Creationism in Curriculum: Case Law

Creationism teaches that life, and the universe in general, originated in the purposeful action of a being who existed prior to the origins of a created universe. The highly publicized 1925 trial in Scopes v. Tennessee did not establish case law precedent for deciding more recent cases on the teaching of creationism. Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have established controlling precedents on certain questions, and lower court decisions extend those principles to questions that have emerged in other cases.

In Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that an Arkansas statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution was invalid because it unconstitutionally required curriculum to be tailored to particular religious beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

In 1987, the Supreme Court held in Edwards v. Aguillard that Louisiana's statute calling for a balanced portrayal of creation-science and evolution-science in the state's public schools violated the establishment clause. The Court found that the statute's ostensible purpose of promoting students' academic freedom was belied by evidence that it was in fact motivated by religion.

The Supreme Court's reasoning in Edwards v. Aguillard drew substantially from the opinion by [Page 145]the federal district court judge in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982), in which the court struck down an earlier attempt by the Arkansas legislature to require balanced treatment for creation-science and evolution-science in the state's public schools. In this case, the judge used a set of criteria for what qualifies as science in reaching the conclusion that creation-science does not meet the criteria and therefore is not really science.

Following McLean and the two Supreme Court opinions, the most recent landmark decision was issued by the federal district court in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover (2005), which determined that intelligent design theory is essentially just another form of creationism and subject to the same establishment clause analysis that had been applied to the teaching of creationism in the prior cases. Based on extensive evidence and analysis, the judge concluded that intelligent design is merely a relabeling of creationism and is not a scientific theory.

The impact of Kitzmiller could be seen almost immediately in the resolution of Hurst v. Newman (2006), in which Americans United for Separation of Church and State was representing plaintiffs challenging an elective high school course on intelligent design. Without a trial, the case was settled within weeks of the Kitzmiller decision, with the El Tejon California school district joining in a stipulation that its schools would never again offer any course that promoted or endorsed creationism, creation science, or intelligent design.

In some localities, school boards have attempted to use disclaimers to warn students against being unduly influenced by the evolutionary theory in their textbooks. A federal district court in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (1997) ruled against the policy of a school board in Louisiana that ostensibly promoted critical thinking by requiring teachers to read a disclaimer warning students against being dissuaded from believing in the Biblical concept of creation. Finding this policy to be unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, the court also recognized intelligent design as being equivalent to creation science for purposes of constitutional analysis.

...