Skip to main content

Edwards v. Aguillard (Creation Science and Evolution)


A question came up in my social studies class about prehistory. A student wanted to know how all the different species came into existence. We talked briefly about the Cambrian explosion, which prompted another student to ask about the origin of the universe. This led to a great discussion about cosmology that has since spawned other discussions about God, time, and origins. It just happened that I had been reading The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, so answers to their questions were fresh in my mind. It also brought me back to a civil liberties class I took in college, in which we were required to simulate landmark Supreme Court cases. In one of these, we simulated Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), a case that struck down a Louisiana law—called the “Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science in Public School Instruction Act”—forbidding the teaching of evolution in the public school classroom unless it was accompanied by the teaching of creation. The central question revolved around whether the law established a religion. I argued fervently that the law did not establish a religion because it did not fail a test established by the Supreme Court called the Lemon test (from the case Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971), which states the following:

1. The law must have a secular purpose;
2. The law’s effect must not advance or inhibit religion
3. The law must not cause an “excessive government entanglement” of religion.

I found great help in this from Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the case. Besides arguing that the Louisiana law did not fail the Lemon test, he also showed that secular humanism had previously been determined by the Supreme Court to be a religion (Torcaso v.Watkins, 1961), stating that by prohibiting the teaching of creation science (intelligent design) and promoting the teaching of evolution science, teachers were now in fact advancing a religion.

To this day, I believe strongly that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught together to offer students all the evidence so that they can come to their own conclusions. As Scalia pointed out, creationism and evolution are the only two viable explanations for man’s origins. It is only fair to provide students with evidence for both explanations.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Persuasion

At different points in history, governments have devoted men, women, and resources to try to persuade others to their side. One significant example of this occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Hitler knew how important it was to make sure the German people were on his side as leader of the country. One way he did this was by controlling what people heard. Specifically, near the beginning of World War II, Hitler made it a crime for anyone in Germany to listen to foreign radio broadcasts. These were called the “extraordinary radio measures.” He did this to ensure that Germans weren’t being persuaded by enemy countries to question their loyalty to Hitler. He knew that a German listening to a radio broadcast from Britain might persuade that German to believe that Great Britain was the good guy and Hitler the bad guy. This was so important, in fact, that two people in Germany were actually executed because they had either listened to or planned to listen to a foreign radio broadcast (one...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts on Academic Purpose

If I could tell my students how to choose a path of employment, I would emphasize that no effective writer, historian, athlete, musician, or scientist became such without dedicating themselves to some goal. For that to have taken place, however, the respective expert must have had a firm idea about why they were doing what they were doing. In other words, they must have had purpose. Karl Marx spent countless hours in English libraries, I would share, to understand the functioning of society in order to improve it; while Isaac Newton often went without food to gain a firmer grasp of the science of motion, and eventually revised that science. They did this because they had a clear purpose, a real reason for doing what they were doing that would affect others around them. I would communicate that whatever passion students tap into, it should be embarked upon with that kind of clear goal in mind. While they may not know which passions they have yet, I would emphasize that school is a time ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...
2 comments
Read more