Table of Contents:
Background: Ten Major Court Decisions Against Teaching Creationism as Science
Mclean V. Arkansas (1982)
State Of Tennessee, Office Of The Attorney General (1988)
Webster V. New Lenox School District (1990)
Peloza V. Capistrano Unified School District (1994)
BACKGROUND: Ten Major Court Decisions Against Teaching Creationism as Science
1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228)
2. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning issues of origins. (Segraves v. California (1981) Sacramento Superior Court #278978)
3. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution. While the subject of life's origins is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator. (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 U.S. Law Week 2412)
4. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught. (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578)
5. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy. (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004)
6. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517)
7. In 1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views". Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science". (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997). On August 13, 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision; on June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Board's appeal, thus letting the lower court's decision stand.
8. In 2000, District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution. Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination.
9. In January 2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The disclaimer stickers stated, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." After the district court's decision, the stickers were removed from Cobb’s textbooks. The school district, however, appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and in May 2006 the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record. On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form.
10. On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind". In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688)
(update 3/22/07)
Return to top
MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS (1982)
...The approach to teaching "creation science" and evolution science" found in Act 590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute for Creation Research and is taken almost verbatim from ICR writings. It is an extension of Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution....
In addition to the fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach, Section 4(2) lacks legitimate educational value because "creation science" as defined in that section is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is 'accepted by the scientific community" and is "what scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails to meet these essential characteristics....
Creation science, as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons defining scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of "what scientists think" and "what scientists do." The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication had been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.
... The methodology employed by creationists is another factor which is indicative that their work is not science. A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.
The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in Section 4(a). Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it....
The Court would never criticize or discredit any person's testimony based on his or her religious beliefs. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot proplerly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
Excerpts from McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255
Return to top
STATE OF TENNESSEE, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1988)
Public Schools--Theories of Origins of Life--Creation Science--Establishment Clause
Question:
Whether a teacher in a public school in Tennessee can teach all theories of the origin of life for the purpose of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction?
Opinion:
It is the opinion of this office that a public school teacher can teach any scientific theory of the origin of life, such as evolution. However, no theory of the origin of life which is religiously based can be taught in the public schools as part of the science curriculum, because its teaching would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Analysis:
The establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Untied States Supreme Court has applied the establishment clause to the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). In determining whether there is a violation of the establishment clause in a particular situation, the Supreme Court, in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) announced the following three-prong test:
First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.
It should also be noted that the establishment clause applies not only to statutes, but to all actions by public employees and officials which would result in a prohibited promotion of religion. See Breen v. Runkel, 614 F. Supp. 355 (W.D. Mich. 1985) (when acting in capacity as classroom instructors, teachers are "state actors" for purpose of determining whether their praying in classrooms, reading from the Bible, and telling stories that have a biblical basis violates the establishment clause.); Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 644 F.2d 759, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863 (1980) (where a high school principal, with the concurrence of their superintendent, granted permission for a student council to recite prayers and Bible verses of their choosing during school hours, there was a violation of the establishment clause).
With regard to your question, a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court held a Louisiana statute required the teaching of "creation science" in public schools if evolution was taught to be violative of the establishment clause. Edwards v. Aguillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987). In concluding that the statute was unconstitutional, Justice William Brennan, writing for the majority, stated the following with regard to "creation science" as a scientific theory of the origin of life:
The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created human kind. the term 'creation science' was defined as embracing this particular religious doctrine by those responsible for the passage of the Creationism Act. Senator Keith's leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified at the legislative hearings that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator.... The legislative history therefore reveals that the term 'creation science' as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind.
Id. at 2581-82. Thus, according to Justice Brennan, "creation science", as understood to include the concept of a supernatural creator, is religiously based and cannot be taught in the public schools as part of the science curriculum without violating the establishment clause.
Justice Brennan's opinion was based upon the record of the legislative debates of the Louisiana statute. No such records exists in this situation. However, the fact that a statute has not been passed in Tennessee requiring the teaching of "creation science" or prohibiting the teaching of evolution unless "creation science" is taught, would not render the actions of a teacher who taught "creation science" as part of the science curriculum to be constitutional. Rather, the teaching of "creation science", if it is intended to include the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of life, is an attempt to advance a particular religious view and is violative of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
On the other hand, there would appear to be on constitutional problem with presenting the Biblical account of creation as part of a comparative religion course. See Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963) (Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, or comparative religion); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (Ten Commandments cannot be posted on classroom walls but could be discussed in course on ethics).
Opinion no. 88-149
August 18, 1988
Return to top
WEBSTER V. NEW LENOX SCHOOL DISTRICT (1990)
I. Background*
A. Facts
Ray Webster teaches social studies at the Oster-Oakview Junior High School in New Lenox, Illinois. In the Spring of 1987, a student in Mr. Webster's social studies class complained that Mr. Webster's teaching methods violated principles of separation between church and state. In addition to the student, both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State objected to Mr. Webster's teaching practices. Mr. Webster denied the allegations. On July 31, 1987, the New Lenox school board (school board) through its superintendent, advised Mr. Webster by letter that he should restrict his classroom instruction to the curriculum and refrain from advocating a particular religious viewpoint.
Believing the superintendent's letter vague, Mr. Webster asked for further clarification in a letter dated September 4, 1987. In this letter, Mr. Webster also set forth his teaching methods and philosophy. Mr. Webster stated that the discussion of religious issues in his class was only for the purpose of developing an open mind in his students. For example, Mr. Webster explained that he taught nonevolutionary theories of creation to rebut a statement in the social studies textbook indicating that the world is over four billion years old. Therefore, his teaching methods in no way violated the doctrine of separation between church and state. Mr. Webster contended that, at most, he encouraged students to explore alternative viewpoints.
The superintendent responded to Mr. Webster's letter on October 13, 1987. The superintendent reiterated that advocacy of a Christian viewpoint was prohibited, although Mr. Webster could discuss objectively the historical relationship between church and state when such discussions were an appropriate part of the curriculum. Mr. Webster was specifically instructed not to teach creation science, because the teaching of this theory had been held by the federal courts to be religious advocacy.**
Mr. Webster brought suit, principally arguing that the school board's prohibitions constituted censorship in violation of the first and fourteenth amendments. In particular, Mr. Webster argued that the school board should permit him to teach a nonevolutionary theory of creation in his social studies class.
B. The District Court
The district court concluded that Mr. Webster did not have a first amendment right to teach creation science in a public school. The district court began by noting that, in deciding whether to grant the school district's motion to dismiss, the court was entitled to consider the letters between the superintendent and Mr. Webster because Mr. Webster had attached these letters to his complaint as exhibits. In particular, the district court determined that the October 13, 1987 letter was critical; this letter clearly indicated exactly what conduct the school district sought to proscribe. Specifically, the October 18 letter directed that Mr. Webster was prohibited from teaching creation science and was admonished not to enage in religious advocacy. Furthermore, the superintendent's letter explicitly stated that Mr. Webster could discuss objectively the historical relationship between church and state.
The district court noted that a school board generally has wide latitude in setting the curriculum, provided the school board remains within the boundaries established by the constitution. Because the establishment clause prohibits the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," the school board could not enact a curriculum that would inject religion into the public schools. U.S. Const. amend. I. Moreover, the district court determined that the school board had the responsibility to ensure that the establishment clause was not violated.
The district court then framed the issue as whether Mr. Webster had the right to teach creation science. Relying on Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), the district court determined that teaching creation science would constitute religious advocacy in violation of the first amendment and that the school board correctly prohibited Mr. Webster from teaching such material. The court further noted:
Webster has not been prohibited from teaching any nonevolutionary theories or from teaching anything regarding the historical relationship between church and state. Martino's [the superintendent] letter of October 13, 1987 makes it clear that the religious advocacy of Webster's teaching is prohibited and nothing else. Since no other constraints were placed on Webster's teaching, he has no basis for his complaint and it must fail.
Webster v. New Lenox School Dist. , Mem. op. at 4-5 (N.D., Ill. May 25, 1989). Accordingly, the district court dismissed the complaint....***
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004
*Introductory material in Background section, preceding the summary of "Facts," is omitted here.
**Footnote in original refers to definition of "creation science" in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 592 (1987)
***Footnote in original omitted here
Return to top
PELOZA V. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (1994)
...Charitably read, Peloza's complaint at most makes this claim: the school district's actions establish a state-supported religion of evolutionism, or more generally of "secular humanism." See complaint at 2-4, 20. According to Peloza's complaint, all persons must adhere to one of two religious belief systems concerning "the origins of life and of the universe:" evolutionism, or creationism. Id. at 2. Thus, the school district, in teaching evolutionism, is establishing a state-supported "religion."
We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are "religions" for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition * of religion* and the clear weight of the caselaw* are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivically that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 96 L. Ed. 2d 510, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under Establishment Clause, Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act").
Peloza would have us accept his definition of "evolution" and "evolutionism" and impose his definition on the school district as its own, a definition that cannot be found in the dictionary, in the Supreme Court cases, or anywhere in the common understanding of the words. Only if we define "evolution" and "evolutionism" as does Peloza as a concept that embraces the belief that the universe came into existence without Creator might he make out a claim. This we need not do. To say red is green or black is white does not make it so. Nor need we for the purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion accept a made-up definition of "evolution." Nowhere does Peloza point to anything that conceivably suggests that the school district accepts anything other than the common definition of "evolution" and "evolutionism." It simply required him as a biology teacher in the public schools of California to teach "evolution." Peloza nowhere says it required more.
The district court dismissed his claim, stating:
Since the evolutionist theory is not a religion, to require an instructor to teach this theory is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.... Evolution is a scientific theory based on the gathering* and studying of data, and modification of new data. It is an established scientific theory which is used as the basis for many areas of science. As scientific methods advance and become more accurate, the scientific community will revise the accepted theory to a more accurate explanation of life's origins. Plaintiff's assertions that the teaching of evolution would be a violation of the Establishment Clause is [sic] unfounded.
Id. at 12-13. We agree....
John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F. 3d 517
*Footnotes in original are omitted here
Return to top
Permission for Use
Posting of Voices for Evolution at this site does not constitute permission to reprint in whole or in part. Readers may download individual files for personal use. If you wish to quote any portion of Voices for Evolution, please include a full citation. For permission to post, reprint or distribute copies, write to the National Center for Science Education, P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709, or email: ncse@ncseweb.org.
To order copies of the print edition of Voices for Evolution, call 1(800)290-6006. Members should request a member discount.
Copyright Information
Voices for Evolution
Revised Edition Edited by Molleen Matsumura
Introduction by Isaac Asimov
Published by The National Center for Science Education, Inc.
P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, California 94709.
Printed and bound in the United States.
Library of Congress 95-74815
ISBN 0-939873-53-2
(c)1995 The National Center for Science Education, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
in any form or by any means without written permission from the publisher.
The following copyrighted statements have been reprinted with permission:
American Psychological Association statement
(c)1982 American Psychological Association
American Society of Parasitologists statement
(c)1982 American Society of Parasitologists
American Humanist Association statement
(c)1977 American Humanist Association
United Church Board for Homeland Ministries statement
(c)1984 United Church Board for Homeland Ministries
February 15, 2001
