooks and study courses which mentioned evolution must include a disclaimer stating that evolution was a scientific theory and "not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept." A group of parents sued the board on First Amendment grounds, saying that the disclaimer violated freedom of religion. The district court decided in the parents' favor. The board of education appealed to the Court of Appeals, which confirmed the District Court's decision and struck down the disclaimer as a violation of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals did not generalize its decision to cover all anti-evolution "disclaimers." However, its critique of the Tangipahoa BOE's disclaimer is equally devastating to the disclaimers adopted in several other states and school districts.
|
