|
|
| Trials and Bills on
Creation vs. Evolution |
| Religious
Legal Rights Organizations or Assistance |
The First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.”
Troubled
House
The 21st Century play of
an agnostic biology teacher
persecuted for his lack of faith
in Darwinism.
Trials and Bills on Creation vs. Evolution
-
Bill Honig and the State of California versus the
Institute for Creation Research Graduate School
Early in 1992,
the Institute for Creation Research won a stunning victory in Federal Court when the state of
California attempted to close the ICR Graduate School. Honig
previously recruited prominent evolutionists to produce California's
new "science framework" for teaching science in the
public schools. This document, aggressively integrated evolution
throughout the entire curriculum, and has led to similar documents
across the country. ICR's application for the state's newly mandated
"re-approval" was rejected and Honig demanded that
ICR take all creation teaching out of their classrooms despite
being a private Christian school. The precedent-setting ruling
which ICR received benefits all Christian schools.
-
Edwards v. Aguillard: Supreme Court Decision
(Audio
file of oral argument available) - Louisiana's "Creationism
Act" forbid the teaching of the theory of evolution in
public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by
instruction in the theory of creation science. Appellees,
who include Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders,
challenged the Act's constitutionality in Federal District Court,
seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The District Court
granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of
Appeals affirmed.
-
Epperson v. Arkansas
A
public school biology teacher in Arkansas, faced with the dilemma
that if she used a new textbook she would presumably teach a
chapter therein on the Darwinian theory of evolution and thus
be subject to dismissal for committing a criminal offense in
violation of the Arkansas statute prohibiting any teacher in
the state schools from teaching such theory, instituted an action
in the state Chancery Court seeking a declaration that such statute
was void and enjoining the state officials from dismissing her
for violation of the statute. A parent of children attending
the public schools intervened in support of the action. The Chancery
Court held that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, but on appeal the Supreme
Court of Arkansas reversed, sustaining the statute as an exercise
of the state's power to specify the curriculum in public schools,
while expressing no opinion on whether the statute prohibited
any explanation of the theory of evolution or merely prohibited
teaching that the theory was true.
-
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education
In 1997, 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.
-
Ian Plimer Trial News by Australian Skeptics
In 1991, Allen Roberts, claimed
he had been kidnapped by Turkish dissidents after finding Noah's
Ark on Mt Ararat. At meetings in Melbourne and Hobart, he was
confronted and challenged by Professor Ian Plimer, who explained
that the object was a commonplace geological formation. After
one of the meetings, Roberts instituted legal action against
Ian Plimer for defamation in the Supreme Court of Victoria over
some remarks allegedly made on a radio program.
-
Karl Priest vs. the Kanawha County Board of Education A mathematics
teacher at Andrew Jackson Middle School filed a grievance seeking an
answer from the Kanawha County Board of Education regarding what legal
protection was available to him if he criticized evolution in his
classroom. The judge confirmed teachers have the right to criticize
evolutionism in West Virginia.
-
Lemon vs. Kurtzman
Actions
challenging constitutionality of state aid to, or for the benefit
of, nonpublic schools since it involves excessive entanglement
of state with church.
- Rodney LeVake vs. Minnesota
Independent School District
In 2000, District Court Judge
Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake vs 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.
-
Mcleal vs. Arkansas Board of Education - On March
19, 1981, the Governor of Arkansas signed into law an Act which
give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science.''
On May 27, 1981, this suit was filed challenging the constitutional
validity of the Act because it is an establishment of religion
prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution, it violates
a right to academic freedom and the Act is impermissibly vague
and thereby violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The plaintiffs include the resident Arkansas Methodist,
Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches,
Southern Baptist and Presbyterian, as well as several persons
who sue as parents and next friends of minor children attending
Arkansas public schools. 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)
-
Michigan
House Bill 4382 - Feb 28, 2001 "All references to 'evolution' and 'how
species change through time' shall be modified to indicate that this is an
unproven theory by adding the phrase "all students will explain the
competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random
mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful,
intelligent design of a creator" -
Michigan House Bill No.
5005 -
July 16, 2003. HB4705 (May 3, 2001) has been reintroduce as HB5005
"
(1) THE TEACHING IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS
OF THE METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM HYPOTHESIS AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE
ORIGIN AND DIVERSITY OF LIFE SHALL NOT PRECLUDE ALSO TEACHING THE DESIGN
HYPOTHESIS AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN AND DIVERSITY OF LIFE. A
PUBLIC SCHOOL OFFICIAL SHALL NOT CENSOR OR PROHIBIT THE TEACHING OF THE
DESIGN HYPOTHESIS. (2) AS USED IN THIS SECTION: (A) "DESIGN HYPOTHESIS"
MEANS THE THEORY THAT LIFE AND ITS DIVERSITY RESULT FROM A COMBINATION OF
CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND DESIGN. (B) "METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM HYPOTHESIS"
MEANS THE THEORY THAT NATURE IS ALL THERE IS AND THAT ALL PHENOMENA,
INCLUDING LIVING SYSTEMS, RESULT ONLY FROM CHANCE AND NECESSITY."
-
Michigan House Bill No. 4382 and 4705 by the Revolution Against
Evolution
-
Missouri House Bill 911The Missouri Science Standards Act (HB911) was
put before the Missouri House of Representatives proposes requiring
Missouri schools to teach what it calls "biological intelligent design."
[A] hypothesis that the complex form and function observed in biological
structures are the result of intelligence and, by inference, that the
origin of biological life and the diversity of all original species on
earth are the result of intelligence."
-
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District
High school biology teacher
brought action against school district, challenging requirements
that he teach evolutionism, as well as school district order
barring him from discussing his religious beliefs with students.
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)
-
Prayer Banned in School During Extracurricular
Activities
On March 12, 1997,
Alabama Judge Ira DeMent struck down an statute from 1993 that
allowed "nonsectarian, nonproselytizing, student-initiated
voluntary prayer" during required or extracurricular school
activities, including graduation ceremonies and sporting events.
-
Robert Gentry vs. Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv
Papers outlining fatal flaws in the Big Bang theory on the arXiv, an
internet service hosted at the time by Los Alamos National Laboratory,
were removed. When the papers were posted again, they were removed a
second time, and access password was revoked. As the arXiv is funded by
tax funds, it is therefore inappropriate for the arXiv to discriminate on
the basis of religion against scientists who do not ascribe to evolution.
Unable to regain an access password through dialogue, a suit was brought
against the parties involved. (Read
lawsuit)-
Santorum Language a letter from Rick Santorum to the Discovery
Institute - by the Texans for Better Science Education
-
Segraves v. State of California.
In 1981, 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)
- Tennessee vs. John Scopes - The Scopes
"Monkey Trial" - The
lower house of the Tennessee legislature passed the Butler bill:
"It shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the universities, normals, and all other public schools of the State . . .to teach
any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation." It should
have been an open-and-shut case: did a high school mathematics-turned-biology
teacher teach evolution in class? If yes, Scopes was guilty of
violating a new Tennessee law. But the case ballooned into one
of the great media events of the twentieth century.
-
Creation
Perspectives
- Secular Perspectives
-
Tennesse Anti-evolution Statute - (1925) House Bill N. 185. AN ACT prohibiting
the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities,
Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are
supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the
State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.
-
Washington
Senate Bill 6058 - The
remaining text can be found here
State senate education
committee introduced a evolution textbook disclaimer bill that
requires a message about the theory of evolution in all state-purchased
science textbooks. A portion of the text is quoted as follows;"No
one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore,
any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory,
not fact.". Discussion
on the SB6058 by the PNWS
-
Washington Senate Bill 6500 - The
remaining text can be found here On January 18, 2002 an anti-evolution
bill was introduced in the Washington State Senate and referred
to the Education Committee. SB6500 "Finds that the teaching
of the theory of evolution in the common schools of the state
of Washington is repugnant to the principles of the Declaration
of Independence and thereby unconstitutional and unlawful. Provides
that all textbooks and curriculum that teach the theory of evolution
shall be removed from the public schools forthwith and replaced
with textbooks and curriculum that teach the self-evident truth
of creation." Companion Bill HB
2681 was introduced to the House of Representatives with
the same provisions requiring that textbooks and curriculum shall
teach the self-evident truth of creation.
-
Webster v. New Lenox School District
Ray Webster sought injunctive and declaratory
relief based on his claim that the New Lenox School District
violated his first and fourteenth amendment rights by prohibiting
him from teaching a nonevolutionary theory of creation in the
classroom. 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)
Religious Legal Rights Organizations or Assistance

Creation / Christianity
in the United States

Creation / Christianity
in the
United States
$12.59
|
$11.69
|
Regular price: $89.93
Sale price: $62.95
|
$14.39
|
$63.95
|
Regular price: $29.99
Sale price: $19.49
|
$13.45
|
$11.69
|
$31.49
|
$22.45
|
$13.49
|
$19.95
|
$3.59
|
Regular price: $59.95
Sale price: $41.96
|
$26.95
|
$12.59
|
|