Edwards v. Aguillard

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 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, [ [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 filed amicus briefs which described creation science as being composed of religious tenets.

Background

Modern American Creationism arose out of the theological split over modernist higher criticism and its rejection by the Fundamentalist Christian movement which promoted Biblical literalism and, post 1920, took up the anti-evolution cause led by William Jennings Bryan. Teaching of evolution had become a common part of the public 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 passed legislation to ban or restrict the teaching of evolution. The Tennessee Butler Act was tested in the Scopes 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 supporting young earth creationism. Attempts were made to reintroduce legal bans, but the Supreme Court in "Epperson v. Arkansas" (1968) ruled that bans on teaching evolutionary biology are unconstitutional as they violate the establishment clause of the US 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 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."

Dissent

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 and aftermath

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". 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 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 in U.S. District Court on December 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.

Wendell Bird served as a special assistant attorney general for Louisiana in the case and later became a staff attorney for the Institute for Creation Research and Association of Christian Schools International.cite news | url=http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/CA/705_creationist_lawsuit_against_uc_8_10_2006.asp | title=Creationist lawsuit against UC system to proceed |publisher=National Center for Science Education | date=2006-08-10| first= | last= | accessdate = 2008-04-24] Bird later authored books promoting creationism and teaching it in public schools.

ee also

*"Daniel v. Waters"
*"Epperson v. Arkansas"
*"Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District"
*"McLean v. Arkansas"
*Scopes Trial
*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 482

References

Further reading

* cite journal | last = Blewett | first = Paul F. | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1987 | month = | title = "Edwards v. Aguillard": The Supreme Court's Deconstruction of Louisiana's Creationism Statute | journal = Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy | volume = 3 | issue = | pages = 663 | issn = 0883-3648 | url = | accessdate = | quote =
* cite journal | last = McClellan | first = V. F. | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1988 | month = | title = "Edwards v. Aguillard": The Creationist-Evolutionist Battle Continues | journal = Oklahoma City University Law Review | volume = 13 | issue = | pages = 631 | issn = 0364-9458 | url = | accessdate = | quote =
* cite journal | last = Moore | first = Randy | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2004 | month = | title = How Well Do Biology Teachers Understand the Legal Issues Associated with the Teaching of Evolution? | journal = BioScience | volume = 54 | issue = 9 | pages = 860–865 | doi = 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054 [0860:HWDBTU] 2.0.CO;2 | url = | accessdate = | quote =

External links

* Text of the court decision at FindLaw.
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html Text of the court decision] at TalkOrigins Archive.
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html Amicus brief of science organizations and Nobel-Prize winners]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html Affidavit] of Dean H. Kenyon


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем написать реферат

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Эдвардс против Агиллара — Edwards v. Aguillard …   Википедия

  • Timeline of intelligent design — This timeline of intelligent design outlines the major events in the development of intelligent design as presented and promoted by the intelligent design movement.Creationism and Creation science*1920s: Fundamentalist Modernist Controversy – in… …   Wikipedia

  • Creation Science — Creationism can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. For the movement in Spanish literature, see Creacionismo. Part of a series on Creationism …   Wikipedia

  • Dean H. Kenyon — Dean Kenyon Born Dean H. Kenyon USA Residence Hanford, California Title Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University Religion Roman Catholic …   Wikipedia

  • Creation science — or scientific creationism is a movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific means to disprove the accepted scientific theories on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the Genesis account of… …   Wikipedia

  • Creation and evolution in public education — Part of a series on Creationism History of creationism Neo creationism …   Wikipedia

  • Level of support for evolution — The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues. The… …   Wikipedia

  • Creation–evolution controversy — A satirical cartoon from 1882, parodying Darwin s theory of evolution, in response to the publication of The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms. The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution… …   Wikipedia

  • Creationism — can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. For the movement in Spanish literature, see Creacionismo. Part of a series on Creationism …   Wikipedia

  • Creation-evolution controversy — The creation evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe, [See harvnb|Hovind|2006, for example.]… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”