Controversy: Defining the Arguments

What is the legal reasoning behind the teaching of evolution in schools?

Courtesy of the National Center for Science Education: (http://ncseweb.org/evolution/education/cans-cants-teaching-evolution)

Legal decisions concerning creationism and evolution rely upon the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In part, it states, "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion, or inhibiting the free exercise thereof." The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses taken together require that public institutions be religiously-neutral: schools can neither promote nor inhibit religious expression. So it is perfectly legal for a teacher to teach about religion, although it has to be in a nondevotional context. One can describe a religion, or religious views, but it is not constitutional to say, "Buddha was right!" Similarly, one can discuss controversies involving religion, but it would not be proper to take sides (such as "the Pilgrims were right to burn witches because witches are evil.") Let's look at what a teacher can't do.

A state/district/school CAN'T ban the teaching of evolution.

The 1968 Supreme Court decision, Epperson v Arkansas, struck down antievolution laws such as that under which John T. Scopes was tried in 1925 in Tennessee. Noting that antievolution laws were passed because they offended certain religious views, the court wrote

…the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma … the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.

Some antievolutionists claim that evolution is a religion, and that its teaching is therefore unconstitutional. Alas for this view, the courts have been quite clear that evolution is science, and therefore to teach it does not violate the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case (Peloza v Capistrano, 1994):

The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.

A state/district/school CAN'T require equal time for creationism or creation science. Creation "science" is the view that a literal interpretation of Genesis special creation of all things at one time, about 10,000 years ago can scientifically be supported. Rejected by both scientists and teachers, creation science also has been rejected by the courts. In the 1982 District Court McLean v Arkansas case, the judge wrote that creation scientists:

… cannot properly 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.

Creation science should not be taught, because our students deserve better than to be taught bad science. But bad science is not unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court in 1987 (Epperson v Arkansas) struck down laws that would require "equal time" for evolution and creation science by noting that even if the word "science" was used, creation science really was religion in disguise, and therefore it is illegal to teach it.

An act impermissibly endorses religion when it advances the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history of the Arkansas Creationism Act demonstrates that the term "creation science" as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious belief.

… Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.