Norman L. Geisler
CROSSWAYBOOKS
A PUB LISHING MINIST RY OF
GOOD NEW'S P UBLISH ERS
\VHEATON. ILLlNOIS
C,-,atirm andtheCourts:Eighty }tm1 q{Conjila in 1/11: Classroom ,md the Courtroom
Cop yright 2007 by Norman L. Geisler
Published by Cro,sway llo-Oks
a publishing ministry of Good News I)ublishcr$
I 300 Crescent Street
\Vhe-ato n, IIHnois60187
All righu reserved.No pareofchis publication ma.ybe reproduced. scoredin.a retrieval system,
<>r t ra nsmitttxiin an)' form by any meah1 . elect ronic-, mechanci.\), photocopy.recording,or
otherwise-. without the:prior p('rmission of the:publisher,c::xcc."Ptasprovided by USAcopyright
law.
Ki:4208.S.S34C4S 2007
344.73'0796- dc22
2006032679
SH 17 I6 IS I4 13 12 11 IO 09 08 07
12 I I 10 9 8 7 6 S 4 3 2 I
Contents
Bibliography 386
Index 395
Foreword
Duane T. Gish'
9
10 Foreword
II
12. Preface
My Testimony
On the following Monday I had the opporrunicyco be o n the ,vir-
nessscand for about one and a half hours. Coverage of rny cescirnony is
given in chapter 7 ofTheCreatorin the Courtroorn.I said chat Arkansas
,vas "on chevery curcingedgeofan educational1noven1enc" chat,vould
i1nprove rhequalicy of U.S.educacion. \ \'i'irhout hesiracion I added chat if
Charles Darwin , vere alive today he would beacreationist. I backed up
cl1atstaten1enc wirh quotations &0111 L.S. Berg, A.H.Clark, H. Nilsson,
G. A. Kerkut, and S. Lovecup. n1ese dace back to the I920s.
n1efinal1nacerial I used was fro1n che fa1nous British paleonto!ogisc
Colin Pacterson,,vho had spoken abouc a n1onth earlier (Noven1ber 5,
1981) in Ne,v York City at the A1nerican Museun1of Natural History
(Aiv!NH). Paccerson had expressed strong feelings against evolurion,
and I quoted from hiscalk.l11e ACLU la,vyerobjected, but forcunacely
2. Sec Marv;n I... Lub<JOlW.Frum Fi.<h 10 Gish (San Diego. Calif.: Catio-n Lifc. 1983).
Preface 13
Judge Overton overruled because I had been there for that AMNH
presentation.
I felt that111y testi1nony,vou.ld havea positive i1npact tor truth inop-
position to,vhachad been heard fro,n che plainriffsand dieir,virnesses.
1lieya.II had been coadied rhoroughly ro stress two issues.1liese ,vere
(I) diere is no science supporting a creation posirion, and (2) creation
is religion, ,vhich should noc be intruded into science. 1liey said chis
repeatedly, even rhough rhe Arkansas law at issue in the trial prohib-
ited religious instruction and clearly defines "crearion science" as"die
scientific evidences for creation and inferences fron1 rhese scientific
evidences."
Newspapers and niagazines across che councry thrived on articles
about c.lie rrial- son1every fair and ochers n1isleading (see appendices
I and 2). Agenerally quite accurate newspapercoverage of the whole
trial was written by reporter Cal Beisner and appeared in theweekly Pea
Ridge (/lrkansas) County Tinies, \Ved nesday,Decetnber 30, J981 . One
very biased and inaccurate report ,vas wrirren by Roger Le,vin and was
published in dieJanuary 8, 1982 issue of Science,3 arguably die world's
leading weekly publication ofscientificinfonnarion. A niajor portion of
the reporc wasagross,n isrepresencacionofn1y tesrin1ony. Afi:er reading
Le,vin's article I wrote a let ter co the ,nagazine, fron1whicli I quote:
Transcript Blockage
Because of ocher co1n1ninnencs, I did noc cry seriously co obrain a
rranscript of rn y t rial testin1ony until the su1nn1er of 1998. I contacted
the attorney general, , vho referred n1e t.o the Federal District Court
Clerks Office in Litcle Rock. He called n1esaying cl1at die records had
Preface
21
l_n rrod uction
has descended fron1 a lo, ver order of anilnals." n1e decision rendered
by rhe Daycon, Tennessee courc ,vas char ir ,vas illegal ro reach evolu-
tion, and.John Scopes wasfoundgnilcy ofdoingjusc chac.n1e resulcing
fine ofSlOO was later overturned on a cechnic-.iliry:on lya jury, not rhe
judge, had the aurhoriry co assess rhe fu1e.
TheMcLeanRuling (1982)
In1\llclean v./ l rkan sasBoard of Education, the issue,vas whether it
was legal for the State co 1nandate that, whenever evol ution is c.aught,
creation should be caught as well in a balanced creacnienc of bod1.
'llie U.S. Discricc Courc ruled chat this ,vould constitute "... an es-
rablish1nenc of religion prohibired by die First A1nend1nenc co die
Constitution which is1nade applicable to thestates by die Fourteenth
A1nend1nent." \X1 hy? In die judge's words, because, "In cradirional
\'v'esrern religious dioughr, checonception of a creator of the world is
aconception ofGod. Indeed, creation of the world 'our of noching' is
che ulcilnate religious scace1nenc because God is che only acror." 4 1 he
case was never appealed, since Jon Buell of the Dallas-basedFounda-
cion foroioughc and Ethics, which evenrually produced a rexcbook
(Of J>andas and People)5 for reaching creation alongside evolution
"1l1ispolicy was noc puc fonvard by any group connecced wid1 rhe
ID 1nove1nent, sucil as the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, nor by
rheproducers of the ID cexcfor public schools, OfPandasand Peopl.e16
Indeed, rhe associate director of rhe Discovery lnsrjruce, John Wesr,
released a scacen1enc \vhich read in pare, "Discovery Insciruce st rong ly
opposes che ACLU's efforc co n1akediscussions of incelligenc design
illegal. Ac chesa1ne tin1e, wedisagree \vithefforcs cogee chegovenunenr
ro require che reaching of incelligenc design ."17
111eDover policy\vas opposed by the ACLU andA1nericans United
forSeparation ofChurch and Stateand defended by the1110111as More
Law Cencer, a Christian la\v finu based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.111e
D over case was heard by U.S. District Courc JudgeJohn Jones III be-
nveen Septen1ber26and Nove1n ber4,2005. 111edecision was rendered
on Dece1nber 20,2005. le ruled char (I) che Dover School Disrriccpolicy
is unconstitucional, (2) intelligenc design and creation its progenicor
are not science and should not be taught in Dover science classes, and
(3) intelligent designand o therforn1sofcreation areessentiallyreligious
and are, therefore, a violarion of the Firsc An1end1nent escablishn1enr
IS. Kin;mi/Jerv. Dw er/ /Y<t1 School DiSlr,ia 400 ESupp. 2d 707(M.D. Pa. 200S).
t6.See 11o t< S.abo\e.
17 . See Joh1l G . \V est. "D iscovery (nsrirute's Po irio 110 11 D o ve r, PA' l ntellig,enr De
sig11 Case,"' S e ptem be r 2 1, 200 5, at h ttp :/ / w ww.d isco ve,r)'o rg / scripts / vie ,vD B/ index.
php?'command= \i cw&id
= 2847.
30 Introduction
clause. In the words of the courc," For rhe reasons chat fo llo,v,,ve hold
chat the ID [intelligent design] Policy is unconsrirucional pursuant co
che EscablishniencClauseof the First Arn endrne ncofche UnicedSraces
Conscicurion and Art. l, 3 of the Pennsylvania Consciru tion."18
n1e Dover decision has nor been appealed because thescliool board,
whicli nowhasan anri-creation rnajority, does nocwanccoappealir.How
ever,theissue inevitably willberaised again andevencuallywillbe brought
before che U.S. Supre1neCourr. How the Co urr,vill rule no one knows
for sure. Bue if precedent is followed, it is 1u1likely d1ac rhe h ighcourt
wUl (I) allo,v any aearion or designview co be 01andaced for scliools,or
(2) allow any vie,v robe caught rhar in1pliesa supernatural creator.
Meanwhile, che lessonsofhiscory rnaybegleaned coguide chefurure
of chis discussion. Having been an eye,vicness of che fiunous "Scopes
II" (McLean, 1982)19 trial, I feel co,npelled co case what light I can on
chis very irn porcanc issue. Indeed, since che Arkansas cotucs refi.1sed co
publish 1ny cesci1nony (g iven in I98l), ,vhich was crucial ro che our
con1eofdie trial, until after rheSupren1e Court ruled against reaching
creation six yearslacer (in 1987), there isa viral pare ofhiscory diarhas
been hitherto unkno,vn chat is now being revealed for che first cirne in
chis publication (see chapter 4). Ir is co d1ese ends char I present d1is
in1porcanc but 1nissing link in die hiscory of che creacion-evolucion
conrroversy, in che hope char it 1nay case s01ne light on che issue as it
is no,vagain coining inro che courrs and- hopefully- havea positive
influence on die ouccon1e.
31
32. Creation and the Courts
deified die very evolutionary process. "\Vallace put 1nore and n1ore
en1phasis on rhe spiritual agency, so that in The J,Vqr/d qf Lift it is
described as 'a Mind noc only adequate co direct and regulate all the
forces at ,vork in living organisn1s, but also the more funda,nental
forces of the whole material universe: For 1nany years \Vallace was
inceresced in spiritualisn1 and psychical research."2 Darwin's friend
Karl Marx declared, "But nowadays, in owevolutionary conception
of the universe, there is absolutely no rooni for eid1er a creator or a
ruler."3 Henri Bergson deified the evolutionary process in his ,vork
Creative Evolution (1898 ), calling ic a Life Force. Herbert Spencer,
,vho1n Danvin called "our great philosopher," 1nade evolution into
a cosniic process. ln Gennany, Ernst H aeckel, who developed social
evolution fro1n Danvin's theory, clai1ned that"d1e idea of'design' has
wholly disappearedfrorn chis vast province ofscience."4 As Harvard
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould ,vould later explain,"Evolution
subsrituced a naturalistic explanation ofcold co1nforc for our forn1er
conviction that a benevolent deity fashioned us directly in his own
.
11n age...." 5
In An1erica a few strong voices spoke against Darwin. In 1860 the
fa,nous Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz wrore a critical review of On
the O,igin of Species.6 At Princeron, Charles Hodge wroce a srrong cri-
tique in 1878 titled What Is Danvini.7,7t? H isanswerwassrraight co rhe
point:"\VhatisDarwinis1n? Ir isAd1eisn1.Thisdoes nor1neantliat l'vlr.
Darwin hi1nself and all who adopt his viewsare atheists; bur it 1neans
mat his theory is atlieistic, diat tlie exclusion of design fro1n natureis
2. ' \Xlalla<e, Alfred:' in PaulEdwords,ed.. 7heh uydoped1i1ofPhiw.<op,hy 8 vol,. (NewYork:
MacmiJlanand nlc Free Press, 19 67 ). 8: 276.
3. Karl Marx and l'ricdrich Eng,d . On Religion (New York:Schoxken. J964). 29S.
4. Ernst 1-foeckd, 1be Riddleefthe Univ erse111the Closeof 1/Je N int leentb U mury(New
York: Harp & Brothers, 1900), 260.
S. Stephc1l:ja yGould,citedil'ljo n:uhaJl: \'v"dl s , 1 h el'olhicaliJ /ncon'ttl ()uitlel.fJ Dnrwiuism
n11d /11u llig e111 Design ( \X'.u hington. D.C.: Regnery, 2006), 62.
6. Agassiz wro te in Amerfr'a 11J our111ti of Sd enu : ..[Darwi11] ha s lo st sight o f the m o st strik
ing of the f('atures.::ir1:d theone which pervadesthe whole. 11:an 'K')y. d'l1..t there runs through out
Nature unmisatl.-able c ,idcn ceofrhou,gchcorrespondillS to the mentaloperationsof ourown
mind" (''Professor Agassiz o n tl1c Ori gin o f S pec ies; A.r1,eri &m j ou n 111i of Stien 30 (June
I860):143- 147. I49- 1SO).
33
. . . tanta1no unc co acheisn1:1n1e logic is in1peccable: no design, no
designer; nocreation, nocreator. Evolutionasa theory isatheistic,even
d1ough not all evolutionists are ad1eirss.
Perhapsthe n1ost frightening consequences of Dar,vinisn1 ,vere the
ethical ones. In 1924ayoungAdolf Hider wrote1\1ein Kanipf,in,vhid1
he proposed follo,ving rhe exa,nple of evolution and weeding out the
,veaker breedsof1nankind. And he proceeded co put his proposal into
action, exrenninating d1ose he considered less fit. Hitler justified his
action byevolucion, clai1n ing,"IfNacure does not wish tl1acweaker indi-
vidualssho uld macewith thesrronger,shewisheseven less that asuperior
race should intennlugle wid1 an inferior one; because in sucli a case all
her efforts, throughout hundreds of tl1ousands of years, ro establish an
evolutionaryhigherstage of being, ,nay thus be rendered futile."8
The i111plicationsof Darwinisrn were nor perceivedquicklyinAnierica
by the religiousconununiryin general.9 ln fact, it cook sorne sixry years
and a World War. Bur by che ciine of Hitler che irnplicacions ,vere be-
corn ing clear. One year afi:er H ide r'sracist book, the people of Tennes-
see passed die Buder Ace on Mardi 13, 1925, forbidding die cead1ing
ofevolution in the public schools. lncerescingly, the biology textbook
d1ar had been used in die schools before d1is taught a racisn1sin1Har ro
Hider's views. To quote frorn the book:
At thepresent time thereexist upon theearth five races. . . . These arc the
Ethiopian or ncgro type,originatingi11Africa; the Malayorhrow11 rnce,
from che islandsof the Pacific; the Arnerican Indian;the Mongolian or
yelJow race,includingthe nativesofChina.Japan, and the Eskimos; and
finally,thehighestt_ypeofall thi,Cauc,1sia11s, represented bythecivilized
whiteinhabitantsof Europe and America.10
7. Charles Hodge. "\X'hat Is Oan,,;ni5m?"' in, JVl11tt l s Da rwi nim'J! /Ind Otlu1
fVritings
011Sdt11te a11d Rligio11, od. .M:uk A. Noll ,nd D,vid N. Livingonc (Grand lbpid,. .Mich.:
Baker, 1994), 177.
8. H ider,1\fei11 K11mpf (New Y<>rk: Rcynal & Hitchcock, 1940), 161- 162 .
9. See David Livingstone, D111w i11$Forgotten Defenders(GraodRapid:s, Mich.: f.et<.h nans,
1987).
10. George \X1illirun H unter,.11Civi cBiofogy (New York: American Book Company,
1914), 196 (emph,:sisadded).
34 Creation and the Co urts
Darrow, fan1ous agnostic ACLU lawyer, was lead attorney for the de-
fense. Willia1u Jennings Bryan, one-cin1eDeniocracic presidential can-
didate and defender of creation, ,vas a visitingattorney for chescare.
INTRODUCTION OF ATTORNEYS
Judge Johnr. Raulston asked Attorney General To1n Sre,van co in-
troduce dieoutsidecounsel for rhesc-ate, \VilliainJenningsBr)'an and his
son (who was unna,ned in d1ecourt cranscript, since he"need[ed] no in-
troduction".) For d1edefense Mr. (Judge) Neal,Clarence Danow, Arthur
Hays,Mr. Dudley Fieldi\1alone, and Mt 'Ilion1psonwereintroduced(4).
Odier attorneys for the state included Mr. McKenzie aiid Mr. H icks."
16.' l he c-ruc-ial part t>feach prayer is induded her<::since theseprayc.rsweredisputedby
thedefense.
17. l hc court reco l'ds i.ncJuckd vc..-ry few 6rst Hames.
37
THE LA,v THAT SCOPES Is ALLEGED TO
HAVE VIOLATED WAS READ
Tiie la,v in quescion ,vas Chapeer 27 of che Aces of 1925 of che
Srace ofTenne.ssee, enact.ed on March 21, 1925.n1e ace was read as
folJo,vs:
In the beginning the Lord [sic] created the heaven and earth....And
Godcreated great whales,andeverylivingcreat ure thatn1ovcth....And
God made che beasts of che earth ali:er his kind, and cattle after their
kind,and everyt hing that creepech upon t.heearth ali:er his kind. . . . S()
God created man in His own image, in the image of God.created He
him; male and female created He them (vv. l, 21, 25, 27) (5-6).
OPENING PRAYER
'The invocation on the second day of the crial was offered by Rev.
Moftett co"God, our Fad1er, 'Thou \Vho are me creator of d1e heaven
and che earth...."He prayed tor "wise decisions" co be ,nade and tor
The Scop,s Trial (, 92;)
39
"blessing" of cl1e jury, the lawyers, the ,nedia, all involved in this case
"in the nan1e ofour Lord and Saviour,Jesus Chrise" (45).
SWEARING IN OF J URY
Before the jury ,vas s,vorn in, the judge had to call for order in d1e
counroo1n (45), saying, "wecannot proceed in thecourrroo1_n, as1_nany
people as the reare without absolute order" (46).Before rhe jurycould be
s,vorn in thejudge considered the n1otion to quash cl1e indicnnent.'The
indiccrnent was read firsr. In part itcharged d1at:"Johnn1on1asScopes,
heretofore on cl1e 24th dayof April, 1925, in cl1ecounty aforesaid, then
and there, unlawfully did ,vilfully teach in me public schools of Rhea
county ... acertain theory and d1eories d1at deny thestoryof d1edivine
creation ofn1an as taught in the Bible,and did teach instead d1ereof that
111an has descended fro111 a lo,ver order of aniu1als ... " (47).
thoughts and opinions isone of the invaluable rightsof 1nan, and every
citizen 1nay freely speak, ,vrice and print on anysubject ... " (48- 49).
Defense attorney Hays joined in che defense argunient char the
indictnient was indefinite, insisting that Scopes ,vas "charged in che
caption of the act,vich one thing and in the body of che indiconenr it.
is put in another ,vay" (55). le is also noc clear, he said, what "teach"
nieans. !fit nieans sirnply exposingstudencs co die theory, "I presun1e
our teachers should be prepared co teach every theory on every sub-
ject. Noc necessarily co reach a thing as a face" (56)."Ir should noc be
,vrong co teach evolution, or certain phases of evolut ion, but nor as a
fact" (56).
Arcorney Hayssuggested char diecourt consider a hypodierical law,
parallel co rhe evolution la,v, chis one forbidding die reaching of a he-
liocentric universe, ,vhich "denies the story char the earth is the center
of die universe, as caught in rhe Bible, and [teaches] instead, diac che
eard1and planets niovearound die siui" (56). He concluded: "My con-
tention is that an act of that sort is dearly unconstitutional in that it is
a restrictjon upon the liberties of the individual. . . . nie only distinc-
tion you can draw between this statute and die one we are discussing
is that evolution is as111uch a scientific fact as the Copernican dieory,
bur rhe Copernican theory has been fully accepted, as chis [theory of
evolution] niust be accepted" (56-57). llius, "To niy niind, che diief
point against theconstitutionalityofchislaw ischar itextends the police
powers of the scace unreasonably and is a restriction upon die liberty
of die individual." Ir,vas unreasonable,hesaid, because "ic would only
be reasonable ifit tended in son1e way co pro1noce p ublic niorals" (57).
And chis is nor possible unless we kno,v what evolution is.
f) It violates Section 8, Article I, diac,"No1nan can bedisturbed buc
by la,v. n1at no nian shall be taken ... or deprived of his life, liberty or
properr.y but by the judgnienc of his peersor thelaw of die land" (49).
g) It also violates Section 9, Arricle I on "Rights of che accused in
crilninal prosecutions"(49).
h) le violates Section 14, Article 1, ,vhich says "chat no person shall
be puc co answer any crin1inal charge buc by presennnenr, indicnnenc
or irn peadi1nen t" (49).
41
tention, to bevery btief; is chat in this act there is1n ade1n andacor y the
teaching ofa particular doctrine chat conies fro,n a particular religious
book,and co thacexcenc, . . . they connavene che provisions ofour con-
scicucion" (52) .
1J1e jury retired in spice of the objeccion of che detense because che
judge felt chac "if you genclenien are going co discuss niaccers cl1ac are
vital co the issues in this case, before the co1ut, it is in die discretion of
the court co have the jury retire" (52- 53)1.8
Fifih, che defense argued char me right to freedo1n of expre ssion
applies '\vhecher diesire ofit is in a schoolhouse, or store, or screet, or
building, or any place. . . li111iced only by . . . responsibility under libel
la\v" (53).
Sixth, in accord ,virh Seccion 9, Article I of me scace co nscicucion,
\vhichde1nandsa cleardefinitio nof thecriine, thedefenseinsisted char
"mecrime in chisace- the definition issoindefinited1at it isabsolurely
ilnpossible for the defense co kno,v exacdy the nature ofitscharge-of
die charge" (53).' fl1isisparcicularly crue, cliey said, since it isspeaking
about "a doctrine in cl1e Bible (\Vhich] isso indefinite d1at every rn an
that reads me Bible \viiihaveadifferen.tinterpretation asto exactly what
mac rheory of creation is . . ." (54). Furd1er, "we mink diat me indict-
ment should set out just exaccly \vhat our defendant \vassupposed co
have caught" (55).
Finally, chey clain1ed "charourrnain contention afterall,rnay it please
your honor,is thatthisis nota properthing/or any Legislature . . . tonzake
andassign a-rulein regardto. In thislaw thereis anattenzptto pronounce
a judgment and conclusion in the realm ofscience and in the realm o_(
religion" (55,eniphasis added). ln brief, they argued chat ic. \vas not che
province of die courrs co 1nake pronounceu1encs in chese areas.
the111agree asto theexact 1net hod by,vhich evolution has been brought
about"(137). Lacer hedescribed evolutionas"a cremendousprobabilicy;'
,vhich it "would beentirely i111possible forany norn1al huo1an being" co
have"even for a n1on1enc cl1eleasedoubt"abouc (143).'Il1eonlyevidence
healluded co, ho,vever,,vassiluilariries a1nonganiluals and"varietiesof
hunian kind appearingearlier in the geological series" (143).
(11ie jurywas rerired while theacrorneys argued about whecl1er rhese
scientific testinionies abour evolution were relevant to die case.)
111e ,virness continued: "1lie face ofevolution is a rhiog char is per-
fectly and absolutely clear . . . [ bur] cl1e niecl1ods by ,vhich evolution
has been broughc abouc-d1ac ,veare nor yet in possession ofscientific
kno,vledge co answer" (139) . \Vhen asked ho,v old lite is, his "guess
was "600,000,000 years" (141).
OPENING PRAYER
Dr.J.A . Allen, a Church of Christ pastor, opened i11prayer co"Our
Farner whoarcin Heaven," mac""I1ly\Vord niay be vindicared, and d1ac
'Th y rrnch u1ay be spread in the earrh."111is he prayed "in rhe na1ne of
Jesus. Ainen" (145).
After 1nore wrangling beC\veen d1e accorneys about die need for sci-
encific cestiniony (145- 1 47), rhe scare nioved co exclude che evidence
on diegrounds that"under die wordingofdieaceand interpretation of
che act, which ,ve insist interprets itself; d1is evidence would beentirely
inco1npecent" (147).To para.pluase,the law ag-dinsc teachingevolution
is the la,v, regardless of theevidence fo r it or against it.So,"there is no
issue left except me issue as co ,vherher or noc [whar Scopes taught]
conflicts wid1 die Bible" (148).
MALONE'S RESPONSE
ACLU attorney Malone n1ade a variety of observations. His con1-
1nencs ranged fro1n die trivial co che profound. 'Tiiefollowing isa st1111-
111ary of his n1ain points.
Firsc, he correc,dv noced diac "ic does see,n co 1ne mac \Ve have'gone
far afield in diis discussion" (183).
Second, he chen proceeded co criticize Bryan, whoui he classed as
"dieleader of die prosecution," for beinga "propagandist" and1uaking
a"speecli against science" (183).
1hird, hecharged charcreationists \Vanr everyone co believe che\Vorld
isonly"6,000 yearsold,""che world wasllar," and cheearrh is"checenrer
of che universe" (183).
Fourm, in response to die Darwin quore about nian coming froni
n1onkeys, he noted thechange in evolucionisr,s', iews,asking:"Haven't
welearned anythingin seventy-fiveyears?" Healso likened creationists
to d1e Ro1nan Carliolic persecution of Galileo, who opposed me view
diac die sun 1noves around dieeardi (183).
Fi.fi:h,he perceived dieconflict asoneofideas"by n1enof two fr.unes
of mind": rheological andscienrjfic.11ierheological 1nindhedescribed
asonediat wasclosed, established by rhe revelation ofGod in the Bible,
which it believed should be widerstood literally.111escientific1nind, by
conuast, was open, in progress, changing, and nor based on any reve-
The Scop,s Trial (, 91;) 59
lacion frorn God. le believed chat the Bible isonly an inspiration and a
guide, a set of ideasand sernions (184).
Sixth, "'ib is theory ofevolution, inone forrn oranother, has been in
Tennessee since 1832, and I think it is incunibenc on the prosecution
co incroduce ac lease one person in chescare of Tennessee whose n1orals
have been affected by the reaching of chis theory" (184).
Seventh, if the state was correct in its understanding of the anci-
evolurion la,v, rhen"or" and nor"and" should haveconnected rhe rwo
paresof ic. Bue ic does not, and so the scace111ust prove cwo things, not
just one.
Eighth, he asserred, che Bible is nor a book of science. Hence, rhe
state is wrong in clainiing in effect that "only che Bible shall be taken
as an authority on the subject of evolution in a course on biology"
(185).
Ninth, in response co the judge's question heaffirrned his belief chat
"dte dieo ryofevolution is reconcilablewith diestoryofdivine creation
as caught in die Bible" (186). Hence, the defense does not believe that
God created the first ,nan "complete all aconce" ( I86).
Tenth, !Vialone uttered one of the ,nose profotu1d lines in d1e trial:
"For God's sake let the children have rheir tninds kept open-close no
doors co their kno,vledge; shur no door fro,n me,n. Make che discinc-
rion bet\veenrheologyand science. Let rheni haveboth. Let dieni both
be caught" ( l 87).
Eleventh, Malone also niadeso,ne profow1d scacen1encsabout crum:
""Diere is never a duel with the crud1.1lie crud1 always,vinsand we are
not afraid of ir.n1e rruch is no coward. n1e trum does nor need die
la,v. n1e truth does not need the forces of governrn e nc. . . . n1e crud1
is imperishable, eternal and inunorcal and needs no hunian agency co
supporc ir" (l87).
r,velfih, brinuning with opri1nisni, Malone proclairn e d: "\Xie are
ready. We feel ,ve stand ,vidi progress. We feel ,ve srand ,virh science.
\Xei feel westand wid1 intelligence.\Xei feel we scand ,vich fi1nda1ne ntal
freedo,n in Anierica" (188) .
60 Cn.atfon and the CuurtS
Sixth Da y (July I 7)
OPENING PRAYER
On the sixth day of che Scopes trial, Dr. Easnvood opened \vich a
prayer to"Our Father and our God," prayingfor"justice" in the courts
and "blessings" on tl1e courc, jury, counsel, and che press "in che na,ne
ofour Lord and Master Jesus Christ. Anien" (201).
Creation and the CourtS
ln the linal analysis this courc, after a most earnest and careful consid-
eration, has reached theconclusion that under the provisions of the act
invohed in thiscase, it is made unlawful thereby to teach in the public
schools of thestateof Tennessee d,e theory that man descended from a
lower order of animals. If d1e court iscorrect in d1is, thend1e evidence
of experts would shed no light on the issues. Therefore, the court is
content to sustain the motion of the attorney general to exclude the
expert testimony (203).
OPENING PRAYER
A 1ninister prayed co "Ahnighry God, our Father in Heaven," and
gave chanks for "aU the kindly influences"on our lives and ackno,vl-
edged that '\ve have been stupid enough to n1atch our h111nan rn inds
with revelations of the infinite and eternal." He prayed for God's"guid-
ance and directing presence . . . in all things . . . ,ve ask for Christ's
sake. Ainen" (211).
1hejudge read a seccion fron1 che previous day's record and con-
cluded: "I feel chat furcher forbearance would cease to be a virtue, and
in an effort co procecc the good nau1e of 1ny state, and to protect the
dignity ofchecourt over which I preside, I a1n conscrained and in1peUed
to call upon rhesaid Darrow, co kno,v what he has to say why heshould
not be dealt with for conte1npt" (212).
caught in our schools with ,vhid1 rhis bill,vill interfere in the slightest
rnanner" (2 14).
1l1e judge noted,"'TI1ac is che governor's opinion about ic;' bucadded,
"wid1all deference coGov. Peay- [ he) does nocbelong codie interpret-
ingbranch of thegovernnienr. His opinionofwhat diela,v n1eans... is
of no consequence ac all in the court, and could nor have any bearing,
and I exclude the scacerne nt" ( 214).
FURTHER TESTIMONY
Ascace1nenc ,vas taken fro1n Rabbi Rosen,vasser which includedthe
noracion chat rhe KingJarnes rranslarjon was inaccura.re, including"cre-
ate" (fron1che Hebre,v bara,which should becranslared "secin niorion")
(228). He concluded: "If rhe Hebrew Bible were properly rranslared
and understood, one ,vould noc find any conflicr ,vith rhe cheory of
evolucion whicll would prevent hin1 fro111accepcing borh" (229).
Dr. H. E. Murkecc ,vas alsocited as saying: "\1(/e would also be able
co prove char che Bible, properly i.nrerpreced, does noc conflicr ,vim
d1e cheory ofevolution ... " (229). Ocher cesrinionies ,vere raken on
chis san1e issue.
KingJa1nes Version of the Bible" (283),and d1at che Bible phrase in the
indicnnent was not in question (284).
OPENING PRAYER
Dr. Can1per prayed, "O h God, our Heavenly Fad1er. . . . \Ve pray1l1y
blessing upon each one chat has a pare in d1is courr here today. . . . \l(Te
ask it in rhe na1neofJesus Christ. An1en" (305).
' Die jury was then brought in and instructed asto the proper construc-
tion of the la\v: they ,vere to understand the statute as only forbidding
the reachingofevolurion and 1naking noassertion about what die Bible
reaches aboutcreation. Tiiejudgedeclared, "youare nocconcerned asro
,vhecher or not chis is a theory denying thescory of the divine creation
of nian as taughr, for die issuesas diey have been finally n1ade up in chis
case do not involve diac question" (310). He pointed out chat he had
previously ruled diac chesecond pan of chescarure 1ne relyexplainedd1e
first; itdid not1.nakeit necessary rhac rhe reacher also reach the biblical
vie,v on creation (whatever char niay be).
n ie judge reniinded die jury char die fine, if che defendant were
found guilty, n1usc be benveen $100 and $500. He defined r.he cern1
"beyond reasonable doubt": not beyond aU doubt, but beyond any
doubt chat "would prevent your n1ind restingeasy as co theguilr of rhe
defendant"{310).
Darro,v cold the jury thac"mere isnodispute about mefaces. Scopes
did not goon thestand, becausehecould not deny thesraternents niade
by [hisstudents]"(31I). Darrow added,"wecannot.evenexplain toyou
char we chink you should recurn a verdict of nocguilcy. \Xie do notsee
how you could. We do nocask it. \'v'e chink ,ve willsave our point and
cake it co che higher court .. : (31I).
BENEDICTION
Dr.Jones closed in prayer, reciting 2 Corindiians 13:14: "Mayche
grace ofour LordJesusC hrist, theloveofGod and dieconiniu,uon and
fellowship of d1e Ho ly Chose abide widl you all. A,nen" (319).
By rhe very ,vording of die la,v ar issue in che Scopes crial, che issue
becanie fra1ned fro1n irs inception as one of religion against science.
74 Creation and the Co urts
n1enst have favored one view over the ocher- just the opposite of the
fairnessfor which they had pleaded in Scopes!
Additional Reading
C o nkin, Paul M. W hen All the (;o,ls T,, mbl,tl: Darwinism, Scopes,anti American
lnteltect11als. Rowma n & Li,tlefid d , 1998.
The Scop-,Triol (191s) 77
Geisler,Norman, with A.F. Brooke IIand l\-(ark J.Keough 1heC,-ea/Qr in theCo1111-
1vom: Scopes11. l\-!ilford, ll-lic h.: 1'1ort ll-!cdia, 1982.
Geis ler, Norman, and Kerby Anderson. Origin Scienr.e: A Prupos11! for theCre11tion-
Evo/11Jio11 Cont1v'ile1-sy.G rand Rapids, ll-lich.: Baker, 1987.
Hitchcock.JamesT.heStepremeCo11rt11nd Religioni11Americ11n Life. Vol. I . Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.2004.
Hodge, C harles. "\'if hat Is Darwinism ?' In /hat I, Darwinism? A11d Other V,it-
ings 011 Scin u.e1111d Religion. Ed.ll-(ark A. Noll and David N. Livingrsone. Grand
Rapids, l\-(ich.: Baker,1994.
I. arson, Ed"""d J.S1111m1e1far the Gods. New York: Basic Books, 1997.
-- .1;-;nJ11nd Enor:1heAmerican Cont,wersyover Cr,11#on nndEuol11tion. New
York:Oxford University Press, 2003.
Moore.James R. 1bePost-DarwinianContrwersit$. New York:Cambridge University
Press,1979.
Robcrrs. Jon H. Dmwinis,-11 and the Divine in ATJJetir,i: Protestant !11telltc1t111Ls ,ind
Organic Evolutio,n1859- 1900.l\-(adiso n: University of \X/isco n s i n Press, 1988;
revised, Not re Dame. Ind.: Universit yof Notre Dame Press, 2001.
r
Background
Oneofd1e most i1nportant Suprerne Courccases about religiouslib-
erty is chacof Everson v. BoardofEducation ( 1947).1 111ecase involved
a challenge co a NewJersey la,v allowing for parents who were sending
d1eir children co private schools co be reimbursed by local aud1orities
for che cosc of bus fare. Iron ic-ally,even d1ough che la,v ,vas upheld as
constitutional,Justice Hugo Black, who wrot.e fo r die rn ajority,set in
n1ocion a tide of dlinkingd1ac would be felt do,vn to die present day.
Ja,nes Hitchcock explains,"Black ended his opinion by pronouncing,
'' Diefirst.arne ndn1enthaserecreda wall between church and state, that
,val! rnust be kept high and in1pregnable. \Xle could not approve the
slighcest breach. New Jersey has not breached ic here:111us Black re-
vived ["Diornas)Jefferson's rnet aphoralter an oblivion of sevent.y years,
I. Not co bec-c:mfusc<Iwirhthe Eppersonca.$.C t)f 1968) which is the.subjecc of chisc.hapcer.
79
80 C reat ion and the Co urts
{b) n1e sole reason for che Arkansas law is char a particular religious
group considers che evolution theory to conAict with the account of
the originof111ansec fo rth in the Book of Genesis. . . .
{d)A Scares right co prescribe che public school curriculum does nor
includeche right to prohibit teachingascientific theory ordoctrine for
reasons that run counter to theprinciplesof the l'irst A111cnd111ent....
yet clai,n that tliis has no i,nplications for our lite as a nation, ,vhen
our founding docu,nent. itself affinned that "all ,nen are creat.ed" by
a "Creator." In effect, d1e h igh court has ruled d1at The Declarativn
efIndependence is unconstitutional, and that opposing views, such as
evolution, are constitudonal 111ey have stood the Constitution on its
head. No ,vonder they cannot read it right side up! Were the fowid-
ingfathers co kno,v about such constit utional twisting, they ,vould be
shocked beyond belief.
Swnmary
Much of thefaulty reasoning in Eppe1:ion will reappear insucceeding
coun decisions (see chapters 3, 4, 7). n111s,by the 1nisapplicationsof
legal precedent (stare deci.sis) rhe courts continue ro con1pound cheir
errors,exclude Firsr funendn1enr righrsfor tax-payingcreacionisrs, and
help establish opposing religious beliefs.Jusc ho,v to rectify iliese bad
courc decisions is rhe subject of rhe final chapters (8and 9).
The McLean Trial (1982)
Even rhough ir appeared co bean en1inendy fair la,v wirh clear social
andeducationalbenefics and aversion co teach ing religion, the Arkansas
law was ruled unconsritutional. Because ofirshistoric irnpo rrance,the
con1plete conrenrs of rhe judge's decision follo,vs:
I.
There is no controversy over the legal standards under which the
Establishment Clause portionof thiscase must be judgcd.ll1eSupre,ne
Court hason a number ofoccasions expounded on the meaningof the
clause, and the pronouncements are clear. Olten the issue hasarisen in
the context of public education, as it has here. In Everson 11. Board of
Education ... ( l947), JusticeBlack stated:
II.
The religiousmovement known as Fundamentalism began in nine-
teenth century A1ncrica as partofevangelical Protestantis m's response to
socialchanges,new religious thought andDarwinism. Fundan1en!"alists
viewed thesedevclop1nents as attackson the Bibleand as responsible
fora decline in trad itional values.
]l ie various manifestations of l'undamentalism have had a number
of commo n characceriscics, but a central premisewas always a literal
interpretationof theBible and a beliefin theinerrancyoftheScriptures.
FollowingWorld \Va,rl therewas againa pcrccivcd declinein traditional
morality,and l' undamentalis1n focused on evolution as responsiblefor
thedecline.Oneaspectof theirefforts,particularlyin theSouth,,vasthe
promotion of scatuccs prohibiting the teachingof evolution in public
scl1ools. In Arkansas, chis resulted in the adoptionof Initiated Ace l of
1929.
Between the l920sand early 1960s, anti-evolutionarysentiment had
a subde but pervasiveinAuence on the teaching of biology in public
schools. Generally, textbooks avoided the topic of evolution and did
not mention the nameof Darwin. Following the launcl1of theSputnik
sacelliccby the Soviet Union in1957, theNational Science f oundation
funded several programsdesigned to modernize the teachingof sci-
encein the nation'sschools. The Biological Sciences C urriculu,n Study
(BSCS),a nonprofitorg-anizacion,wasamongchosercccivinggrancs for
curriculum study and revision. \Xlorkingwith scientistsand teachers,
BSCS developed a seriesof biologytexts which, althoughemphasizing
differentaspeccs of biology,incorporated the theoryof evolution as a
major theme. The success of the BSCS effort is shown by the fact that
fifty percent of Americanschoolchildrencurrently use BSCS boo ks
directly and the curriculum is incorporatedindirectly in virtually all
biologytexts. (Testimo ny of lv!ayer;Nclkin, Pg l )
l n the early I960s. there ,vas again a resurgence of concern among
Funda1nentalists about thelossof traditionalvalues and afear ofgrowing
The1'1t, l. a11Trial (1981) IOI
2. A stttion daborntingthe judge's view,:of the rdigious fno tiv.nion of th.Ok'. in favor of
creation science follows here. Jtand the footnotes of the ruling have been oinitte.:Ifor lack of
spac<."
102 Creation and the Courts
M,1ryland . . . (196 1). Defendants also correctly state the principle that
remarks by chesponsor or author <)fa bill arc not considered control-
ling in analyzinglegislative intent. Sec, e.g.,U nited States v.En1mons . . .
(1973) and Chrysler Corp.v. Brown ... (1979).
Courts are not bound, however, by legislativeStatements of purpose
or legislativedisclaimers.Stone v. Graham . . . (1980), Abington School
Dist. v. Sche,npp . . . ( 1963). In determining die legislative purpose of
a statute, courts mayconsider evidence of the historical context of the
Act, Epperson v. Arkansas . . . ( 1968); the specific sequence of events
leading up to passage of the Act; departures from normal procedural
sequences; substantive departures fro111the normal, //ill.ageofAr/;ngton
Heightsv. Metropolitan Ho,uingCo,p. . . . (1977);andcontemporaneous
statements of the legislative sponsor, Fed. Energy Adrr,in. v.Algonquin
SNG, Inc. . . (1976).
The unusual circumstances surrounding the passage of Act 590, as
well asd1esu bstantivelawof the First A,nendmcnt, warrant an inquiry
into thestated legislative purposes. The author ofdie Acthad publicly
proclaimed the sectarian purpose of the proposal.n,c1\rkansas res-i
dents whosought legislative sponsorship of the billdid so for a purely
sectarian purpose.These circumstances alone may not be particularly
persuasive, but when considered with the publiclyannounced n1orives
of thelegislative sponsor made conte1nporancouslywiththelegislative
process; the lack of any legsi lativeinvestigation, debate, or consulta-
tion with any educato,s or scientists; the unprecedented intrusion in
school curriculu m; a nd official history of the State of Arkansas on
the subject, it is obvious that the statement of purposes has little, if
any, support in fact.111e State failed to produce any evidence which
would warrant an inference or conclusion that at any point in the
process anyone considered thelegitin1ate educational value of the Act.
It wassimply and purelyan eflort to introduce the biblicalversion of
creation into the publicschool curricula. The only inference which
can be drawn fron1 these circumstances isthat the Actwas passed with
the specific purpose by the General Assembly of advancing religion.
The Act therefore fails the first prong of the three-pronged test, that
of secular legislative purpose, as articulated in Lenton v. Kurtzn,,,n,
s11pra, and Stone v. Graham, supra.
The 1\1,rL a11 Trial (1982) 103
III.
If thedefendants arecorrectand theCourt islimited to an examina-
tion of the languageof the Act, theevidence isoverwhelming that both
the purposeand effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the
publicschools.
Section 4 of the Act provides:
Definitions,as used in this Act:
IV.(A)
The approach to tead1ing"creation science"and"evolution science"
found in Ace 590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by
the Institute for Creation Rescard1 and is takenalmostverbatim from
!C Rwritings. It is anextensionof f undamentalists' view that one must
either accept the Iiteral interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the
godlesssystem of evolution.
The two model approach of che creatio nists is simply a concrived
dualism which has no scientific faccual basisor lcgicimace educacional
purpose. It assumes only cwo explanations for the origins of life and
exiscenceofman, planes.and a nimals:ic waseither chc workofa creacor
or ic was noc. Application of these two models, accordingco creation-
ists, and thedefendants, dictatesthat all scientific evidence which fails
to s upport the theoryof evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in
support of creationismand is, d1ercforc,creationscience "evidence" in
support of Section 4(a).
IV.(B)
The emphasis on origins as an aspecc of the theoryof evolution is
peculiar to creationist literature. Although thesubject of origins ofl ifc
is within the province of biology. the scientific co mmun ity docs noc
considerorigins oflifea part ofevolutionary theo ry. Thetheoryofevo-
lution assumes theexistenceoflifc and is directed to an explanation of
howlifeevolved.Evolution docsnot presuppose theabsenceofa creator
or God and the plain inferenceconveyed bySection 4 iserroneous.
106 C r"-"arionand the Courts
IV.(C)
In addition to the fallacious pedagogy of the two-model approach,
Section 4(a)lackslegitimate educational valuebecause"creation-csience"
as defined in that section is simply not science.Several witnesses sug-
gestedddinitionsof science. A descriptive definition wassaid to be that
science is what is"accepted by chescientific community" and is "what
scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a
freesociety, knowledge docs not require the imprimatur of legislation
in order to become science.
More precisely, the essential characteristicsofsciencearc:
scientific thought.
The creationistshave d ifficulty maintaining amo ng their ranks con-
sistencyin the clain1chat creationismisscience. n1e authorof Act 590,
Ellwanger,sa id chat neitherevolution nor creationism wasscience. He
thinks botharc religious. Duane Gish recently responded to an article
in Di,covercritical ofcreationismbyseating: "Stephen Jay Gould states
that creationists claim creation is a scientific clleory. '111is is a false ac-
cusation. Creationists haverepeatedly stated that neither creation nor
evolution isascientifictheory (and each isequally religiou)s": Gishletter
to editor of DisroverJ,ul y, 1981,App. 30to Plaintiffs' Pretrial Brief.
The methodology employedby creationists isanotherfactor which
is indicat ivethat their work is nor science. A scientific theory must be
tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in lightoffacts
that are inconsistentwith, or falsify, the theory.A theorychat is by its
own terms dogmatic, absolutistand never subject co revision is not a
scientific theory.
The creationists'1nethodsdo not rake data,weigh it against theoppos-
ingscientificdata, and thereafter reach theconclusionsseatedinSection
4{a). Instead, they cakeche literalwordingof the Book of Genesis a nd
The 1\1t,L a11Trial (1981) 109
IV.{D)
In efforts to establish"evidence" insupport ()f creation science, the
defcndantS relied upon thesame falsepremise asthe two-modelapproach
contained in Section 4, i.e., all evidence which criticized evolutionary
theory wasproof insupport ofcreation science. Forc.xan1lpc, thedcfcn-
dants esr-ablished that the n1athemaitcal probability ofa chancechentical
combination resulting in life from non-life is so remo te that such an
occurrence is almost beyond imaginaiton. Those mathematical facts,
the defendants a rgue,are scientific evidences chat life was the product
of a creator.\X/hilc the statistical figures may be impressive evidence
against the theoryof chancechemical combinationsasan explanaio tn
of origins, it requiresa leap of faith to interpretthose figures so as to
support a complex doctr ine which includes a sudden creation from
110 Creation and the Co urts
4(b) <>fthe Act, with emphasis on the alternative mut ually exclusive
nature of creationism and evoluito n. Students are constantly encou-r
aged to compare and make a d1oice betweenthe two mod els,and the
material is n<>t presented in an accuratemanner.
A typical example isOrigins (Px76) by RichardB. Bliss, Director of
C urriculum l) evelopmenrof the!CR. The presentation begins wirh a
chart describing"preconceived ideasab<>urorigins"whidi suggesrs that
some people believe that evolution is atheistic. Concepts of evolution,
such as"adaptiveradiation;areerroneouslypresenred.Ar page11, figure
1.6,of the text,a chart purports to illustratethis "very important" part
of the evolution model. nie chart conveys the ideachat such diverse
mammals as a whale, bear, bat, and monkey all evolved from a shrew
through the processofadaptive radiation.Suchasuggestionis,ofcourse,
a totallyerroneous and misleadingapplicationof the theory.Even more
objecitonable,especially when viewed in lightof rhe emphasis on ask-
ing the student to elect oneof the models, is the chart presentationat
page 17, figure 1.6. 11iacdiart purportsco illustrate the evolutionisrs'
belief that manevolvde from bacteriato fish co reptile to mammals and,
thereafter,into man. 11ie illust ration indicates,however,that the mam-
mal from which man evolvedwas a rat.
Biology, A Search far Order in Complexity is a high schoolbiology
text typical of creationists' materials. The follow ing quotations arc
illustrative:
Foreword
Parents and youch leaders coday, and even many scienciscs and
educators, have becomeconcerned about cheprevalence andinAu-
encc ofevolutionary philosophy in modern curriculum. Noconly
is thissystem inimical co orchodox Ch ristianityandJudaism, hue
also,as many arc convinced, co a healthysociety and truescience
as well.{at page iii)
to this evidence which they claimed was usable in the public school
classroom.
Theconclusion that creationscience has no scientific merit or edu-
cational valueas science has legal significance in light of rhc Court's
previous conclusion that creation sciencehas,as one major effect, rhe
advancement of religion. Thesecond part of the duce-pronged test for
establishment reachesonly thosestatuteshaving as their pri111ary c ffect
the advancement of religion.Secondary effects which advance religion
are nor constitutionallyfatal. Sincecreato i nscienceis nor science, the
conclusion is inescapable d1at die only real effect of Act 590 is rhc ad-
vancementof religion.The Ace therefore fails borh rhe first andsecond
portionsof the test in Lemon v. K11rt-:u11a11 ( 1 97 1 ).
IV.(E)
Act 590 mandates " balanced treatme nt for creation scienceand
evolution science.TheAct prohibitsinstruction in any religiousdoctrine
or references to religious writings. TheAct isself-contradictoryandcom-
pliance isimpossibleunless the publicschoolselect toforegosignificant
portions of subjects such as biology,world history,geology,zoology,
botany,psychology,anthropology,sociology,philosophy,physics, and
chen1istyr.Presently,theconceptsofevolutionary theoryasdescribed in
4(b) permeate the public [school]textbooks. n,cre is no way teachers
can reachtheGenesisaccount ofcreation in a secular1nanner.
The StateDcparrmenr of Education, throughits textbookselection
committee. school boardsand school ad1ninistrarorswill be required
to consrnndy monitor marerialsto avoid usi11g religiousreferences. n,e
school boards, administratorsand teacllcrsfacean irnpossibletask.How
is rhe tead1erto respond to questions about a creationsuddenly andout
of nothing ? How will a teacher explain t.hcoccurrence of a worldwide
flood? How will a tcacl1erexpalin the concept of a rclarivcly recent age
of meearth?' Jhc answer is o bvious because the onlysource of this in-
formatio n is ultimately containedin rhe Book of Genesis.
Refcrcoccs to the pervasive natureof religious concepcs in creation
science texcsa mply demonstrate whyState entanglienenr with religion
is inevitable under Act 590. lnvolve1nenr of the Seate inscreeningtexts
for impennissiblc religious referenceswill requireStareofficials to make
delicate religious judgmencs.n1c needto monitor classrooin discussion
in order co uphold the Ace's prohibition against relig iousinst ruction
Th.c J\1t,l. a11 Trial (1981) 115
will necessarily involve adniinistratorsin q uestionsconcerning rd igion.
These continuing involvements ofState officialsin q uest ionsand issuesof
religion createanexcessive and prohibited enc-anglement with religion.
Brandon v. Board of Edualtion ... (2nd Cir.1980).
V.
These conclusions arcdisposicive of the case and there is no need co
reach legal conclusionswith respect tothe remaining issues.Theplaintiffs
raise twoother issues questioning rhe constitutionalityof the Act and,
insofar as the factual findings relevant to these issues are not covered in
the preceding discussion, theCourt will address these issues. Addition-
aUy, th e defendants raisedtwoother issues which warrant discussion.
V.(A)
First, plainriff teachers argue rhc Act is unconstit utionally vague
to che extent that they cannot comply with its mandace of "balanced"
treatment without jeopardizing cheiremployment. Theargument centers
around thelack ofa precise definition in theAct fortheword " balanced."
Severn! witnesses expressed o pin ionsthat the word hassuch meanings
as equal time,equal weight,or equallegitimacy.Although the Act could
have been more explicit," balanced" isa wordsubject toordinary under-
scanding. The proof is not convincingthat a teacher usinga reasonably
acceptable understanding ofche wordand makinga good faitheffort to
comply with the Ace will be in jeopardy of tennination. Other portions
of the Act are arguably vague; such as che " relativelyrecent" inception
of rhc earth and life. ')he evidence establishes,however, that relarively
recent means from 6,000 co 20,000 years, as commonly understood in
creationscience literature. The meaningof thisphrase, likeSection 4(a)
generally, is, for purposesof che Establishment Clause,all too clear.
V.(B)
The plaintiffs' o ther argument revolvesaround che alleged infringe-
ment by the defendants upon the academic freedom of ce-,1chers and
students. It iscontended this unprecedented intrusion in thel,1rriculmn
by the Seate prohibitS teachersfrom teaching what they believeshould
be taught or requiresthem to reach that which they do not believeis
prope.rTheevide nce reflects chat traditionally theSeate Deparcmcncof
116 C reatio n and the C(lurts
V.(C)
Thedefendants arguein their briefthat evolution is, in effect, a reli-
gion,and that by teachinga religion which iscontrary to some students'
religious views, theStare is infringing upon the student'sfree exercise
rights under the First Amendment.Mr. Ellwangcr'slegislativefindings,
which were adopted as a findingof fact by the ArkansasLegislature in
Act 590, provides:
The J\k Lean Trial (1981) 117
Evolution-science iscontrary to the religious convictions or rnora l
values or philosophical beliefs of man)' stu dents and parents, in-
cluding individualsof many different religious faiths and with
diverse moral and philosophical beliefs. Act 590,7(d).
V.(O)
Thedefendants presented Or.Larry Parker,a specialistin devising cur-
riculafor publicschools. He testified that the publicschool'scurriculun1
should reAcct thesubjectsthe publicwanes taughtinschools.Thewitness
said that polls indicated a significant majority of the American public
thought creationscience should be taught if evolution was taught. '!he
point of this testimony was never placedin a legal context. Nodoubt a
sizeable majorityof Americansbelievein che concept of a Creator or,
at lease, arc not opposed to the concept and sec nothing wrong with
teaching school children about the idea.
n1e applicationandcontent of Hrst A.rncndmcnt principles arc not
determined by publicopinion pollsor by a majority vote. \Xfhethcr die
proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority or die minority isquite
irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no
118 Creation and the Co uru
matter how largeor small, may use the organs ofgovernment, of which
the public schools arc the most conspicuousand i11Auential, to foist its
religious beliefs on others.
n,e Court closes this opinion with a thougln expressed eloquently
by the greatJustice Frankfurter:
Repon.ers s,varrned into rhe Lierle Rock counroorn fro111 all over
die world. Exciternenc was high, especially for die first fe,v days."This
enthusiasni ofi:en faded as the long, highly technical tesciniony concin-
3.1\1 r.u a11 v . A r k111u n.<Boardif tl11car im 1,529 ESupp. 1255(E.D.Ark. 1982).
4. Secappendices Iand 2 forrnorc:o o th e me.d.ia CO'\Crag.eof th.is trial.
Th c1\1tl <a11Trial (1982) 119
ued. By the lasr fe,vdays of the trial there , vere plenty of ernpcy seats
in the courcroorn.
Since I have no access co records of television and radio coverage,
and since thesedid not varysignificandy fi:0111 the printed rnedia, I will
base rny co1nn1enrslargely on the printed record. In a single ,vord, rhe
rn edia reporting ,vas largely slanted. le ,vas pitched co die "religion vs.
science" rhenie even before rhe trial began.
Nosooner had rhe bill been signed inr.o law (March I9, 1981) than
the /l rkansasGazette headlined a story (March 22, 198 1) "'Creacion-
science' Bill Prornpted byReligious Beliefss, Sponsor Says." 111e sponsor,
Senator Hoisted, isquoted in bold print under his picture as saying,"I
can'c separate che bill frorn rhac belief in a Creacor." He is furrher cited
assaying, "The bill probablydoesfavor the viewpointofreligiousfi,ntla-
rnentalists." 'Il1earticle then narrnces Holsced's " born again"conversion
and his agreernent ,vidi die Moral Majority, even though he ,vas not a
1ne111bec of char organization.
Even ,vhen che article lacer gr udgingly adniitted thac Hoisted af-
firnied chac d1e bill ,vasagainst establishing religion, che / /rk ansasGa-
zette quickly added: "Bue he could noc e:qilain ,vhy the bill does not
state diat theintent alw isto pre,vtnt the establishn1ent ofconservative or
fi,ndarnentalist religion.;."
Si rnilar slanted reporcingpersisced duringand after che r.rial,despite
rhe Associated Press's reponingan NBC poll (Nove1nber 18, 1981) a
nionch before d1e trial showing rhac "three of four Ainericans say d1ey
believe rhac boch chesciencific cheory ofevolutionand the Biblical theory
ofcreation should be caught in public schools... ."6
As d1e crial began, diesa1ne "religion vs. science" 1norifconcinued.
Scientific evidence for creation was usually referred co in quotation
,narks. For exarn ple , die Dallas Tin1es H erald (Decernber 9, I98 1)
headline read "Scienrisrs Ridicule 'Evidence' of Creacioniscs." The
Arkansas Gazette (Deceniber 11, 1981) headed itsarticles "Creation-
S. All cmpha.$iS i1'I thek quo tes is added.
6. Eventhis poll u d theslanted words"bibli'<.al"'vtt:-us iencific'' ro describetheviews,
rather than ackno wled ging that many Americans bd ie-vc that creatio nism has a leg:itifnatc
scicnriJic basis.
12.0 Creation and the Court$
8. This cxaggerat:io11:md literary einbd lish.-ncl'lt led so m cOJ'le,h lf wayaround the world
to \\Titc the 141rt(/Ji ngton PoSI s3ying: "'Dear Sir: nl< rn:1in <l-aily nc wsp :1per in this part of rhc
world, ' The \Xiest Ausrr 11iao: basedat the cit)'of Perth, ill.duded a report on Dc<einber 15
by your reporter Mr. PhilipJ. Hilts0 11 the court case il'l A rlm1H l$ c,,o cerningthe tc.-.ich ingof
cr t ion science in public school.s. A copyof the report, which is cnd osod,at tributes to the
op<oingcreationist wirne$$ 'a s-pocracula r co urtroom fireworks di.splay... : Most of the report
reads fuirlyobjecti\'ely.but ooe loob in vaiJ) for thealleged 'spt.-cr:,cular'co urcroom fireworks
d.isplay. \Vas it p<.":rhaps the func)' of Mr. H ilu It seems so. faidently,he isper onally opposed
to crcatioo-scicnce.\Vhik he is q uire free to hold thac view. why does he use his supposedly
Factual report co d.iscrcd it theope1\i ngwitnes,,s
9. S. Robert Lichter, Sronlcy Rothrnan, 3nd LindaS. Lichter, 11,e J\f edi il Eliu (k l thesda,
Md.: Adkr & A,Uer. 1986, ) 22. 28.
The.J\k L<nn T ri al (1982) I 23
Sir:
Rudy M. Baum in his article on "Science confronts creationist as-
sault" (C&E1VJ,an. 18, page 12) characterizesrny testimony in the Ar
kansas trial as consisting "ofselfservingdiatribes." He needs toconsult
his dictiona,-y. \Vhat I spoke in defense of was "openness of inquiry"
and "fair-play for mino rity opinion in regard co co ntroversial issues."
Considering that l arn agnosticand an evolutionist- both included in
my testimonybut neglected by the media generally- the"self-serving"
factor isobscure at best.
Apparentlyanyspoken response in open court above that ofa Caspar
Milquetoast qualifies as a d iatribe.unless.ofcourse.one represents the
camp ofentrenched opinion.Asa "newsanalyse" Baumqualifies for rhe
"PaulGoebbels" award,whichisgranted only to thoseshowingexperitse
in (I) belittlement,(2) innuendo, (3) prejudice,and (4) reportingour
of context....
\Y/. Sco t ?v!orrow
Associate Professor of Chemistry
\Vofford College, Spartanburg,S.C.10
11. Du dley Field Ma.lone. t]UOted in \'v'illiam Hille\ry ar)d O ren \V. Met1,ger, ed .. The
1'Vor/d f i\10$t h,mous C1.mrtT rill/: 1'i:1- 1mtl'iet Evd1ditm C,,u (Cincfonati:National Book Corn
pany. I92S). 187.
The 1,\1 L m n T ria l (1982) IlS
(3) 'lbere ,vas no question in our n)inds about the dedication of the
defense attorneys, though they,vere far oum111nbered by the ACLU
Q "And there are no- in chat section chere are no scientific scare-
ntenrs,vhacsoever ?"
A. "ll1ac's correct. ll1is is a rheology course."
Co1nrnents ontheJudge
sa,v express her disdain at che creationist cause fron1 cin1e co cin1eat
the trial.
3) His theologically liberal Methodist bishop was the first wia1ess
against teachingcreacionisn1. So,ne felr diat misfact alone should have
disqualified the judge. One person wrote a leccer co the editor of the
Arkansas Dernocrat (Decen1ber 15, 1981) saying:
tion ,vo11ld indicate d1ac the ruling isbased on the pretrial n1ind-set of
the judge,since hesometimescites the,vitnesses' ideasfro1n their precrial
depositions rather than fron1 the n1ore dearly d1ought out scace1nencs
d1ey lacer gave in court cesci1nony. In face die judge's opinion seenis co
be based largely on che ACLU brief.
'The First A1nendrnenc reads: "Cqngress shall rnake n<1 Law respecting an
establishment ofreligion, qr prohibiting the freeexetcise thereef.' And in
che f.unous Everson case (1947), Supre,ne Courc Juscice Black sraced
chat chis n1eans"neither ascare nor rhe Federal Governn1enc can sec up
a church." And neither can it "pass la,vs which aid one religion ... or
prefer one religion over another."
Now if che First An1end1nenr is really an anrj-esrablishn1encclause,
as ic says, and nor a cornplece separation clause, as it does noc say, chen
the basisfor the judge's rulingis,vrong.One thingseen1Scercain: if the
Consricucion 111eanc coseparate God andgover11111enc,rhen The!Jeclara-
tion ofindependence isunconsricucio,nal for itspeaks of d1e"unalienable
rights" granced coall hu1nans by die "Creacor." A11dsince pronouncing
The Declaratiqn of Independence unconscicucional is absurd on its face,
,ve are leli:,vich che only reasonable conclusion: mac che Conscicucion
does nocseparace God fron1governn1enc or from governn1enr-sponsored
publicsd1ools.
Bue lee ussuppose for diesakeofarg11n1enc d1acche First Arnendrnenc
could be understood as a separation clause (and noc an an ri-esrablish-
n1encclause). Even on chis interpretationJudge Overcon's decision is
contrary co the First Arnendrnenc, since it allo,vs o nly a naturalistic
evolutionary view co becaught, which vie,v favors rhe beliefsof religious
hurnaniscs. In face die judge's decision nor only favors die religion of
hun1anisn1but favorsitexclusively. For the ruling allowsonly noncheistic
evolucionisric and nacuraliscic vie,vs, ,vhich accord precisely ,vid1 the
vie,vsof religious hu,naniscs, co be caughc.
In brief,ifone takesan"anri-escablishn1ent"interprecation of the First
An1endn1en,cthen theAlkansascreacion-evolucion aceisconscicucional,
since it does not establish any one view or religion over anod1er buc
mandates c.eachingborh views. And ifone cakes a "wall of sepa rarion"
vie,v (asOverton apparendy does), then his ruling isa violation of che
Firsc Alnendn1ent, since ic noc only allo,vs buc favors nond1eisric reli-
gions over theistic ones. In either case, d,e ruling see,ns co violate che
Consricucjon, nor uphold it.
Judge Overton rejecced d1isanci-escablish111en c incerprecarion, say-
ingd1at "theargun1ent has no legal rnerit." Hedisn1issively referred to
Thc1\1,<i<a11 Tria l ( 1 98 2) 139
Bird's scholarly article in the Yale law Review2l as"a student note." lt
is difficult for non-lawyersto enter chis battle on tl1e n1eaning of tl1e
Constitution. Ir see,ns rhar tnuch of the current legal"reading" of the
Constitution is conrrary co a conunonsense interpretation. Certainly
experience sho,vs rhat che vast n1ajoricy of people expect readers co
understand by rheir ,vords ,vhac they n1eant by chen1, not ,vhac the
reader, vo1.tld like then1 r.o 1nean. Now, fro,n ,vhat ,vecan d iscernfron1
rhesc-ace,nencs of che fran1ers of che Consrirution, and its1u1derscood
,neaning by conte111poraries and in1111ediate successors, rheanti-esrab-
lishn1encinterprerarion ofche FirstAn1endn1encseen1srobe checorrecc
one. If rhis isso, Judge Overcon's decision is based on a 1nisincerpreca-
tion of che C onstit ution.
For rhose who defend the interp retat io n of the First An1endn1ent
n1ore in tennsofwhac it111e ansco11S today rather than,vhat thefran1ers
,neanr by ir, l ask the following question: Do these interpreters ,vanr
their words to be interpreted by succeeding generations according co
what they n1eant by tl1e1n or according co what che fi.1cure readers ,viii
decide tl1ey n1ean co them? If these interpreters expect us to accept
their meaning (and not read ours intoit), then should tl1ey notgive d1e
original fran1ers ofche First An1end1nent d1esan1e courcesy?
TH RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS
Judge Overton ruled that Act 590 ,vould establish the religion of
"fi.1ndan1enarlis1n"in publicschools and,vas thereby unconstitutional.
Bue in ruling rhe ,vay he did rhe judge has in effect established the
religion o f "secular hun1anisrn" in die public schools. Judge Overton
accon1lpished the opposite of ,vhac he thought he ,vas doing. For in
crying co avoid giving,vhat he calJed "fundan1entalisc"beliefsone voice
(an1011g two voices), hegave "huma nists"theonly voice.
approach (such as Act 590 provided for), there is no way one can
reasonablyargue chaconlyone view is being favored.1he Ace niandaces
teaching both vie,vs (if either is taught). So if Overron's reasoning is
right, rhen rhe Ace is also w1conscicutional because ic mandates teach-
ingevolution (which isconsistent ,vich a hu1nanisric religious sysce111).
Bue the judge clearly ackno,vledged (via his citingofdie Epperson case,
1968)chat ceaching evolucion isnot reaching religion. Ifche Aceequ ally
n1andaces ceachingboch (ifeither), dien ic is unreasonable co reject die
Acr because ic allegedly favors one of twoequally rnandaced views.
Second, chereisnowayAct 590could establish one viewoveranother,
since it doesn't n1andace ceacbingeicher. le isonly an"if,then"law.le says
d1acifoneviev,iscaught - andic need noc be- dien dieopposing view
n1ust also be caught. Ho,vcan ala,v n1aodacing the teaching of nothing
beestablishing anything?
Ofcourse, ic isargued chac wid1such an Ace111any teachers, votildope
not co ceacli eidier view and ,votild d1ereby rob che student of a valid
educationalexperience.Bueche possibilicyof 111issing"avalid educational
experience is neidier unconscicucional nor tu1con1nion (chere issiniply
far coo 01uch kno,vledge to teach everything) .
Further Reading
Geisler, Norman L., wich A. F. Brooke II and l'vlark J. Keough. 1he Creator in t fJt
Com1mom: "Scopesll: l'vlilford, l'v!ich.: l'vlo ct l'vlc,li a, 1982.
Gentry, Roberc. Creation's Tiny J\1ystery. Knoxvillc: Earth Science Association,
1988.
Gilkey,Langdon. Cre,11io11i,.,n 0 11 Trial:Evo!J1ti o11a n dGod111U trle Rock.l'v!in neapolis:
\'v'in.ston , 1998.
Hilleary, \'v'illiam, and Oren \'v'.l'vlcczge,reds. TheWorldsi\ 1ostFamousCourt 1hal:
Tennessee Evolraio11Case.C incinnati: National Book Company,1925.
Scalia, Antonin. Dissenting Opinion in Ed,uards ( J 98 7) (excerpted in chapter 6 of
this book).
11, 198I, but it wasnot until alter theSuprenie Court ruledon theissue,
on June 19, 1987, d1at I received d1e tran scrip.t111is scr-ange situation
has challenged niy nonnally anti-conspiratorial beliefs!
According toochereyewitnesses at d1e trial,,ny testin1ony wascrucial
co the caseand hannful to the ACLU'scause againsr teaching creation
alongside evolucion in public schools. Duane Gish, an eyewicness of
rhe event, wrote: "Geisler was not only present during the trial; he,vas
d1e lead ,vicness for d1e creationist side. . . . His cescitnony, in ,ny vie,v
(I,vas present during d1eentire trial), effectively den1olished d1e n1osr
ilnporrant thrust of che case by the ACLU" (see the foreword to chis
book).
Anod1er ,vicness ac me crial (Wayne Frair) confinned Gish's co1n-
mencs, saying, "Geisler'spresencarion ,vas superb, ... and ac its end
Gish was absolucely exube rant. . . . In no uncertain,vords he declared
co ,ne char Geisler successfully had de111olished every one of cheargu-
01encs present.ed by ACLU ,vicnesses during d1eir preceding five days
of resrirnony" (see rl1e preface ro chis book).
In spireofd1e crucial nature ofir in d1ecreationists' cause, n1y te sti-
1nony ,vas nor available tor any higher courc co see unril roo lace. And,
sadly, cheSupren1e Court (in Ed11Ja1-ds, I987)and lacercourts likeWeb-
ster (1990) and Dover (2005) cite McLean as a precedent opposed co
allo,ving creation into public schools. \Vhac follo,vs is che co,nplere
unedited transcript of 1ny testirnon y in Mclean v. Arkansas Board of
Education {1982), no,v being ,nade available tor d1e very first rune:'
PAR"fIALrRANSCRlPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HON. \VlLLIAM R.OVERTON
A Yes, rhere are a couple. First of all, I belong to the Arnerican Sci-
entificAfliliarion. Also, I noced d1ac rhelisc ofso,neof d1earcicles
d1ac I've ,vrirren is nor corup le ce.
111ereareacouple articles fron1"Scho larlyJournals" that aren't
included. I can 1nenrion rhen1 no,v if you wane, or I can-
Q Mention mose for the record if you kno,v right offi1and.
/\ Okay. One isn1e Missing Pre,nise in the Oncological Argu-
1nenr" ,vhich ,vas published in "Religious Studies"; che orher is
"TI1e Missing Pre,nise in the Cosrnologic al Argurnent;' which
was published in d1e"New Scholastisrn" [ Scholasticisrn ].
Q Dr. Geisler, ,vhere did you receive your Ph.D.?
A I received rny Ph.D. in philosophy frorn Loyolla [Loyola] Uni-
versity in Chicago.
QAnd ,vhar ,vas che subjecr of your dissercarion?
A My dissertation dealt wid1 che- \'{fhat is Religion? Whac is d1e
nature of religion and religious experience as ir bears on the bor-
derline areasofscience and philosophy and rhe interrelarionships
berween then1 .
QAnd ho,v longhave you been employed by the Dallasn1eological
Sen1inary?
A This is rny third year.
Q \'{(here,vere you previously ernployed?
A Previously I was a cl1airn1an of me Philosophy of Religion De-
parn11ent at Trinity Evangelical Divinit y School in Deerfield,
Illinois and rhen just previous to char cha innan ofrhe Philosophy
Deparnneor at Triniry College in Deerfield, Illino is.
Q \'{(hat classes do you reach at che Dallasnieological Sen1inary?
l\ I teach classesin philosophy, philosophy of religion,n1ed1odloogy,
philosophical 1ued1odology and theology.
QAnd what are your areas ofexpertise?
The Testimony' fl1cy Refused t() Transcribe JS I
r\\o/ell, transcendence n1eans 01ore than. Let rne try and give son1e
illustrations fron1 Lan Ran1sey in his book "Religious Language."
Hesayschat transcendence isyou could cake rhesa1ne object,say,
the sarne eniperical [e1npi rical] object and when suddenly it has
disclosure power, when it suddenly tells you u1ore than e1nperical
(e1npirica)l. Oneof the illustrarions he givesis ofa judge passing
outsentences and rhen finally he recognizes in one of the people
that he's passing out a sentence ,co a fonner loverof his. And
he says chat has disclosure powe,r because die nonnal en1perical
(enipirical] understanding of cl1at cakes on a new din1ension, ic
rakeson a transcendent di1nension.
Odrer illuscrations he gives is rhe experience cliac 1nany scien-
tists have had when cliey niake a d iscovery. n1e insight, die flash
ofcreadve insightrhac diey geeor diediscovery mac people have
when they look at Lineson a page and they realized1at sudden ly
that's noc jusc l6 line s, that'sa cube and ic takeson depth.So, tran-
scendence rneansthacability cosee rno re than or cogo beyond che
inune diace e1nperical (eoipirica)l data and gee sornediing d1ac is
a co111prehensive111odel by which son1eone can order their life.
Q For die court reporter, Dr. Geisler, you niay ,vane co slo,v down
just a licde bit. Does a religion den1and a belief in a deity?
1\ No, it doesn't. n1ereare 1nany religion s rhat have no belief in
Godar all. Certain fonns ofBuddhis1n do nor have a belief in
God but mey do have a transcendent. Nervannal1 (Nirvana]
beco1nes meir transcendent. 'There are religions of adieisn.1Al-
d1eiser (Altizer] in die Dead1 of God1nove1nenr said diar God
is dead. He transcended fonvard, niov ing forward. TI1ere are
hu111aniscic religionschat have noGod whatsoever. In face, they
deny the exisrence of God or at least a need for an existence of
God, but rhey nevertheless have a coni1niDnenr co so1ned1ing
mac they consider to beof transcendent value and ulcilnace im-
porrance co che1n.
1chink rhe best way todefine religion is rhe way char D r. PaulTil-
lick(Tillich] of Harvard defined ic,oneofdieforeniosc Atnerican
154 Creation and the Co urts
chat, traditionally believed chat there was a God and chat he had
created angels and char so,ne of these angels rebeled [ rebelled]
and becaineden1on.s111eleader ofchis rebellion wascalled Satan,
and they believed chat he was a real person who hasgreat powers
who can deceive people in rhe ,vorld. n, e occult is usually con-
nected,as it is in theScriptures, co chis beliefrhac occult practices
like nioving physical objects chrough che air such as n1aybe you
1nighcsee in "]lieE1npire Scrikes Back" Luke Sky,valker learning
rodo rhis.1his,votild bean occulr po,ver, and che belief in Satan
in diis Christian concexc in no way auconiarically ,neans char die
God mac d1ac (sic] Satan recognizes isan objecc of his worship.
Forexaniple, chere's a verse in che Bible d1acsays Saran believes
in God, believes mac there is a God bur he cren1bles. In ocher
words, God is nor die ulciniace objecr of his,vorship. So, diough
he knows diere is a God in diis Christian cradicion and diough
he believes diac God exiscs, he doesn't believe in God, he's nor
rnaking God an object of his con1n1itmenc.
So, it'sentirely possibleco have a belief that chere isa God, that
rhere is a Creator, wid1no religioussignificance whatsoever. In
face, Paul T illick [T illich] l think put it very well ,vhen he said
1u1less you ,nake a conuniunenc co it, unless you rn ake it the ulci-
1nare co1nniinnent, 1nake it the object of your devorion or your
tJcirnace pursuit or your overall explanation ofeverything, it has
no religious significance ,vhacsoever. And he gives chis kind of
description. Hesaid philosophy and religion are twodifferent,vays
ofapproaching rhe sa,ne objecr. If you approach die object frorn
rhescandpoinc of reason, char's philosophical. If you approach ic
fron1 die standpoint of faith, diat's religiou.sIf you approach it
just co explain it, chac's philosophy. If you approach it ro believe
in it, diac's religion.
And Dr. Gilkey, who cescified here earlier, ,vho ,vas a student
of Paul Tillick [T illid i], gave an excellent illusrracion of d1is in
his book, "Maker of Heaven and Earrh." He said on page 35, I
believeic was,in"Makerof Heaven and Eardi," d1ac ic's like1noun-
tain clirubers going up cwosidesof diesanie n1ountain.111ey are
The T csti 1m)n y 'hey Refused to Transcribe
/\ I think it's safe co say chat scarcely any reputable scientist ever
rejected asciencificvie\\' sin1ply because of d1e religioussourceof
chose beliefs. In oilier words,sin1ply because Newton believed in
God, I don't recall reading about anybody who ever rejected d1e
meory ofgravitation because Newton believed inGod. Or Pascal
or Pasteur or Calvin [Kelvin) orany of che ocher ,nen.
You see, in science, as one of me earlier ,vicnesses cescified co,
I chink it ,vas Pro[ Ruse, you distinguish between rhesource of
your niodel and che justification of diac n1odel, and die source,
d1ac is,,vhere you got rhe n1odel, has noiliing whacsoever ro do
\Vith me Scientific jUStifiability Of me lllOdel.
lberearea nu1nber ofinceresring illuscracions in che hisrory of
philosophy chat I niighc bring co your accencion char have very
weird source.s'Ihey ,vere philosophical or scientific people ,vho
were notconiposing religious n1odels, bucd1eir niodelscan1e fron1
very odd sources.
For instance, it's well ki10,V11 d1ac Socrates, in his philosophy,
that the in1pecus for his philosophyc.une fro1n che oracle of Del-
phi. ln other words, a prophet hascold hi1n chat he,vas the wisest
of n1en. Bue no,v I don't really recall ever reading a historian of
philosophy who rejected Socrates' philosophy sin1ply because a
prophet has cold hi1n.
Thesanie mingistrue,cheyscrucinizediconphilosophical grounds,
they reasonedabouc ic.Thesa1nerhingiscn1eof1na11yofchepeople.
For exa1nple,I 111encioned Francis Bacon. He adn1ics in che 'Ne,v
Organ" iliac. chis inspirncion can1e frorn Genesis, the1nandace that
God had given. Bue nobody rejected Bacon, d1eyhailed hiln as me
lamer of modern science in111any respects because ofir.
DeCarc[Descartes], a fan1ous cacionalisc philosopher ,vhosaid
thatyouhave coprove everychingby reason,either axio1nsorwhat
is reducabl.e [reducible) co axio1ns, received me i111perus for his
philosophy in d1ree dreams. He had three successive drean1s in
which there was lighcening (lighcning) and a wacern1elon and
soniebody giving alicde voice co hini.
The Testimony' fhe y Refused to Transcribe
chis bad decision scand as precedent in the record, kno,ving how che
courrs use precedents. Furrher, the Arkansas la,v, ,vhile it could have
beenconstructed better, was noc unconsrit.ucional. As we will see, the
better-constructed Louisiana la,v fared no better and was reject.ed for
1nany of die sa1ne basic reasons,citing che Arkansas McLean decision
as a precedent, just as I had feared.
Louisiana's"Creationisni Ace; like the Arkansas law, wasa"balanced"
approach. leallowed d1acschoolscould ope nocco reachon origins acall.
Ho, vever, ic demanded chat if chey chose co teach one vie,v of origins,
then die odier vie,vshould be presented in a balanced way as well. It
defined the d1eories as"diescientific evidences for [creation o r evolu-
tion) and inferences fro1n d1ose scientificevidences.1"
The challenge to die Louisiana law can1efro1n Louisiana parents,
teachers, and religious leaders in a federal districtcoun,,vhich granted
sununary judg1nenc, holding that d1e Ace violated rhe Escablislunenr
C.lause of the First Aniendn1enc. The case then ,vent to the court of
appeals, and fro111 rhere to rhe Supre1ue Courr.
I
The question for decision iswhether Louisianas" BalancedTreacn1enc
for Creation-Scienceand Evolution-Science in Public School lnstruc-
tion" Ace (Creationism Act) ... ( I982), is facially invalid asviolative of
rhe EstablishmentClause of che First AmencLnenc.
The C reationismAct forbids che ceachingof che theoryofevolution
in publicschools unlessaccompanied by instruction in"creation science."
No school is required to teach evolutio n or creation science. If either
is caught, however, che o th e r must also be taught. Ibid. The theoriesof
evolut ionand creation science arestatutorily defined as "the scientific
evidencesfor[creation orevolution] andinferences fron1thosescientifie
evidences."
Appellccs, who include parents of children attending Louisiana
public schools, Louisiana teachers,and religious leaders, challenged
2. lbid.
3. Te<.'hn ica1 rd<:l'e11cc!> ha.ve bcc1) largey
l diminl:(cd.
'The Etlw,11'dJ Suprem.e
Court Ruling (1987)
u
'fhc EstablishmentClause forbids cheenactment ofanylaw"respecting
an establishment of religion" (4). The Court hasapplieda three-pronged
test to determinewhee.herlegislation comporrs with the Establishment
C lause.First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular
purpose. Second, the statute'sprincipal or primary effect muse be one
4. \'(/irh a fu)Jco urt;withfull judiciaryamhoriry.
188 Creatio n and the Co urts
III
Le1no11's first prong focuses on the purpose char a nimatedadop
tion of the Acc. n1e purpose prong of the Lemon rest asks whether
government's actual purposeis to endorseor disapprove of religion."
Lynch v. Donnel r ... (19 84 ) (O'C O NNOR, )., concurring). A gov-
ernmental intention co promote religion isdear whentheStateenacts
a law to serve a religious purpose. This intention may be evidenced by
promotion of religion in general, sec lll11ce v.ja.lfree ... (Esrnblish-
rncnt Clause proteccs individualfreedom of conscience "coselect any
religious faithor noneat all"),orbyadvancementofaparticular religious
belief, c. g., Sto11e v. Grahan, . . . (i nvalidaciogrequirement co pose Ten
Commandmencs, which are"11ndcnialbyasacred ccxcin theJewish and
Christian fait.hs")[foocnoce omicced]; Epperso11 v.Ark,1nsas (holding
char banning che reaching of evolucion in public schools violates d1c
FirstAmendment since"teachingand learning"111ust nor"be tailored
coche principlesorprohibitionsofany religioussect or dogma"). If rhe
law wasenacted for thepurpose ofendorsing religion, "noconsideration
of chesecond or thirdcriteria [of Lemon] is necessary." Ula/lacev.Jajfree.
. . . In chis case, appellants have identified no clear secular purpose for
che Louisiana Acc.
True, the Ace's scared purpose is to protect academic frccdorn....
,nis phrase mighr, in common parlance, be understood as referring co
enhancing rhcfreedom of teachers co reach whac they will. The Courc
of Appeals, however,corrccdyconcluded d1ac che Ace was nordesigned
to further char goal (7) . \'(le find no merit in the State's argument char
che "legislature may nor [have] used the terms 'academic freedom' in
the correct legal sense. They might have [had) in mind, instead, a basic
concept of fairness; reachingall of cheevidence."... Even if "academic
C reat ion and the Co urts
IHA
\'(lhile the Court is normally deferential to a Stace'sarticulat ion of
a secular purpose,it is required that thestatement of such purpose be
sincereand notasham. Sec H1u.lace v. jq{fiee. . . (P0 \l(f LL,J.,concur-
ring); ... (O'C ONNOR,]., concurringin judgment); Stonev.Grahani
... ; Abington School Dist. v. Schempp....AsJUSTICE O'CONNOR
stated in /,flalf,zce:"It is not a trivial matter, however, to require that the
legislaturemanifestasecularpurposeand omitallsectarianendorsements
from itslaws.ll1acrequirement is precisely tailoredto the Establishment
Clause'spurposeofassuringthatGovernment not intentionallyendorse
religion o r a religiouspractice:'
It is clear from chelegisaltivehistorythat the purposeof the legisla-
tivesponsor,Senator Bill Keicl1, was co narrow thesciencecurriculum.
D uring thelegislativehearingsS , enator Keithstated: "l\1y preference
wo uld bethat neither[creacionis1n norevolution] be taught."Sucha ban
on teachingdocsnot promote- indeed, it undermines- the provision
of a comprehensivescientific education.
It isequallyclear that requiringschoolsco teachcreation sciencewith
evolutiondoes not advanceacademicfreedo1n.1hc Act docs not grant
teachersa Aexibilitychat theydid not already possessto supplant the
present sciencecurriculum with the presentation of theories, besides
evolution,about the originoflife.Indeed, theCourt of Appeals found
that no law prohibitedLouisiana public school teachers from teaching
anyscientific theory.As the presd i ent of the LouisianaScience l eachers
Association testified,"anyscientific co ncept chats based on established
fact can beincludedinourcurriculu1nalready,and no legislation allow-
ing th is is necessary." The Act provd i esLouisianaschoolteachers with
no new authority. Thusthestated purposeis not furclieredby it.
'!he Alabamastatuteheld unconstitutionalin Wallacevj.,iffiees,u pra,
is analogous. In Jll11cc, the State cl1aracterized its new law asone de-
signed to providea I-minute period for meditation.\Verejected that
stated purpose as insufficient, because a previouslyado pted Alabama
'IncEdwarthSupremc Court Ruling{1987)
HID
Stone v. Graha11, invalidated the Stace's requirement that the Ten
Commandmencs be posted in public classrooms. "The lcn Command-
ments are undeniably asacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths,
and no legislative recitation ofasupposedsecular purpose can blind us
to that fact."... As a result, the contention that the law wasdesignedto
provide instruction on a "fundamental legalcode" was "not sufficient
coavoid conAict witl1 tl1e J' irst J\Jnendment." Ibid. Similarly Abington
School Dist. v. Schentpp held unconstitutional a statute "requiringthe
selection and reading at che openingof the school day of verses from
Cn..-arion and rhe Courts
the Holy Bible and the ,ecitation of the Lord's Prnyer by thestudents in
unison,"despite theprofferofsuch secular purposesas the"promotion of
moral values, thecontradiction to the macerialistic trends ofour times,
the perpetuation of our institutionsand chc teaching ofl iterature.". . .
As in Stone and Abington, we need n()t be blind in this case to the
legislature'spreeminent religiouspurpose in enacting thisstatute.There
is a historic and contemporaneous link between the teachingsof cer-
tain religiousdenominationsand the teachingof evolution{10}. lt was
thislink that concerned the Court in Epperson v. A,kansas . . . (1968),
which also involved a facial challenge to a statute regulatingthe teach-
ingof evolution. ln that case, the Court reviewed an Arkansas statute
char made it unlawful for an instructor to teach evolutio n or to usea
textbook that referred to thisscientifictheory. Although the Arkansas
anrievolution law did nor explicitlystate its predominate religiouspur-
pose, the Court could not ignore char "rhestaturewasa product of rhe
upsurge of 'fundamcncalisr' religiousfervor" that has longviewed this
particularscientific theoryascontradictingthe literal interpretationof
the Bible....(11). Afi:cr reviewingthe hisroryofanticvolution statutes,
the Court determined that "there can be no doubt chat the motivation
for the [Arkansas] law was rhesame [as other antievolution statutes]:
to suppress the teachingof a theory which, it was thought, 'denied'
the d ivine creation of man." ... ' Die Cotirt found that therecan be no
legirin1arestareinterestin protectingparticular religionsfrontscientific
views"d istasteful t<>them;. . . (citationomitted), and concluded"that
the l' irst A,nendment does not permit theSeate t<>require that teaching
and learning must be tailoredco the principles or prohibitions of any
religious sect or dogma;. . .
These same historicand contemporaneous ancagonisnts between
the teachingsof certain religious denominations and the teachingof
evolutionarepresent in thiscasc.lhe preeminent purpose of the Loui-
siana Legislature was clearly to advancethe religious viewpoint chat a
supernaturalbeingcreated hmnankind (12). lltcterm"creationscience"
wasdefined asembracing this particular religious doctrine by thosere-
sponsible for the passage of rheCreationism Act.Senator Kcithslcading
expert oncreation science, Edward Boudreau,x testifiedat dielegislative
hearings that the theoryof creati()n science included be!ief in theexis-
tence of a supcrnan,ral creator (notingthat "creation scientists" point
to high probabilit y that lifewas "created byan intelligentmind") (13).
Th,c /:,dw,11'dJ S upreme.Court Ruling(1987) 193
Senator Keith also cited testimony from other experrs to support the
creation-science view that "a creator[was) responsible for the universe
and everything in it."... (14).n1e legislativehistory therefore reveals
thac the term"creationscience," as concemplaccd by chelegislaturechac
adoptedt.hisAct,c1nbodies t.hereligious beliefthatasupernaturalcreator
was responsible for the creation of humankind.
furthermore, it is noc happenstance chac thelegislacure required the
teachingofa theorythat coincided with this religious view.The legisla-
tive history documenrs chat the Act's primary purpose was to change
the science curricu lum of publicschools in order to provide persuasive
advantage to a particularreligious doctrine that rejeccs thefactual basis
ofevolutionin icsentirety. Thesponsorof theCreacionis111Ace,Senator
Keith, explained during the legilsativehearings that hisdisdain for t.he
theoryofevolutionresulted from thesup port thatevolutionsuppl iedto
views contrary co hisown religious beliefs.According coSenator Keith,
the theoryofevolutio n wasconsonant with the"cardinal principlc[s] of
religious humanism,secularhumanism, theological liberalism,aetheis-
tis,n (sic).". . . Thestatesenator repeate(Uy stated thatscientificevidence
supporting his religious viewsshouldbe included in the publicschool
curriculun1 to redress the face that the theory ofevolution incidentally
coincided with what hecharacterizedas religious beliefs antitheticalco
his own (15). 111c legislation therefore sought to alter the sciencecur-
riculum co reAect endorsement of a religious view chac is antagonistic
to the theory ofevolution.
In this case, the purpose of the Creation ism Act was to restructure
thescience curriculum coconform with a particular religious viewpoint.
Out of many possible science subjcccs taught in the public schools, the
legislaturechose to affect the reaching of theonescientific theorychac
historically has been opposed by certain religious sects. As in Epper-
Jon,thelegislature passed the Ace co give preference to those religious
groups which have as one of their tenetschecreation of humankind
by a divine creator. The"overriding fact" that confronted the Court in
Epperson was "chat Arkansas' law selccrs from the bodyof knowledge
a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is
deemed to conflict with . . . a particular interpretation of the Book of
Genesis by a particular religiousgroup." . . . Similarly,theCreationism
Act isdesigned either to promote thetheoryofcreation science which
embodiesa particular religioustenet by requiring that creation science
194 Creation and rhc Courts
IV
Appellants contend that genuine issues of material fact remain in
dispute, and therefore the District Court erred in granting summary
judgment. Federal RuicofCivil Procedure 56(c) provides thatsununary
judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, deposit ions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
aftida,its, if any,show that thereis no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judg,nent as a matter of
law." A court's find ingof improper purpose behind a statute is appro-
priately determined by thestatute onitsface,itslegislative history.or its
interpretation by a responsible administrativeagency.See,e.g., J,Vaflace
v.J,iffree ... ; Stone v. Gr,ih,un ... ; Eppe, 011 v. Arkans,is....The plain
meaning of thestatute's words, enlightened by their context and the
contemporaneous legislative history, can control thedetermination of
legislative purpose. SeeWidlt1ce v. jaffree . . . (()' CO NNO R,J.,concur-
ring in judgment); Rich,irds v. United States ... ( l 96 2);],iy v. Boyd . . .
(1956).Moreover, in determining the legislative purpose of a statute,
The Edward.s,S uprcm.cCourl Ruling(1987) 195
the Court hasalso considered the historical context of thestatute,e.g.,
Epperson v. Ark1111stl$,supra,and thespecific sequence ofevenrs leading
to passage of thestatute, e.g.,Ariingt-011Heightsv.Metropolit,1n Housing
Dev. Corp. . . . ( I977).
In thiscase,appellees' motion forsummary judgment rested on the
plain language of the Creationism Act, the legislative history and his-
torical context of the Act. the specific sequence of events leading to
the passage of the Act. the State Board's report on a survey of school
supcrintcndcnrs,and thecorrespondence between the Act's legislative
sponsor anditskeywitnesses. Appellants contend that affidavits made by
twoscientists, cwo the(l)ogiansa, nd an education adn1inistn1tor raise a
genuine issueof material factand thatsununary judgment was therefore
barred. The affidavits define creati()n science as "origin through abrupt
appearance in complex form"and allege thatsuch aviewpoint constitutse
a truescientific theory. See App. ro Brief for Appellants A-7 to A-40.
\Xie agree with rhe lower courts that these affidavits do nor raise a
genuine issueof material fact.Theexistence of"uncontrovenedaffidavits"
does not bar summary judgment (17). Moreover, the postenacrment
testimony ofoutside expertS is oflircle use in determining theLouisiana
Legislature's purpose in enacting thisstatute., n e Louisiana Legislature
did hearand rely on scientificexpcrtS in passing the bill(18), but none of
the persons makingtheaffidavitS produced by the appellants participated
in orcontributed cotheenactment of thelaw or itSilnpkmentation(I 9).
The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Mon-
day-morning"battle of theexperts" over possible technical meanings of
cern1Sin thestaturewould not illuminate cl1econremporaneouspurpose
of the LouisianaLegislature when it made the law (20 ). We therefore
conclude that the District Court did nor err in finding that appellants
failed co raisea genuine issue of material fact,and in grantingsununary
judgment ( 21).
V
The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by re-
quiring either the banishment of rhe theory of evolution from public
schoolclassroomsor the presentation ofa religions viewpoint that rejectS
evolution in itsentirety. The Aceviolates the Establishn1encClause of the
f irstAmendment because it seeks coemployrhesymbolicandfinancial
Creation and the C(lurts
Notes:
I JUSTICE O'CO NNO R joins all but Parr II oft.his op inion.
2 Appellants, the Louisiana Governor, the Attorney General,the State
Superintendent, the State Depart ment of Education and the St.ran1-
many Parish School Board, agreed not to implement che C reationism
Act pending the 6nal outcome of thislitigation. The LouisianaBoard
ofElenientar)' andSecondarv, Education> and theOrleans ParishSchool
Board wereamongthe original defendants in the suit but both later
realignedas plaintiffs.
3 1he District Court initiallystayed the action pending the resolution
ofa separate lawsuit brought by t heAce's legislativesponsor and ochers
fordeclaratory and injunctiverelief.,\Jter theseparacesuitwasdismissed
on judsdictionalgrounds, Keith v.lo1tisia11a Department of Ed1tcation
. . . (198 2), the District Court lifted its stay in this case and held t.hat
the Creationism Act violated the Louisiana Co nstitution.The court
ruled thatthe StateConstitution grantsauthorityover the publicschool
sysre,n to the Board of Elementary a nd Secondary Education rather
than thestatelegislature. On appeal, the Court of Appealscertified the
question to the LouisianaSupreme Court, which found the C reation-
ism Act did not violate theStace Const.itution, Aguilln,dv. Treen ...
(1983 ). The Court of Appeals then remanded the case co the District
Court to determine whether the CreationismAct violates che Federal
C onstitution. Agttil!ard v. Treen . . . (1983).
4 The First Amend1nenc states: "Congress shall make nolaw respecting
an establishment of religion... ." Under the Fourteenth Amendment,
this "fundamental concept ofliberty"appliesto the States. C,uitwell v.
Connecticut . . . ( I940).
5n,eLen,on test hasbeen applied in all cases sinceitsadoption in1971,
except in A1arsh v. Cha,nbers . . . ( 1983), where the Courr held that the
NebraskaLegislature'spractice of opening a session with a prayer bya
chaplainpaidby theStatedid notviolate theEstablislunentClaus.eThe
Court based its conclusion in that case on the historicalacceptanceof
the practice. Such a historical approachis not useful in determining
the proper rolesof murch and state in publicschools,since free public
education was virtually nonexistentat che rimeche Constitution was
'Th,c Edw,11'd.>S uprcme.Co urt Ruling(1987) 197
adopted. Sec /{lace v.Jaffiee... (1985) (O'CONNO R,]., concur-
ring in judgment) (citingAbington School Dist. v. Srhempp ... (1963)
(BRENNAN,J..concurring)).
6 The potential for undue inAuence is far less significant wirh regard
to college stud entswho voluntarily enroll in courses. "This distinction
warrantsa difference in constitutio nal results." Abington School Dist.v.
Schen,pp . . . (BRENN AN,).,concurring). Thus,for instance,theCourt
has not questionedthe authorityof state colleges and universities to
offer courses on religionor rheolog.ySec Widmar v. Vincent . . . (1981)
(POWELL,).); ... (STEVENS],.,concurring in judg1nent).
7 The Court of Appeals stated chat "academic freedom embodies the
principle that individual inscructors are ac libertyco ccach that which
they dee,nco beappropriate in the exercise of their professional judg-
ment." . . . Bue, in the Scare of Louisiana, courses in publicschools arc
prescribed by the Stare Board of Educarion and teachers arc not free,
abscnc permis sion, to teachcourses different from whac is required.
. . . "Academic freedom; at least as it is co mmonly understood, is not
a relevant concept in this context. N!orcover, as the Court of Appeals
explained, the Act "requires,presun1ably upon risk of sanction or dis-
missal for failure to comply,the reaching of creation-science whenever
evolution is caught. Although statesmay prescribe public school cur-
riculum concerning scienceinstruction under ordinary circumstances,
the compulsion inherenc in the Balanced Treacment Act is,on its face,
inconsistent with the idea of academicfreedom as it is universally un-
derstood." . . . TheAct acrually serves to diminish academicfreedom by
removing theflexibility to teach evolutionwithout also teachingcreation
science, even if teachers determine that such curriculum results in less
efleccive and comprehensivescience instruccion.
8Creationisn1Act'sprovisionsappear amongother provisions prescribing
thecoursesofstudyin Louisiana's publicschools'. Theseother provisions,
similar co those in other States, prescribecoursesofstud yinsuch copies
as driver training, civics, theConstitution, and freeenterprise.None of
theseotherproviisons,apart fron1those associated with theCreationis111
Act, nominaUy mandates "equal ti,ne" for opposing opinions within a
specific area of learning. Sec, e. g., La. Rev. Stat.Ann. . . . ( I987).
9 lliedissent [ofScalia] concludes that cheAct'spurposewas to protect
theacademic freedo,n ofstudents.and not thatof teachers. Post,at628.
Sucha viewis not at odds withour conclusion that if the Act's purpose
Cn..-arion and rhe Courts
present la\v (via Epperson) rhat protects only the teaching ofevolurion
"advances a religious doctrine by requ.iring eid1er die banish111ent of the
theory ofcreation fro1n publicschool classroon1s or thepresentation of
a religious viewpoint that rejects creation in itsentiret y."
6
Scalia's Dissenting Opinion
in the Edwards Case (1987)
205
206 Creation and the Co urts
Concluding Comments
Scalia'sdissenr needs noelaboration.He hirson n1osr of thekeypoints
inchecontroversy and backs ir up,virhcase referencesand sound judicial
reasoning. Since only one ocher justice joined ,vich hin1 (Rehnquist)
and since, while chey are conservarive, we do nor kno,v ho,v rhe nvo
recently appointed Supre111e Court justices (Roberts and Alico) would
vote on such issues, it is reasonable coassun1e chat tl1ehigh courr isnot
yet prepared co overturn chis decision.1hus, it is very i111porcanc co
gee me info nn acion contained in chis book ouc co rhe general public,
scholars, la,vyers,and courts.
Introduction
1be plaintiff in d1e2005 Dover case, vasTan1n1y Kirzn1iUer and the
defondanc,vas die Dover AreaSchool Disrricr, in Dover, Pennsylvania.
On Ocrober 18, 2004, che defendanr Dover Area School Board of Di-
rectors passed bya 6-3voce the following resolution:
2.1 3
2,14 Creation and the Co urts
1l1e Dover trial began Sepcernber 26, 2005, and continued chrough
Novernber 4.111e rulingwas not expected unti.learly2006, but a surpris-
i11gly long(139-page) rulingcan1e very quickly on Decen1ber 20, 2005,
in liccle over a n1oncl1. Coniing as it did on cl1ac dace, cl1e announce-
rne nc, ,vhich could have been expected co cause ,videspread reaccion,
was overshado,ved by rhe holiday season.
First, the courc applied the endorsement test co the Dover school
policy. \Ve will examine the nature of the endorsen1enccest and ics ap-
plication co teaching ID in public school science classes.
The natu1eoftheendorseinent testitself According codie Dovercourt,
"'TI1e endorse1nenc cesc recognizeschat when governnienc transgresses
the liuiits of neucralicy and aces in ways chac sho,v religious favoricis1n
or sponsorship, it violates die Esrablish1nenr Clause." ... "'TI1e ce ntral
issuein chis case is whether [the govenunenc) has endorsed (religion)
by irs [actions].ro answer chat quest ion, we 11111st exan1ine both whar
[che governn1enc) intended to conununicace ... and ,vhat n1essage [its
conduct] actually conveyed. The purpose and effect prongsof the Le,non
tesc represent d1ese C\VO aspects of che1neaning of the [govenunent's)
action. . . . n1e test consisr.s of rhe reviewing court derern1ining whar
n1essage a challenged govern1nenral policy or enacnnenc conveys co a
reasonable,objective observer who kno,vs the policy's language,odgins,
and legislative history, as,veilas the history of rhe co,nniunicy and die
broader social andhistoricalconcexcin which d1e policyarose." To niake
thisdetenninarion,ahypothetical"objective observer",vho is"fa1niliar
wirh the origins and context of die govern,nenr.-sponsored 1nessageat
issue and che history of rheconununity where d1e niessage isdisplayed"
is posited. This "reasonableobserver is [assumed co be] an info n ned
citizen ,vho is niore knowledgeable d1an die average passerby." So,"die
observer looks co chat evidence toascerrain ,vhemer the policy 'in fact
conveys a message of en dorsemen.ror disapprovla' of religion, irrespec-
rive of,vhat che govern1nenr 1nighc have intended by ic."6
Theapplication oftheendorsement policy.niecourc rulinglisted several
reasonswhy rhe Doverschool board policy violated chiscesc. Irconcluded
chat,"An ObjectiveObserver Would Know diac1Dand TeachingAbout
'Gaps' and'Proble1ns' in Evolutionarynieory are Creationist, Religious
Strategies that Evolved fi:0111Earlier Fonnsof Creacionisn.i"7
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
The D,>ver Case (20 05} 217
and is so,net i,nes kno,vn as che scientific 1ned1od. ... Med1odolog ical
naruralisn1 is a 'ground rule' of science today which requires scientists
co seek explanationsin the ,vorld arotuid us based upon what ,ve can
observe, cesr, replicate, and verify."23
11iey deed die National Acade1ny of Sciences (NAS) as"in agree-
n1ent that science is litnited co eni pirical,obser vable and ultiniately
testable data." le is restricted co , vhat "can be inferred from die con-
firn1able data- die resultsobtai ned duo ugh observations and experi-
1nencs cliac can be substantiated by oilier scientists. Anycliing that
can be observed or 1neasured is an1enalbe to scientific investigation.
Explanations cliat cannot be based upon en1pirical evidence are noc
part of science."24
anilnals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary rneans but were
created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designe.r"21
,vid1out all the pares does not n1ean it cannot operate in another way.
"For exainple, in the case of the bacterial flagellu111, re,noval of a pare
n1ay prevent it fron1acringasa rotary motor. However, Professor Behe
excludes, by definition, rhe possibility that a precursor co the bacterial
flagellun1 fi1nctioned not as a rotary n1ocor, but in son1e ocher way,
for exa1nple as a secretory systen1." So,"the qualification on ,vhat is
n1eant by 'irredu cible con1plexiry' renders ir n1eaningless as acriricis1n
of evolution. . . . In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as
a ,veil-recognized, ,vell-docu1nented explanation for howsysten1s,vith
multiple pares could have evolved chro1igh natural 1neans.Exaptation
n1eans that so1.neprecursor of the subject systen1had a different, select-
able function before experiencing rhechange or addition rl1at resulted
in rl1esubject systen1wirh ics present fi1ncrion....The NAShas rejected
Professor Behe'sclaun for irreduciblecon1plexity by usingthefollowing
cogent reasoning:
Bue "Professor Behe cescified chat the screngch of the analogy de-
pends upon the degree ofsin1ilarity entailed in the nvo propositions;
ho,vever, if rhisis the rest, IDcompletely fails." For,"Unlike biological
syscc1ns, hu1nan arcifaccs do not liveand reproduce over cirne.n1ey are
non-replicable, they do nor undergo generic reco1nbinacion, and d1ey
are noc driven by natural selection." Furd1er, in "hun1anarcifaccs, we
know che designer's identit y,hun1an, and die n1echanis1n of design,
as ,ve have experience based upon en1pirical evidence rhar hu1nans
can 1nake such things, as ,veil as 1nany ocher attributes including the
designer's abilities, needs, and desires."n1c court concluded "that rhc
only acrtibute of design rhac biologic-al sysre1ns appear co share wirh
hu1nan arcifacts is thei r con1plex appearance, i.e. if ic looks co1nplex
or designed, it n1ust have been designed. . . .This inference to design
based upon che appearance of a 'purposeful arrangen1enc of pans' is a
con1pletely subjective proposition, decerinined in rhe eye of each be-
holder and his/ hervie,vpoinc concerning die con1plexicy ofa sysce1n."
Accordingly, "die purporced positive argun1enc for ID does nor satisfy
the ground rules of science ,vhich require cescable hypotheses based
upon natural explanatio ns. . . . ID is reliant upon forcesacting outside
of che natural world, forces that ,ve cannot see, replicate, control or
test, which have produced changes in this ,vorld. \Vhile ,ve take no
position on whedier such forces exist, d1ey are sin1ply nor testable by
scientific nieans and therefore a nnocqualify as pare of d1e scientific
process or as a scientific dieo ry."30
The Co urt'sConclusion
T H E COURT'S C ON CLlJSI ON
niecourc concluded: "Although Defendants' actions havefailed co
passconscicucional1nuscer under dieendorse1nenc rest and pursuant co
die purpose prongofLen,on, thus n1aking further inqu iry w1necessary,
,ve will briefly address the final Le111on prong relevant to our inquir y,
,vhich is effect, in die interest of con1pleceness....Moreover, because
die Lemon efiecc rest largely covers die sa1ne grotuid as die endorse-
1nenc test, ,ve will incorporateour extensive factual findings and legal
conclusions n1ade under dieendorsen1enc analysis by reference here,in
accordance with' U1irdCircuit practice.". . .
3S. Ibid.
The D,>ver Case (20 05} 231
'TI1ecourt added, "\X'ith that said, \ve do not question that 1nany of
theleadingadvocatesof ID have bona fideanddeeply held beliefs which
drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do \Ve controvert that ID should
continue t.o be studied, debated,and discussed. As seated, our conclu-
sion roday is char it is unconsticurional co reach ID asan alren1aciveco
evolutio n in a public school science classroon1."
1l1ey added, "1l1osewho disagree with our holding ,vilJ likely 111ark
it as the produce of an activist judge. If so, rhey \YUi have erred as chis
is111anitesdy not an activist Court. Rad1er, d1is case can1e to us as die
resulr of rheactivisn1ofan ill-inforn1edfaction onaschool board, aided
bya nacionaJ public interestla\v firn1eager co find aconsricucional test
case on ID, who in conibinacion drove die Board to adopt an in1pru-
dent and ulcin1ately unconstitutionalpolicy. The breathtaking inanity
of die Board's decision is evident when considered against die factual
backdrop\vhich has no\v been ft1llyrevealed through d1is rrial.n1e sru-
denrs, parents, and ceachers of rhe Dover AreaSchool Discricc deserved
bec.cer than co be dragged into chis legal n1aelscro n1, with its resulting
utter ,vasce of1nonetary and personal resources."
And "co preserve the separation ofchurch and scace 1nandated by the
Esc-ablislunencClauseof d1e FirscAn1endn1entcodie UnitedSraces Co n-
sricucion, and Arr. I, 3 of me Pennsylvania Conscirurion, ,ve ,vUI enrer
an order pennanendy enjoining Defendants fro111 n1aintaining che ID
Policy in anyschoolwithin theDover AreaSchool District,fron1requiring
teachers codenigrate or disparage mescientific theory ofevolution, and
fron1requiringteachersco refercoa religious, alternative theory known as
ID. We wWalso issueadeclaratoryjudg1nenc char Plainciffs' righcs unde r
theConstitutionsofthe United States and the Con1111onwealth of Penn-
sylvania have been violaced by Defendants' actions. Defendancs' actions
in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights as guaranteed to che1n by me Con-
stirurio n of me Unirecl $races and 42 U.S.C. 1983subject Defendants
co liability wid1 respect co injunctiv e and declaratory relief; but also for
non1inalda.n1agesand die reasonable vaJueofPlaintiffs' acrorneys' services
and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs constitutional righcs.''38
38. Ibid.
The D,>ver Case(2005} 23
Refutation of the ruling is lefi: for the next chapter. Here it will suf-
fice co sununarize the major points ofdie rulingand to challengeso1ne
n1ajor prem ises.First,son1e general conunents.
Genea
r l Co111r11ents
Specific Co1nr11ents
Sixth, the ,videly used ID book Of Pandas and People ,vas singled
out for conde,nnation on the grounds that it ,vas not only bad science
but also inherendy religious.'This would s,ee n co mean its use would be
forbidden under any conditions in a publicschool science class.11iank-
fully, this ,vas only a local decision and has not been ratified by the
Suprenie Court.
Sevenrh, there is nothingcontrived about positing only nvo basic
vie,vsof origins.11iereareonly nvo vie,vs on each point of origin (see
appendix 6),and what argues for one, argues against the other. Besides
th is, there is positive evidence for creation (seechapter 8).
In shore, irishard to conceive of how things could have gone,vorse
for die crearionist cause in public school science classes than it did in
the Dover case.
Introduction
T,vo rn a in reasons have bee n given by che courts for not allo,ving
the teaching of creation alongside evolucio n in public school sci-
ence classes:{1) C reat ion is nor scienceand, therefore, has no rnore
place in a science class than does astrology, the flat earth view,1 or
the derno n theory of sickness. (2) Creation and intelligent design
{hereafcer ID)2 are essentially religious and, therefore, violate the
First An1endrnent prohibitio n against establishing religion. Before
these objectio nscan be addre.ssed,, ve rn ust definesoniecrucial rerrns
of the debate.
1. For acorrec tivetochc myth that most mcdie\'al peoplebclic.,c:.d io a"flat earth; secJef
frey Burton Russell, bNJem ingthe FM, l:,'mth: G,!umhu s and 1\1oder11 f l iJtor ilmi ( \ Xc'sr port,
Conn.: J>r;1<;1cr, 1997).
2. (I) proponent,: add dlt: \\'Ord "'intd ligc'. nt " to '"dsc. ign " to indicate th-<..y arc not referring to
apparent dcsi.gn caused by natural procem .s( like wavesmak e in the nd) hut tOreal de.sign
thatcan be made.onl>' by an iordligcrucaus<...
239
240 Creation and the Couru
Definitions
Creation: For che purposes of this discussion "creation" or "ID,"3 as
n1any no,v call it, ,vill be defined as it was in d1e McLean(1982) case:
"'C reation science' n1eans iliescientific evidences forcreation and infer-
ences fro1n these scientific evidences" (McLean,Section 4).
More specifically, ID has been described as follo,vs:
In rhis chapter ,ve ,vill discuss ,vhemer me reasons given for rejecting
the reachingof me scientific evidence for creation in public schools in
McLean (1982), Edwards (1987), and Dover (2005)are insufficient
and whether, d1erefore, creation or ID should be peru1icted in public
scl1ools.
3. Of <.'Ourst:, i1ttd ligent design advocates have defined ID more broadly than c reatio 11
advocates have typically dcfint.'d creation, avoiding refer<:n ce s to a C rl -a t o r, c.;reation, the age
of d,e ca.rth, a1,da flood.'Thty prefer terms like de$ign. Designer.alld Lm::Uigrnt Cause.n,c
'<.Ouru, no,,er.heles.s, se.c this asa thinly disguised formof Cr(.ltionism (see chapter 7). Also.
k>me erc.1tionists distinguish their views from ID. s Stephen C. Meyer, tnrelligent Design
ls No rCreationism Da& i Tekgmp/J,Ja1)uary28. 2006;aod Henry Motris."lnrdligenrOes ig1)
a nd/ or Stia lt ific Crt-ario ni:-01; at http:// www.icr.org/ artidt"/2708 / .
4. St u ar t Pul len , 'OJe 1"i!ne 1st?flmdlig em D ign(Jan. I, 2001), at http:// \Vw\v.thcory-of-
evolutioo.org/ Lltrocluction /de"$ign.hem.
Should Creation UcTaughtasScicnc.:c in PublicSchools? 241
As ,ve haveseen inea rlier chapc.ers, che n,o basic reasons given by the
courts for nor allo,ving che teaching ofcreation are chat iris nocscience
and that it is religious. Boch ofd1ese reasons have been used to exclude
creation fron1thescience curriculu111 in public schools. McLean (1982)
tLsed both, Edwardr ( 198 7 ) used only thelatter, andD/Jver{2005) used
boch, though it defined science rufferencly.
1l1e McLean (1982) courc argued chat creation is not science,8 as did
Dover(2005), though theydefined "science"differencly. Thissenri1nent that
creation is not science isconunonlyecl1oed in thescientific conuuuniry.
ONA and written language. fn both cases, the effects have the sa,ne
basiccharacteristics,nan1ely, the obvious signs of being che produce of
a 111ind, such as irreducible co1nple:dty (e.g., the hu111an eye), specified
coinplexicy (asin the DNA), or anricipacory design (such as revealed in
theanthropic principle,,vhich states that che universe has been purposed
for rhee,nergence of life in general and hu,nan life in particular since
ics inception). ro rule chisour aslegici1nare signs ofinrelligenr.causal-
ity is co rule out such things as archaeology, cryptology, and the SETI
prognun. In face, ic is co deny the scientific principle of unifonnicy by
which alone we can know the past.
as the basis for their understandingof unifonniry, but the objectof the
inquiry oforigin science, unlike in the case ofe111pirical science, is not
a regularity in che present but asingularity in d1e past (like the origin
of rhe universe or che origin of life). For exan1ple, if repeatedly in rhe
present only intelligent causes are known to produce d1e kind ofletter
sequence found in the genetic code, d1en it is reasonable co posculace
an intelligent cause for rhegenetic codein che first livingcell. TI1esa111e
is true of pottery and arrowheads. Since no natural causes (only intel-
ligent ones) are k.t10,vn by repeated observacion co produce specified
co,n plexit y and irreducibleco1nplexicy,19 rhen ic is nor reasonableto
posit natural causes of rhe origin oflife or of ne,v life fonns.
origin. So, it isproper to clain1that there are really only nvo basic vie,vs
on all points oforigin (eirher an intelligent or a natural cause; eirher a
natural or a supernatural cause).
Onecould alsosay chat an intelligent causeoflifeand/or newlifefonns
1nay be eicher ,vicl1in cl1e universe (as in pancheisn1 or panencl1eisn1,)or
beyond cl1e lUliverse (asin rheisn1). Bur srill, there areonly cwo basickinds
ofcauses for each point oforigin. Ifscienrific evidence likethe Big Bang
or che anchropic principle can be used co sho,v d1ar che posited inrel-
ligenr cause offirst life (or ne,v life fonns) is beyond rhe universe, d1en
dieevidence would favor rheisn1B . ur coexclude the useofsuchevidence
and reasonable inferences fron1 science class reveals a philosophical or
religious bias by naturalisticevolutionistswho fulsely clairn robe doing
"pure" science when in face they are violating the First A1nend111encby
establishing d1eir own religiouspoint ofview.Ir isneitherscientific, fuir,
nor consrirurional co allo,v only o ne view co be raughr.
qualify evolurion fron1 being raughc asascientific view in public schoo ls?
Certainly not.
Second, the Bible has been the source char pro1npred nun1erous ar-
chaeological findings in che Holy Land, buc chat does not n1ake chese
findings unscienrific or religiousand thereby disqualify the1n as being
parr of the science of archaeology.
'Third, n1any scientific and philosophical pursuits had a religious
source. Socrates wasinspired in his philosophical pursuits by the pagan
OracleofDelphi. n1efounder of1nodernrarionalistic philosophy, Rene
Descarces, began his philosophical pursuits ,vhen inspired by so1ne
dreains.46\"{re would also have co reject Keku.le's 1nodel of rhe benzene
n1olecule, since he got it fron1 a vision of a snake biring irs cail!41 And
\Ve n1usr also consider the alternating current n1otor unscientific be-
cause Nikola Tesla received the idea for ir in a vision ,vhile reading a
pantheistic poet.48Should all these scientific and philosophical views
be rejected n1erely because their source was religious? Indeed, Herberr.
Spencer, ,vhon1 Charles Danvin called "our great philosopher," ca1ne
up ,vith die idea of cosn1ic evolution while he was1neditaring on rhe
ripples in a pond one Sunday 1norning.
Finally, it is widely ackno,vledged char belief in asupernatural cause
played a vical role in che very origin of n1odern science.49Indeed, tor me
first two and a half cenruries of111odernscience (1620- 1860)n1ost of
che leadinglight.sin science believed the universe and lifegave evidence
ofasupernatural creator.0 ne need only recall nan1es like Bacon, Kepler,
Ne,vton, Boyle, Pascal, Mendel, Agassiz, Max,vell, and Kelvin- all of
,vhon1 believed in asupernatural cause ofche universe and life.This wide -
spread beliefofscientiscseven found its way into the very foundational
docu1nent of An1erican freedo1n-1he Declaration of Independence.
Indeed, iris widely ackno,vledged rhac che biblical doccrine ofcreation
played asignificanc role in dieorigin of n1odern science. Ina land1nark
46. . ja<'(JUCS Marit:i.in, 1be Dreamo.fDe.t1111es,trans. Mabelle L.A,-.dison ( London:Editio1\S
Poetry, 1946), 13- 27.
47. Ian Barbour, lstueJ in Sdt nte101d&tigion (NewYork: Harper& Row, 1966), I58.
48. John O' Neill, Prodig,il Genius: 1/,el [{, of Nikoal 1i!.<l11( NewYork,\X,\,shbum. 1944),
48-49.
49. Langdon Gilkey.1\1,ak rofHe11ve11 1111d&wth (Garden Ciry. N.Y., Anchor. 1965). 3S.
Shou ld Crc.atio n Be Taughtas Science in Public Schools?
Certainly all la,vs dealing with 1noral actions- which includes rnosc
la,vs- ,vere religiously,nocivated. But should we get rid of all those
Ja,vs-including chose against perjury, stealing, spouse abuse, child
abuse,pedoph ilia,and murder- just because they are the result, in part
or in,vhole, of religious1notivation? Oneand chesan1e law-including
crearion/evolurion laws- can be religiously motivated and st.ill have a
good secular, non-sectarian, purpose. And whar la,v pron1oces a non-
sectarian secular purpose better thanone that isopen,fair, andbalanced
ro bocl1 opposing points of vie\\1 ? And what la,v fies rhis description
better than creation laws such as those at issuein Jl.1cLean (1982) and
Edwards (1987)?
Finally, the saine courts that point to religiously 1nocivated la,vs as
unconstitutional so111ecin1esargue that religious n1ocivarion is a good
rhing. For exa1nple, rhe McC'ollun,decision (1948) praises the n1ocives
of Horace Mann, a prin1aryforefather ofcurrent secular publicsd1ool
educacion.1\1cCo/l,,m noted with pride that,"Horace Maru1wasa devout
Christian, and diedeep religious feelingsofJa1nes Nladison arestarnped
upon che Ren1onscrance.n1esecualr public school did noc in1plyindif-
ference to rhe basic role of religion in rhe life of the people, nor rejec-
tion of religious educar.ion as a 1neansof fostering ic."51 Apparently it
is ahighr for secularises and evolutionistsco be religiously 111ocivated,
buc not for crearionists.
Summaryand Conclusion
only one d1oughc, beone ind ividual."60 But is chis not precisely what is
happening by rheexclusion ofcreation fro1nour classroo1ns today? Even
The Secular Hurnanist Declaration (1980) affinned chat "A pluralistic,
open, and de1nocratic society allo,vs all points of vie,v co be heard."61
\Vhy then cannot our children hear about creation in their classes?
(6) If,aseven n1any evolucionisrs adn1ir, iris possible diar creation is
true, d1en by excludingcreatjon are,ve nor diereby declaring, in effect,
d1ac we do noc ,vane our children co be exposed co ,vhat n1ay be true
and ,vhar rhe vasr n1ajority of their rax-payingparents believe is crue?
\Vith rheexception of so1ne vocalzealots for evolucion,62 n1oscserious-
n1inded scientists recognize char ir is ac lease possible chat creation n1ay
be true and evolution n1ay be false. If this is so, then any court decision
d1ar forbids reaching creation ,viii have the consequence oflegislacing
che impossibilityofceachingwhac adn1iccedJy1nay betrue. It is difficult
co believe d1ac fair-1ninded scientists are willing co say in eltecc: " Cre-
ation 1nay be rrue, bur ,ve,viii nor allo,v it co be taughr!" Certainly ,ve
should not,vane colegislaceo ucofchescience dassroon1 the possibility
ofdiscovering che cruch.
(7) Insistingchatonly natural causescount asasciencific explanation
(which narurnliscic evolurioniscs clain1)isakin code rnanding rhatscience
teacllers not allo,v any explanation other d1an physical erosion for the
faceson Nit. Rushn1ore. Or, forbidding the SETI progran1co proclain1
chacan incelljgible rne ssage frorn outer spacecan beanythingocher than
me result of natural la,vs. Or, d1ar the writing on a ne,vly discovered
ancient rnanusccipt n1usr beexplained by natural processes and cannot
beconsidered co be rhe produce of an incelligenc n1ind.
8) LegaJ!y, to insist char only natural causes can be discussed in
science classes dealing with origins is to unconscicucionally favor one
religious point of view- die onee1nbracing a naturalistic cause- over
ocher religions char favor a supernatural cause of origins. 111ar is co
say, by denying a hearing for supernatural causes (such asJudaisn1,
60.JohnScopes.quorcd;n I'. William Dav;e,andEldrn p.,,.,J So lomon.11e, H rld ofBiology
(KewYork, McGraw Hill, 1974), 414.
6 I. Paul Kurtt,. Tiu & tuhnN uma11is1D ,:IAm11i>11 ( Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1980 ). 12-.
62. See, e.g.. ls.acAsimov, Sd enu Dig,st (O cto ber 1981). 85.
Should Cr tion Uc Taughta:1oScie11c:c in PublicSchools? 1.79
Christianity, and Islan1 hold), the courts have favored (and thereby
established che cenecs of) noncheiscic religions such as Hinduisrn,
Buddhisrn, and secular hurn anisrn . By disaUo,ving creation, che courts
haveestablishedantiJudeo-Ch riscianbeliefs. Forexan1ple, aswe have
seen, in 1933 secular huruanisrn declared itself a religion, and then,
several years lacer, theSupr:erne Court noted that secular hurn anisrn is
indeed a religion procecced by che First A1nendn1enc (Torcaso, 196 1).
Bue three of the essential beliefs of the religion of secular hu111anis1n
are: ( I) there is no creator, (2) rhere ,vas no creation, and (3) there
are no supernaturally caused evencs.63 111erefo re, co insist chat only
these pointsof vie,vcan be caught in scliools is co "establish" (char is,
co prefer) chese essential tenets of the religion of secular hu1nanis1n
in the public scliools.
9)1l1e founder of die evolurionary revolution in rno dern science
called evolution onlya"d1eory" alongside che"rheory of crearion."64 Bue
t.o allow only one vie,v co be caught is co treat it likea face, not rne rely
as just one theory. Indeed, in his "lncroduccion" co his fiunous On the
Origin of Species Danvin ,vrote ,vords ,vorth pondering:
For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this vol-
ume on which facts cannot be adduced, ofi:en apparently leading to
conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair
result can beobtained only byfullystating and balancing thefactsand
arguments on bothsidesof each que.stion; and thiscannot possibly be
here done.61
TheMisinterpretationoftheFirst A,nend,nent
And even there it ,vas a reference r.o building a ,vall bec,veen rhe fed-
eral govern111enc and the stares' rights co ad1ninister their o,vn affairs,
including having cheir own scare churches, if d1ey so desired. Indeed,
Jefferson was noc even ac che Constitutional Convention (1787) d1ac
rarified che First Arne nd,nenc.He was in France ac che cin1e,as anibas-
sador ro rhac coun try.
Fourth, Congress has approved of die n1occo "in God we cruse" on
coins, in che national anche,n ("In God is our cruse ... "), and on the
front ,vall of che House ofRepresencatives.
Fifi-h, Congresshasgiven caxdeductions co religious groups,andhas
had prayer before ir.s sessions begin, as well as approving govenunenc
paidchaplainsfor che rnilicary. Like,vise, presidential oathsandThanks-
giving proclarnacions have been pronounced in God's na1ne. Indeed,
rederal courts begin ,virh che prayer "God bless rhe United Scares and
chis honorable Court"! So, there are rnunerous ways in \vhicl1 thegov-
enunenc has sho,vn d1ar no such "separation" ofGod and governinenr
\vas intended by rhe Firsc Ainenrunenr .
Sixrh, checourts have upheld niany laws rhat had religious n1ocivacion,
such as chose against polygan1yb,igarny, thefi:, and n1t1rder.
that one has an object of religious devotion (a creator) but the ocher
does not. For sotue evolutionists have deified che evolution process.
\Ve have seen this to be che case,vith Alfred \Vallace, ,vho along with
Darwin pioneeredthe theory of naturalselection. \Ve have seen it tobe
uue of Henri Bergson in his Creative Evolution, ofJulian H uxley, ,vho
in Religion Withottt Revelation spoke of "the religion of evolutionary
hunianisn1," and even ofDanvin hitnself, who referred to "n1y deity
'Natural Selecrion.'"7
Further, rheSupre,ne Courr (in Torcaso,1961) accepted Paul"f illich's
definition of religion as an ultiniate con11nitnient, according co which
even arheisrscan be religious.Likewise, onedoes nor need co believe ina
creator inorder co niake religiousco nuu irniencscoor starenientsabout
,natters of origin. A natural law will suffice as an ulcin1ate principle.
\Vhar is n1ore, neither creation nor evolution is a religion as such,
sinceneidier calls for worshipor an ulti1nateco,ruuionent co dieposited
cause of origin. Bodi are posited tnerely as a causal explanation of the
scientific data and nor as an object of devotion.
Finally, neitherevolution norcreation isa religion or religious assuch.
Different vie,vs of origin are coo1patible ,vith different religions. For
exa,nple, creation isconiparible widi d1eisric religions, and evolution is
co1npatible with noncheistic religions. Bue neithercreation norevolution
icselfis a religion.nie1nere facechat avie,v isco1npatible with a religion
does nor ,uake ic religious any ,nore dian che co,nparibiliry of certain
,noral principles with certain religions 1nakes these moral principles
religious. Ifiedid, then lawsagainst cheating, stealing, n1urder, racis1n,
sexual abuse, genocide, and nlunerous ocher1no ral principles ,vould all
have to bedeclared unconstin1tional.
According to die high court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992),
"at rhe heart of liberty is rhe right co define o ne's o,vn concept of ex-
iscence, of 1ueaning, of the universe, and the n1ystery of huu1an life."$
\Vhen govern1nenc scl1ools, ,vhose attendance isgenerallycon1pulsory,
delve into ultiniare n1attersoforigin, d1ey ineffect affinn an "ord1odox"
7. Charles Darwi1l, iJl a Jen er to AsaGray.June S. 18 6 1 ( i1\ lTanc-is Darw i1\ , ed .. 11Je Lift
1111d f,e11m ,f Cl,;1,.Je, Da rwin, 2 vols. (New York, llosic!l(>Oks, 1959]. 2,I GS).
8 . 1'/1111>1td11' 1re m l,ood u.Casey,SOS U.S. 833 ( 1992).
Lcs ons ro.He Learned
on future courrs co 1nake the san1e rniscake. 'The Supre,ne Court has
been seriously wrong 1nany ci1nes in ocher cases, and there is no reason
co assu1ne d1ey are not \vrong in these creation cases. In fact, ,ve have
sho,vn (in chapter 8)1nany good reasons to indicate theywere wrong in
rhese cases. Hence , fucure courts should look afresh ac chese decisions
and nocblindly follo,v d1e1n because of a fallible, extra-conscicurional
principle chat has had nun1erous n1isapplicacions in rhe past. Since
McLean, Edward,sand Dover areseriously 8a,ved (see chapters 3, 4, 5,
and 7),any new creation/evolutioncase presented co cheCourt should
have a fresh look in thelighc of rhe Conscicurion itself. Othenvise, d1e
Court is not finding conscirucional cruth, ir is n1erely co,npounding
traditional errors. Stare decisis 1nusc be reex.an1ined and reapplied or
ir will cornpletely undennine die rneaning of the Constitution ,virh
decisions based on bad precedent. \'{le need attorneys dedicated co che
Constitution who ,vill co111pcehensively and exhaustively rethink che
erroneous understanding and application of precedent co decide die
constitutionality ofl a,vs.
Creationists have not yet exploited d1e civil tole rance issue in the
courcs. In the M ozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1987)
case, students and parents had clain1ed rhac it ,vas a violation of dieir
First Arnend1nent religious rights of freeexercise for theschool board
co be "forcing scudenc-plaintiffs co read school books which ceadt or
inculcate valuesin violationof their religious beliefs and convictions."
Evolution wasonesucl1view co which d1ey objected.1l1eir wishes were
upheld by rhe district courr bur overruled by d1e Sixd1Circuit Court.
1l1elatter courcargued d1aceven rhough srudencs ,vere offended, d1ere
was no evidence d1ac one was "ever required co affinn his or her belief
or disbelief in any ideaor practice" caught in rhe texcor class.1l1ecourc
insisted d1ac d1ere was adifference between "exposure" and being"co-
erced" co accept me ideas. 'They noted char rhe only ,vay ro avoid all
offense ,vas not co teach anything. 1l1ey insisted chac: "1l1e lesson is
clear:govenunencaJ actions d1at rnerely offend orcasedoubton religious
Creation and the Co urtS
Serious citizens need co consider die lirrle regard given by d1e courts,
parcic1.Jaclyin thecreation issue, co the venerable principle on which our
federal republic ,vas founded:"Taxationwithout represencarionistyranny."
Surveyssho,v that so1nethree-fourths co 90 percent ofcax-payingAtneri-
c-ans do noc have rheir creationist vie,v represented in publicschools1.7
\Vere rhe founding fathers co rerurn co co11ren1porary An1erica and see
how cirizens are being forced co pay caxes co p ublic schools co ceach their
16. /11ourr v. 1-lawkin.<Co tmry BoardefErlt<cario11, 8 27 E 2d 1 0 58 ( 1 987 ).
1 7. A r ece nt P ew Forum on Religion poll (August 30, 2005) found that 78 percent of
Americans believe God was involvecl in the creation of ..life o nearth. Another five perc l t
believe life was cteaccd bya"'higher powc,"or"llnivcrsaJ spirit"- whicharc just o rhe-r words
forGod.Stillmore (upco 90 percent) bd icvcGod created the universe.And95 pn-centbdic,e
in God. Onl)'<).n c- fo u r1h be lieve that huma1'l life arose by natural sd oction" (evolution ) n o t
gu ided bya Sup,me !k ing (http://pe\\rfonun.orgls urveys/origi1u / ).
Lcs ons ro Ue Learned 29 3
children contrary co their cherished beliefs, chey ,vould be scandalized.
Indeed, were'TI1omasJefferson to reappearon diescene,hewould discover
diachewasbeingforced copay taxeswichout representationofhisvie,vson
a"Creator"and that"alln1enarecreatedequal." Indeed,hewould find rl1ac
d1esevery viewsinunorcalized in IheDeclarationqflndepentkna had been
soscandalized by thecourcs chat chey had in effect declared our national
birth certificate unconstjtutional!\Vhile l an1 notadvocatingit, I have no
doubt thatJefl:erson ,votild srart asecond Ainerican Revolution!
Appointing Non-Activistj11dges
Yet another ,vay to pur the brakes on rhe high courc is a constitu-
tional a111endnienc curbing its power. Bue it is questionablechat there
are enough votes co do d1is, since it rakes ratification by du ee-fourd1s
of rhe scares'. Il1enrhere is die face chat,once die an1endmenr would be
put into effect, the Supre1ne Court would be the supre1neinrerprerer
(or,nisincerpreter)ofchis ne,v part of theConstitution. And ,ve would
be right back ,vhere weare no,v.
r,vo-chirds of die attorneysin che world are said robe in the United
Scares- waycoo1nany! And agood percentage ofdieseareconservative,
Lcss:ons ro .Ile Learned 2.97
1nany of chern in spice of the liberal law schools they have attended. An
evidence of this, related to the issue under discussion, is char son1e 70
percent.of arcorneysbelieve char.bod1 creation and evolution should be
raughc in rhe publicschools.19 Ar. lease dueeevangelical universities have
lawschools:Liberty University, Regent University, andT1inity University.
Unfo rtunatelyh, owever,,nose Chr istianlawstudents donot n1ajor in First
Au1end1nenc issues. Frankly, there is no rnoney in ic."l11is situation has
co be reversed if weareever goingco win d1ese First An1endn1enc battles.
' I11eactivisc,broad conscrucrioniscinterpretation ofrhe First A1nendn1enc
has don1inaced rhe courts tor solong d1ac ir isofi:en taken as nonnative.
Being a First An1endmenc attorney n1usc beco n1ea priority for brighc,
conservacive young n1ind.sl11e reason for rhis is nor only coargue courc
cases, but ro enter d1e legislativearena as well. Mose politicians have a
la,vdegree,and rney pass mela,vs.And ,nose judges, fro1n local courts co
d1e Supren1e Court, ared1osen fro1n an1ong attorneys. Penerraring chis
virtual liberal 1nonopoly 1nusr becorne a nun1ber one priority if we are
ever co restore d1e reachingofcreation in our public schools.
' l11ereare,ofcourse, sorne nocableexcepcionsco chis bleak picture-
people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Tho1nas. Hopefully, newly
appointe d Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sa1nuel Alico ,vill
fall into rhesarne category. Bue even ifaU of mese would vote favorably
(and it is not known whed1er d1ey ,vould), it is still nor enough votes
to gee creat ion through the Supren1e Court. And wid1rhe recenr shifi:
ro a liberal n1ajoriry in Congress chere are no in11nediare prospects for
getting anod1er conservative Supre1ne Courr justice.
OPERATION SCIEN CE
Science in the strict sense is about die operation of the universe.
n1is is based on the principles of observation and repetition. n1us,
any rheory abouc nature n1usc ,nat ch the repeated patterns observable
in nacure.1 1 On die basis of d1ese observed repetitions, enipirical (or
0.2 NorntaJ L. Gcisler:u)d J. Kerby Anderson, OriginSdenu (Gr.indbl pids, fich.: lhker.
1987). It was also o utlined al< earlyas 1983in my book /,.A-1,m tlu .A1r.,,sun? An Eva1/1,ttitm'!f
Con1empomry Humanism (Grand Rapid,. Mich.: Bak<,. 1983), chapter11. The roou of the
d isti1)ction go lx,ck ,o early scicnciscs who l<pokeo( dtediffcrence bet ween cosmogony (about
origins) a ndCOl<m olo g:y(abo ut theoperationof thecosmos).SeeNorman Gei$1er, A Scient ific
BasisforCreation: The: Principleof Unifonnity.,.Crt11tion Ew/11ti Qt1Jo11nu,L4 / 3 ( Su mmfr1984).
The-s unedistinc(ion w ,smade bC"tw<.en biogeny andbiologya.nda1Hhroge1 1yand md1ropology.
E\'<.':n one CY<-)lutionistwit11<::l1s a t th e Sco
. ptl'trial ( 19 25) made a l<imilar distinction {seechapter
1). Curr<ndy.sciemisu stilldistinguish betwccm a scientific undc-.,rstand ingof the pasr, which
use. a foren sic type ou::thod and is found in astrophyl<ics,,p leontology. and archaeology. and
l<C.iences in th e pr ese nt, which are nm fon:.nl<i<-"but e mp irical
21. It would be tu,ftui cf ul. for many rea$ons. forevolutionisu to argueagainst this oo rhe
basis of the alleged randonuless in the subato mic world. l;irs-t, th is allege.d r, ndomncss may
result from in .,.estigator interference,since one has to bombard tJ1e $ubaromic world with an
d cctroo microscope in order ,o seeit .So, the S<'ien risc maybe obsc:rviJlS r.he result of hisowr)
Lcss:ons ro Uc Learned l99
operation) science can rnake testable predictions and che theory can be
either confinned or denied. Clearly origin events do not full into chis
category, since they are neirher presendy observable nor repeatable. In
thissrriccsense ofenipirical, observable, and repearable events, neidier
,nacroevolurion nor creation is a science.
ORIGIN SCIEN CE
learned, ho,vever, and rescified in Arkansas (see chapter 3)
\1(fe
that rhere is a broader sense of "science" chat can deal wirh the past.
Archaeologisrs, paleonrologisrs,astrophysciists, and forensic scienrists
have been doing origin science for centuries. Bue like the exa1nination
of a hon1icide ,vith no ,vicnesses or recordings, origin eventS were not
observedand theyare not beingrepeated regularly in che present.Hence,
origin science, like forensic science, 1nust depend on principles ocher
than observability and repear.abilicy. \Ve discovered chat fron1 rhe very
beginning rhe two basic principles being used ,vere causality (every
event has an adequate cause) and unifonnicy (the present is d1e key co
d1e past). Since me search for causaHty has been at rhe foundation of
science frorn the beginning, me principleof w1iforn1icytranslates inco
a causal principle ,vhich can be fonnulared d1us: lhe kinds of causes
known (by repericion) co producecerrain kindsofeffects in the present
are the kinds ofcauses that produced mese kindsof events in che past.
And since causes fall into rwo basic categories, natural and incelligenc,
it isnecessary co decerrnine ,vhich kind of eftects call for,vhich kind of
cause. Fron1a conl!nonsense point of vie"' ic is noc difficult co see ho,v
repeated observation in the present infonns us chat round rocks in a
disturbing. Second, eYcn greatminds likeAlbert Einsteinrejec-tf this view, s".lying"God doesn't
playdi(e wich the u1'liverse (ina.lett('( toMax Born,Dccc-mber 4. 19 26.quoted in Elizabeth
Knowles. ed., 1he Oxfortl Dictio11ary ofQ!'otnliom [ Oxford: Oxford Unin rsity Press. 1999].
290). 1'hird,despite the alleged rando mness, the final result is a re-gular and we1lpattcrned
n:uu.ralworld \\1'lich aloneis thebasis forn:nuraJlaw. Fourth, bot.hc,.olurioo istsand the courts
h;;wc-c.ommitted t.henudves tothebelief that01\lysuch obsenable, repe3rable, 1\atu.ral lawsarc
the basis for k;ience. f-l11ally,once e volution ists and d1e couruallow for spontaneo useruptions
ir'l oature. not subject to obsen-able aod rqx-a.tablc paucr1\S, they haYe ope11eda wide door
co cn-ationlst v ic \X"S. which a.rgue th n JH) t c,ery C\' CJ'lt in the natural wo rld calls for a natural
cause. And this would be fatal to the 1no nopoly thee\olutionary cstablishnlenntow holdson
the schools andco urts.
300 Creat ion and the Co urts
decision ca1ne down in their favor. Yes, they gained a n1oral and media
victory in 1925, buceven chis wascwogenerationsafterDanvin's book. le
cookover a century for Darwin's idea co becoo1e law in the Uniced Scates.
And asdisappointed asI a,n cosay it, \Veare nor going co ,vin d1is bacde
con1orrow, chis year, next year, or probablyfor1nany decades co co1ne.
Mean,vhile, ic is becrer co lighc a candle chan co curse che darkness.
Here are so111e candles co light:
I) Voce fo rconservative candidates for political office. Makesure they
are judicially conservative, nor jusc econo111ically, socially, or 111ilicarily
conservative.
2) Beco,ne a journalise and do son1erhing abour n1edia bias yourself.
3) Run for public office, scarring ,vid1 your local school board. le is
an easier election co win (I did rwice), and you can be an influence on
school policiesand cexcbooks, including creation isc1nacerial.
4) Becon1e a scientist and learn how co defend creation scientifically.
5) Arrend a good sen1inai:y (like Southern Evangelical Se1ninary in
Charlocre, N.C.) d1ac reaches ho,v co defend d1e rruch. A recent poll
sho,vs char less d1an IO percent of Chrisrians understand whar it n1eans
co have a Christian ,voddvie,v, and even fe,ver kno\\1 ho,v co defend
their faich.
6) Gee a Ph.D. in science and/or philosophy. 'The rooc issues in che
creacion/evoluciondebace are philosopl1ical, and the bacde n1usc be
,voll on an ideological level.
7) Send your cliildren ro a good Christian school or ceacl1 d1e1n ac
hon1e, where chey can be educated in a Christian worldview.
8) Send your children co a good C hristian ca1np ( like Sununir Minis-
eries in Manitou Springs, C olo.) ,vhere d1ey will beeducated in world-
vie,v issues, noc just entertained.
9) If yourchildren go coa secularschool,111ake sure rhey ger involved
in a good Christian group on can1pus; and readJ. Budziszewski's book
Oil How to Stay Chn'.;tian in College; PhillipJohnson's book on Deflat-
ingDanvinisrn;and I Don't Have Enough Faithto Bean Atheist, which
I coaurhored with Frank Turek.31
3 I . J.Rudz.is:r.cwski, 1/oru10 S1,tyChris1itmin C.olkge{Colo rado Springs: N,a,.J>rcss , 19')9 ) :
Phillip Johnson, Deft!tui 11g Da r 11.Jini.m 1 ( DownersGrove, llJ.: Lu <'.rVarsi't)Press. 199 7): No t
Lcs ons ro Ue Learned 307
10) Becon1e a public school teacher.'TI1ere are n1any things chat can be
done leg-ally, and the Supre,ne Courc has noc yec forbidden the presen-
tation ofscientific evidence tor intelligent design as a ,uaccer of p,ri\ace
freedo,n ofspeech; ic has only ruled on a case chat mandated teaching
creation alongwith evolution in publicschools.Further, checourcshave
ruled ,nany things in our favor, including:
a)1he released rin1e progra111, whereby srudencs can be released ro
go off ca,npus co scudy a copic considered religious by the courcs (in
McCollurn, 1948).
b)'TI1e Biblecan becaughtasliteniture, without clairningic is true.Seu-
dents are smart enough co ,nake up d1eir own niindsorask questions.
c) Teachers can share meic o,vn beliefson creation (oroilier copies),
ifasked by sn1dencs.
d)' 1l1ecourrs allo,v reachingabout religion, bur nor me reachingo/
religion (Abington, 1961).1his can be used co teach abor,tcreacion and
noc die ceachingo/ creacion.
e)Yourlifewillbeaninfluence inand ofitself,and can lead rolegicin1ace
st udenc-iniciaced in-classdiscussionorali:er-school opporcuniries.
Courtroom Theatrics
One of the distinct inipressions I canie away ,vith ,vas char a trial is
dieacrics and rhe best actors win. Nor only did die ACLU have niore
actors (nearlydiree rinies as niany lawyers), but theyalso trained their
witnesses in theatrics. One,vicness, Langdon Gilkey, later ad1nicred diis
in hisbook on die trial.;, Kno,vinghe wasgoinginto Arkmsas, rhe hearc
of die Bible Belt, Gilkey cur his hair and rook a ringour of his ear ro
u1ake a better in1pressionon the judge.I also noted adistraction tactic
being used by me ACLU during die court proceed ings. \v'hen d1ere
36. See a rcporte.r's ac-<;ount of this in Cre111or in rheCaurrroom, 72.
37. See Langdon Gilkey, Ctt:fll ioniim011 'l'h ,d: Evolt4-tion 1111d God 11/ l. i1tle Rotk { Min-
neapolis:\'Vinston. 1985). 16.
Lcs ons ro Ue Learned 3I I
were effective creation ,virnesses, rhe ACLU attorneys ,vere shuffling
back andford1inchefront of checourcrooni. \Xlhen evolution witnesses
were on the stand, rhecreationist acr.orney sac in quiet respect.
Also, theACLU attorneys useddiversion tactics.When diecreation
,vitnesses ,vere being effective, they ,vould change co another subject
and ask irrelevant questions about d1e ,vitness's religious beliefs (see
appendix 4). Tiiey kne,v diis ,vould attract the actention of the 1nedia
co diesensational and divert dieirattentionfro111theessential. And the
trum is diat it worked.Tiiey,von!niecourcroo111 rurned our robe not
a foru111for rrud1 but astage for meacrics. So, die best actors ,von, and
rhe trurh lost!38 Mose people,vho,vatched meO.J.Si111pson trial ca1ne
ro chis sa111e conclusion.
A ReversedScopes Strategy
Many have felt,even before die Arkansas trial, d1at a becrer srraregy
for creationists would be a "reverse" Scopes trial.' Iliac is, find a public
schoolscience reacher whoon hisown,apart froniscace or school board
111andare, teaches bodi evolution and creation fro111 a striccly scientific
point ofview.nien,ler alawsuit beleveled against hi111. Ofcourse, whar
he is teaclling niust be clear of religious connorarions, and he 1nust be
freeof acrual scacernenrs ofor iniplicarions abouc religious rno civarion.
Ideally, heshould be a highly respected, a,vard-winning,and ,vell-liked
read ier.Lee miscasegorocourt and let usfind out onceand for allho,v
biased rhe court"' ill be about anything chat srnacks of an inrelligenc
cause.At least then we will kno,vforsure,vhecher our tactics rnustshiii:
toarenasother rhan thecourcs.Ofcourse, n1any of these things aregoals
of the intelligent design 1nove1ne nt. Unfortunately, in the Dove, case,
the "baby" of intelligenr. design , vas thro,vn out wid1rhe "badnvar.er"
ofan unforcwiacelaw niandacing rhest udencsbeexposed co intelligent
design, by a biasedcourt. Lee's hopediis issuecan be revisited ina berrer
forni ina highercourc.Ochercases havefailed usingasunilarapproacll.
38. For an cxce.llenr bookt'ln the ACLU's 3gcnda to redefine O't()ral v:ilues,seeAlan Sears
and Craig Osicn, 7/,e ACLU v. Am, ,-ic,r( Nashville: Broadi,-,n & Holman.2005).
311 C reation and the Cc:mrtS
In Conclusion
\Vecan learn rn anylessons fron1 the hiscoryof thecreation/ evolurion
controversy in thecourts. Indeed, ifwe are to besuccessful in die future,
we1nusr learn lessons fro111 rhe pasr. \Ve havelistedconsrjrurional,legal,
policical, philosophical, religious, public relations, educational, and
raccical lessons. In order co i1nple1nencchese lessons, we need a whole
anuy of trained and dedicated accorneys, judges, legislacors, ceacliers,
scienciscs,philosophers, and infonned citizens co undercake chis mo-
1nencous cask. We did not lose chis battle overnight, and it ,vill not be
re-won overnighr. We 111usc be in ir for me long haul. le 1nusr be ,von
on me ideological, policical, legal, and educational levels. Ir ,vill not
jusr happen on ics O\VIl. le is a ,var, and successful ,vars cake good plan-
ning, cr.1ined so ldiers wicl1good weapons, and a well moughc our and
execuced ga.ine plan. le will cakecooperacion becween variouscreatiorusr
groups, cirizens, acciviscs, poliricians, lawyers,and judges. Moseofall, it
,viU rake persuasivecon11nunicacion on me part ofour1noral leaders as
co rhe value of d1e enterprise. \Ve 111usr nor gro,v,veary in ,veil doing.
\Ve1nust agree wid1rhe fa1nous Ainerican patriot Ed,vard Everett Hale
(1822- 1909),,vhen he declared:
I am onlyone,
But still!amone.
I cannotdoeverything,
But still I can dosornething.
And because I rannot do everything
I will not refuse todo
The son1ethingthat I can do.
Jackson
vi/Je jo 11r11al (Jacksonville, Florida), Wednesday,
December 9, 1981:
LIT..fLE ROCK, ARK. Tead1ers co uld not possibly tell their stu-
dents about creation-science under Arkansas' ne.w law without discuss-
ing religion, the science supenisor for Little Rock schools testified
\Vednesday.
Testifying in Arkansas' version of the Scopes monkey trial, Dennis
Glasgow sa id: The first time I came acrossany of theseideas was in my
SundaySchoolclass.
First of all, rhe entire court transcript of n1y cin1e on che stand is
seventy-seven pages. Of chis, the rn edia largely reported on only two
and a half Lines!
Secondly,the n1ediaaunosc entirely ignored n1y prepared cescirnony
(see chapter 4), which not only ,vas to the hearc of che issue buc repre-
sented sorne nvo-thirdsof rny ciuieon rhestand.Instead, they reported
only a couple oflinesofcros-sexaniinarion onanentirely irrelevant n1a-r
ter-rny personal religious beliefs abour dernonic deceprion-which
the biased judge shouldhave disallo,ved.
111ird, che entire thruse of che rnedia blitz on rny cesciniony had die
eftecc of discrediting creationisrn by associating it widi the occult, die
dernonic, and UFOs.' 01is would nor have been possible, since die de
fense attorneys repeatedly objected co ir, unless the biased judge (see
chapter 3) had allowed it and a biased rnedia had exploi r.ed ir.:
Thank you.
32.0 Appendix 1
H.ighHghts of T,ria1
A Dallas theologian, the firsc witness for rhe state in thecreation-
science trial,said Friday char he believed UFOsexist:"I believerhcyare
asatanic manifestation in the world for the purpose ofdeception."
n, ewitnesswas Dr. Norman Geisler, professor of rheologyand phi-
losophy at Dallas Theologica lSeminary, whoalsosaid rharhebelieved
that Act 590 re.Acctcd the book ofGenesis, but chat the Bibleservedas
the inspiration for many legitimatescientific inquiries.
Secular Media Co v ragc of t hc ;\ 1cLcan Trial 321
Bias noted: Here again, they rnake it look as if it ,vas just Bible-
thu1nping theologians ,vho supported the biblical vie,v of creation,
,vhen in fact it was a philosopher ,vith a Ph.D., and noted scientists
with doctorates in their fields who ,vere only asking rl1at die court be
fair and aUo,v both of rhe only c,vo possible vie,vs on origins, rather
rhan just one. 111e ,nainline n1edia never presented a fair picture of
,vhat really happened. Even 1ny friends reading the repons ended up
wirl1a rorally lopsided view. And rhe days following yielded n1ore of
the sa,ne:
Key ACLU atto rney Philip Kap lan catches up on his phone mes-
sages during a break in the creation science trial in Little Rock,
Ark. this week. D r. Norman L. Geisler, a professor at Dallas Theo -
logical Seminary led off the defense by saying UFOs arc a satanic
manifestation.
Satan's UFOs
Co nsideringall the testimony that had preceded c,eationism's first wit-
ness, it could hardly be surprising that Satan has now been introduced
in the constitutional test before Federal Judge \'Xlilliam R. Overton of
Arkansas' creation-science law,Ace 590of 198I. Incroducing this fresh
Secular Media Coverage of the1\ l el e.a11Trial 32 3
element into the trial on J'.ridaywas D,.Norman Geisler, a p1ofcssor of
theologyand philosophyat DallasTheologicalSen1inray,as he beganche
tescilnony of defense witnesses called byAttorney General Steve Clark.
le was interestingcescimony, not only on direct exa,nination but also
on cross examination by theaccorneys for the American CivJ Liberties
Union, which represents che plaincilts, half of chem religiousleaders
themselves.
Bias no ted: Neither che la,v itself; nor rhe defense attorneys,nor
thecreation witness had "introduced" "Satan" into che trial Jc ,vas the
ACLU who introduced him, with the approval of rhe judge, in o rder
ro discredit creation and irs,virnesses.
Discover, February1982 :
J udgment Day for C rea tion ism
Siano pounced on rheSatan reference,pressingGeislerro recallanyper-
sonalexperience charconfinnedhis beliefin rhe Devil.Geisler declared,
"! believeUFOs exist." He explained that they are asatanic manifesta-
tion in chis world for rhe purposes ofdeception.
Perceives Benefits
The other witness Monday was Dr. Larry Parker of Dunwoody, Ga., a
professor ofeducaitonat Georgia Sr-Jte CoJ!ege, whosaid that students
Set:ularMedi.a Co n ragc of the 1\f cLean Trial
Bue 1noscreporcs \Vere biased, as these lase fe,v exa,nples show (rhe
firsc of chese also conies fron1che Con-nnercial Appeal arcicle):
Biasno ted:rhe n1edia did noc ,nenrion chat che witness believed
chat life had an inrelligenc creacor. Nor did ic n1ention rhac he did
not identifychiscreato r as beingsupernatural- both of which were
opposite the stereo type the ,nedia ,vished co generate about cre-
atio nisrn. The judge also ignored this in his decision rhat creation
involved the idea of a supernatural creator and thus ,vas essencially
religious.
Secular Mc.dia Coverage of the 1\ft Le.an Trial
High.lightsof Trial
Robert Gentryof Oak Ridge, Tenn., testified char radiation damage co
rocks indicated theearth mig/u beonlya few thousand yearsold.rather
rhan rhe 4.5 billion years usuallyaccepred bygeologists.
Biasnoted: n1is report isaccurate asfaras itgoes, but does nor give
thewholestory. Gencrypresented wirefuted testirnony for aview rhat,
if true, ,vould totally destroy the case for evolution. This deserved at
least a 1nentio11 in die report,sincedie,vholecasefor die only vie,v the
court allo,ved in school (evolution) is entirely dependent on Gentry
being ,vrong. (No science ,vit nessfor evolution even atcernpced co
respond t.o Gentry, and the judge disoiissed his testimony as a "tiny
rnystery.")
Ac che close of che crial Judge Willian1 R. Overcon said, "I ,vill noc
undertake to decide the validicy of the Biblical version of creation nor
che dieory of evolucion." Hesaid, racher, d1ac he,vould decide,vhedier
Acr 590 itself isconsricurional-in odier words, ,vhether ic violates che
separation ofchurch and srace guaranteed under the First Ainend1nent,
,vhecher icviolaced acadeniic fi-eedorn, and,vhed1er icisunconscicucion-
ally vague.
Bias noted:11iis is hollo,v-soundingjudicial rhecoric in view of die
above noced bias die judge revealed againsc creacion science and die
Bibleview ofcreacion. Heobviously fiwored"science;' which he defined
as excluding creation (see chapcer 3). He clearly snapped ac a wicness,
saying creation ,vas what you learn in "Sunday school" and is noc "sci-
ence" (seechapter 3).
Dear Edito r:
Your article on the Arkansas C reation-Evolutiontrial gave me new
insights into how evolutionhas maintained irsclfin theabsence ofsub-
stantial evidencefor over a century.
First, you emphasized theirrelevant.111e judgesaid the court would
nevercriticizeor discredit any person's testi1nony based on his or her
religious beliefs. Yetyou madesure that theirrelevant personal religious
beliefsof the creationist witnesses were clearly noted. There was,on the
other hand, a conspicuous absence of the radical liberal, agnostic,and
atheisticand even Marxistic beliefs of theevolution witnesses.
Second,_?ou ornitted theessential. C reationim
s ,v-As judgedwrong be-
cause of its religioussou,cc. Yet you o mittedall of thecrucial testimony
thatsourcehas nothingtodo \\ th thescientific justfiiability(asevolution
witnessDr. Rusesaid). You also failed to inform your readers of my tes-
timonyabout thesource of Kekule'smodel for theBenzene molecule-
Secular Media Coverage of the ill rl e.an Trial
331
a visionofasnake bitingics tail.Or of Tesla (whomyou heraldedin the
sameissue) whoseso urcefor thealternatingcurrent motor was a vision
while readinga pantheistic poet(Goethe).What about Socrates, whose
inspiration forphilosophy camefrom a religious prophetess. theOracle
of Delphi? Has anyone ever rejected their scientific theoriessimply
because of their odd religious-likesource?
Finally,have you told your readers what the ACLU lawyer,Clarence
Darrow, said in effect at the Scopes trial ( l 925), that it is bigotry for
publicschools to reach only one theoryoforigins?2 Oh yes, my insight
into evolutio.n\Vhenyou emphasize the irrelevant, om it theessential,
and forbid the opposing viewa hearing, it is easy for a theory co long
outliveits evidence. Myths die hard.
Sincerely,
Norman L. Geisler
Co n clusion
'll1e rnedia biasat"ScopesII" wasson1ecin1es blatant,asseen here, but
ofi:en n1ore subtle. le,vas reflecc.ed in headlines, pejorative words, guile
by association, and in che very selection of what co cover and what noc
cocover. Nowhere ,vaschis ,noreevident than in 111y cescitnony.1J1e best
,vay tor readers co verify chis for che1nselves is co read rhe above ne,vs
reports of 1ny resciinony and chen read die ,vord-for-word reporc of ic
froni tilecourt stenographer, revealed for chefirst cilne in dlis book (in
chapeer 4 and appendix 4).
'll1e1nain stereotype ofcreacion perpetrated by me press was that it is
a religious viewoffundamentalistschat isfound inche Bible. Thecourts
d1e1nselveshavebought intod1iss:une niych, describinggenuineatrernpcs
co teach only chescientificevidence both tor andagainstcreation/evolu-
tion as chinly veiled atce1npcs co establish a ti.1ndan1entalist religion in
die public schools. Nothing could be farther froni rhe faces.
nie real rrngedyischar chegeneralpublic isdependenc on che1nedia for
dieir inipression ofwhac really transpired acrhishistoric and precedent
setting trial. And chat general inipression was seriously distorted.
2.1hi$ (:Otirc senten ce wasomitted by D i it tJ'flt r m aga zine, with no incH-carion of-an ornis
sion,wheo therpublished n'l)' letter.
,,..
A P P EN DIX C
Dear Edito r:
'll1e article entitled ''Arkansas: \Xl here Creationism Lost Its Shirr:
which appeared in the !vlay, 1982 iss ue of your magazine, suffers from
numerous and substan tial inaccuracies. \Xlhilespacewould not allow an
exhaustivecatalogingof all errors which the autho r, /vlr. /vlarrin Mawyer,
made, it is important mat your readers be informed of s01ne of me more
serious errors, lest they be lulled in to accepting Mawycr's comments as
a fair and accurate representation of the trial that actually occurred in
Little Rock. Please permit us to bring to your attention the following
. .
maccurac ,es:
I. Paul Ellwanger d id not help Arkansas legislators and attorneys
construct Act 590,as yourarticlestates. (page I0.)Ellwanger and other
individuals ( incl uding \Xfeodcll Bird) weresolely responsible for draft-
ing the bill which eventually became Act 590. No changes were made
Christian Mc..-dia Coverage of thcJ\fcLean Trial 335
in hisdraft bythe Arkansas Legislature,norwas the Attorney General's
Office ever consultedprior to passage of the legislation. If we had been
consulted prior to the bill becomi11g law.the result would have been a
sounder, more defensible act.
2. Act 590did not require teachers tospendas much timeon creation-
science as they spend teaching evolution science. (page 10.) The bill
mandated balanced treatment, notequal time.Throughout our defense
of the Act, westressed thatbalanced treat,ncnt did not necessarily mean
equal time. Our reading of balanced treatment (and the testimony of
defense witnesses) was to theeffect thatgiving balanced trcam1ent would
requirespendingasufficient amount of time on bothcreation-scienceand
evolution science so that studentscouldfullyunderstand both theories.
The amount of time devoted toeach would necessarily vary,depending
upon the perceptivenessof thestudents, the abilityof the teachers, and
the available scientific evidencefor both theories.
3. Iv!r. Mawyerscharacterization of theattemptedparticipation by at-
torneysWendlelBirdandJohn \Vhiteheadsimilarlyisinaccurate inseveral
respects. Fitst, Mawyer labeled Bird and \Vhitc [sic] asconstitutional at
torneysandasexperienced creationist attorney.s'Tothedegree that either
attorney iscalled a constitutional expert, they are onlyself-appointed
experts.Sincegraduation from lawschool, mostof Bird'semplo}n1ent has
been asa lawclerk 10 7 federal judges, ajob which consiscsof reading trial
transcriptsanddoingresearch. Asa lawclerk, thereis nooppornmity tocry
cases.Thedifference between reading trial transcripts and actually trying
cases is analogous to che difference between reading medical cexcbooks
on chc human heart and performing open heart surgery.
"Thesecond error by Mawyer lies in hiseditorializingthat weoffered
Bird onlya minor role. Infact,Bird wasoffered theopportunity to par-
ticipate in all aspectsof thet-ase,but asone memberofa team.(Thisisthe
sainerolewhichCX'))Crt a ttorneys have had inothercases with onroffice in
the past.) Not content to merelyserve asan integral pareofa team, Bird
stated in no uncertain tenns that ifhe could not run the team,he would
not play at all. It need only be pointed our that it is Steve Clark- not
Wendell Bird-who is elected by the people of Arkansas as che States
chief legal officer. Steve Clark never has nor will he ever abdicate the
duties and resptlnsibilities entrusted tt) him hy the people of1\ckansas.
4.n1earticlestates that theAttorneyGeneral becamecxrrcn1cly upset
when,our of 16witnessesscl1eduledcowitness, only8 appeared.One,a
336 Appendix2
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Aew into Little Rock andleft the next morning. (Page
11.) It iscorrect that Kenyon left Litt.le Rockabrup tly.(\Xie acceptasac-
curate the sta te ment in Mawycr's article chat Kenyon left at che urging
of Bird. Tampering with witnesses is not looked upon with favor in che
legal profession.) Beyond the departure of Kenyon, it is a falsehood co
say that the Attorney Generalwasextremely upset when only eight wit-
nessesappeared. Thefaceisthatwe made a conscious decision not cocall
several wit nesseswhom we had previously listed as potential witnesses.
The individuals were not called becausewedid not need their testimony
or d,eypresented variousstrategicproblerns forthedefense which would
have hurt our case more than it could have helped.
5. Perhaps che most serious of Mawyer's many errors is found on
page 12, where hestates:"Virtually alldefendants[witnesses]admitted
that they were only familiar with creation in the context of the Bible,
not scientific study.'This adinission laid bare che essential weakness of
the entire defense.":1 irst, this statement is patently false.' Ih c d efense
expert witnesses said that in their opinion thescientific evidencefit the
creation-science ,node!better than that ofevolution. All of the defense
expert wit nesseshad done wo rk which in their professional opi nion
supported creation science.Almost all of the defensesciencewitnesses
have had articles published in scientific journals. lhus, there is no basis
infact fortheauthor'squotedsratemcnt.Perhaps Mawyer wasattempt-
ing- in hisown inarticulate,iinpreciseway- to allude to ano th eraspect
ofour defense.Some (but not all) ofour witnesses did admit that their
initial interest into [sir.] delving into thescientific evidence forcreation
had been sp urred by their study of Genesis. The testimonyat trial was
unifor m that this fuct was not relevant to the scicnti6c validityof cre-
ation science.Thesource of ascientific th eo ry isabsolutelyirreleV'ant if
thefaces justify or support the theory. Witnesses for both the plaintiffs
and defendants agreed o n this po int. (For example, Dr. Michael Ruse,
oneof the plaintiffs'expertsin the philosophy ofscience, testified under
cross examination that Nlarxis m is a religion, and that Harvard Pro fes-
so r Stephen J.Go uld is motivated by Marxism in espousing a variant
on evolution knownas punctu ated cquilibrimn.Nonetheless.Rusesaid,
the fact that Gould'ssource is religion docs not require dismissal of the
theory).
6. illustrative ofMawyer's slanted postmorce111is the slight mention
of Dr. Robert Gentry of Oak Ridge,Tennessee, who testified on behalf
Christian Mc..-di3 Coverage of thc1'1cLean Trial 337
of thedefendantS. Gentry's work isthe mostcompellingevidence within
thescientific comn1unity fora relatively recentageof theearth. His work,
which centers on theage of thegranites which underlie thecontinents.
strongly indicates that these granites had co have cooled in a maccer of
minutes, rather t.han over millions of years as evolutionary theory pre-
supposes. Mawyer neglectedto point out that Gentry is acknowledged
as che leadinge:\verc in chc world on chis theory and has provided a test
to falsify his theory. Todate, his theory has not been falsified.
7. Another glaringerror was thestaten1ent attributed toaspokesman
fortheArkansas AttorneyGeneral concerning the tcstin1onyof Dr. Nor-
man L.Geisler,a Professor of Theologyat DallasTheologicalSeminary.
(Page13.) In thecontext of thearticle,?.1awyerquotesa spokesman for
the AttorneyGeneral'sOfficeasdisagreeing with Dr.Geisler'sstatement
on the reasons why no objection was made to Gcisler's testimony on
UFOs. Q0te che contrary is, in face, crue. Dr. Geisler was che State's
leadingexpert witness on philosophy and religion. lhc subs tanceof his
testimony was never challenged by attorneys for the ACLU on cross
examination. Rather, they chose to question Dr. Geislerabout a totally
unrelated matter, i.e.. his bclicf in the cxcistcnce of Satan.
Throughout the first several days of the trial the Atcorney General
strenuously objected to all questions concerning the rd igious bclicfsof
witnesses. These objections were consistently overruled by the Court.
Indeed, we cold the Judge chat we had a continuing objection to any
question concerninga witness'(s] religious beliefs,and thisobjection was
noted in the official court record. Inasmucl1 as Dr. Geisler testified on
the fifth day of trial (and after theentry ofour continuingobjection), it
would have been mere folly to again object to this line ofquestioning.
Theanicle further implies that wedid notobject tothecrossex:unina-
tion of Dr. Geisler because it was just a part of our strategy not to. "'X'e
didn't plan co win the case on cross examination. \Ve planned to win it
under direct testimony." (Page 13.) ln actuality, what Mr. l'v!awyer has
done isconstruct what lawyers cenn a classic non sequitur (i.e.,an infer-
ence that docs not followfrom the premises).Thequotedstatement deals
solely with our cross-ex-.uninacion of ACLU witnesses. not the ACLUs
crosscxan1ination ofour witnesses'. ll1edecision nottoobject tothecross-
examination ofour own witness (l) r.Geisler) had nothing whatsoever tt)
do with our plan not towin thecaseoncrossexamination of thewitnesses
fortheACLU. In other words,wefeltchat witnesses for theStacecould,on
338 Appendix2
Yours truly,
STE\TE CLARK Attorney General
DAVID L. \VILLIAMS RICK CAMPBELL
Deputy Attorney General Assistant Attorney General'
Dear Editor:
Your article on the Arkansascreationtrial wasa colossaldisappointment
and a gross d istortion of the truth. By mi111icking thesecular media's
focus on the out-of-conte,xt irrelevant, and sensational, you held up
the creation witnesses and defense attorneys to public scorn. You also
misrepresentedaspokesman for the Attorney General, thereby casting
aspersions on the credibility ofanother witness. Further, you disto rted
the testimony of the valiantscience witnesses,manyofwhom risked their
professional reputations to testify2. And contrary to your uni11fonned
claim that theydid not light science with science, these scientistsgave
threesoliddaysofscientificevdi enceforcreationism. If your reporter had
attended the trial hewould have known this. DuaneGish,Cal Beisner,
Mark Keough, and myself were all evangelical writers present for the
whole science testimony, and we all disagreewith your gross misrep-
resentation.\Vhydidn't you get someone who k11ew what theywere
talking about? Why did you hirean absentee,free-lancewriter from
\X1ashingco n, D.C.? And whydid you refuse to printa firsthandaccount
offered you by an evangelical writer (Cal Beisner) who did attend the
crial? \Vhy didn't your reportereven telephone anyof the above men-
tionedeye-witness writers to get the faces ? And why didil't he use the
firsthand material of the prepublication manuscript on the trial (The
Creator in the Courtroom, Mott Media)sent cohim?
To cap it all oft;you printed an interviewwith D r. \ '(f _ T. Bro\\01 in
which you proudly paraded the scientific evidence you believe should
have been given at the trial. \Veil, a littlefirsthand knowledgewould
have told you that this verysame scientific evidencewas presented at
the trial. In brief, your report was woefully ignorant, grossly d istorted,
and potentially libelo us. 1nis is the kind of thing we expect from the
world, but not from fellowChristians.
Sincerely,
Norman L. Geisler
2. Robert Gcr)tr)' wasinformedafter thetrial that hiscontractat the Oak Ridge National
Labo rato ry (Tenn.) would not bere.newed . I learne.:l lat<'r froman in side source tl1at h i,s boss
was not happythat he had testifiedat d\c trial.
340 Appendix 2.
'The lnstitute for Creation Research ( ICR) had an accurate but brief
(2-page) report in their bnpact (March,1982, No. I05) on rhe trial by
Duane Gish, who ,vas an observer at rhe trial. He spoke of the defense
testilnony asbrW iant and excellent, and concluded:"Fron1 hisdecision
it is obvious that Judge Overton {as well as n1ost of the news ,ned ia)
co,nplerely ignored rhe scientific evidence presented by the defense
witnesses ,vhile accepting ,vithout question evidence offered by the
plaintiffs' witnesses. Many re,narks ,nade byJudge Overton during the
trial revealed h is bias againsr the creationistside."
frer the f.'lct and afrer its disto rted coverage of the Ar-
kansasMcLean trial (seeappendix 2), Christianity Today
did aJlo, v two counterpo int articles on the topic. O ne
arcicle was written bya rJ1eistic evolutionist,George Marsden, rJ1en of
CalvinCollege,whodefe nded ceaching onlyevolution in theschools.
Strangely, Marsden was a confessed evangelical, yet he supported the
law,vhich allowed only evolution to be caught and not die view n1ost
evangelicals hold, na,nely, creation. 1l1e ocher article was by 1n yself,
defe ndin g die right to reach the scientificevidence for both evolution
and creation in public school science classes. 1l1e article gives what
the trial was all about and ,vhy I suppo rted rl1e lawand was willing
to testify for it.1l1e following is a copy of the ai-ticle, which appeared
on i\fa.rch 19, I98 2:
341
342 Appendix}
2. Rc.,-pri1ltod by permission.
_
__.->.-J"?.,.PElS!D JX 4
ACLU Mockery
of Creationist Beliefs
The Cross Exa mi na tion
They Refused to Transcribe
Intro duction
Very littleof rhesubstance of,nycourrroo,n tesci,nony waspublished
in rhe n1ainline n1edia. n1e court refusedco transcribe it for live years,
until after the Supre,ne Court had ruled on the issue it addressed ( in
Edwards, 1987). Instead, the 1nedia chose to stress irrelevantpersonal
religiousbeliefs of the ,vicness (seeappendix I) ,vhich were n1ore sen-
sational and put creationists in a bad light. ll1is kind of questioning
was irrelevant and should have been ruled out of order by che judge.
Objective reporting should have rne ntioned rhac the judge refused to
overrule thisirrelevant questioningabout a ,virness's personal religious
beliefsand char nosuch questioning took placeconcerning theliberals,
349
350 Appendix 4
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. SIANO: [of die ACLU]
Q Good afrernoon, Dr. Geisler.
A Good afternoon.
ACLU MockeryofCrc.ationistUdicfs 351
Q Dr. Geisler, wespoke beforeon Novernber 14th, didn't ,ve?
A We spoke before, and I'II crust your n1e1nory for the 14th.
Q In face,you gave a deposition chat day, isn't chat true?
A' Orn.e'scorrecr.
QHave you had occasion ro read rhar deposition since rhar ri1ne?
A Yes, I have.
Q Have you n1ade any cor rections co it?
A I ,nade about three pages. There were over 100 corrections.
QAII righr.
MR. SIANO: YourHonor, asyet I have noc received those. I,vould
ask rhe stare for chose no,v.
BY MR.SIANO:
Q Did you give chose co rhe Attorney General's office?
A I diink I niailed d1em back with che depo sition.
MR.SIANO: For the record, your Honor, plainciffhas nor received
these.
MR. \X/ILLIAMS [defenseattorney]: Your Honor, I ,vane co scare
for rhe record also d1is is d1e first cirne ,ve've been given notice of
rhar.Ir,vas niy understanding d1at wehad given diacco d1eni,and I
would haveappreciar.ed ir ifrhey had let n1e know before rliis tune.
\Vecetrainly willgee chose. I diink we have rlien1. Perhaps in allof
rl1edocurnents going back and forth we have not given cliose.
THE COURT: Do you have rhern here in court?
MR.\VILLIAMS: I do not d1ink-Idon't rhink,ve have rhein here,
your Honor.\Ve have ro check in our office.
THE COURT: Maybe you ought co have so,nebody do rhat..
MR WILLlAMS:I'll beglad co do rhac, your Honor.
BY MR. SIANO:
Q Dr.Geisler, did you rnakesubsranrive changes in youranswer,sor
did you just correct typographical errors?
A I ,vottld say die vase rnajoricy of d1en1,vere typographical 111ere
were a few chat conunas and periods cl1anged die 1neaning chat
352 Appendix 4
Q ' I11ankyou.
A 1liac's1ny illuscracion.
Q Now, do you ackno,vledge Mr. Henry Morris as an auchoriry on
creacion science?
A I acknowledge chat I was not an authoricy on science, but in rny
non-scientific understanding I understood chat hewasascientist,
a hydrologist ,vho had a Ph. D.and ,vho wroreon chis copic, and
in chac sense,vas an authority, yes.
Q Do you acknowledge hitn coday as an authority on creation
sciences?
A In chat sa,nesense, yes.
QAnd doyou acknowledge Mr.Morris's book"Scientific C reation-
isni" as an auchoricacive ,vork iti che field of creation science?
A I think-I didn't read thelarger book. You rn ay recall1ny deposi-
tion. I only read chat sn1aller one which had a slightly different
tjde. So, I can't really cell you.
Unless clie larger one ,vas a Joe better man me sn1aJler one, I
would say he's nor one of rhe bercer audioriries on ic.
QSo, you don't recognize his book:"SciencificCreacionisni"?
A I recognize hitn as ascienrisc who hasa Ph.D.and in char sense is
an auchoricy and who ,vroce on chis copic, bur I don't chink chat
his book diac I read, diesniaJler one, which is diecase, I chink it's
called nie Case for Scientific Creacionisrn," and l did not read
rhelargeroneas I cold you in cl1edeposition, I don'tconsider chat
litcle one co be one of che betcer cases I've seen.
Q Doctor, I ask you co look ar your deposition and I ask you if you
recall beingasked thefollowing question and givingdie following
answer. Page 87, line 18, Doctor.
scion: n1is genden1an Morris that. you- is chat Henry
Morris?"
Sp. rhroughoutthis sef.'ti0 1l l refosc:d to call manyof thesepeopleexperu because l lrnewthe
ACLU would urethat to imply that l approw;d of thing$ these people m , 1)' h:wesaid in their
hoo ks that would ma.kccreation !>CienceJoo k lik("a religious view.
ACLU Mockeryof Crc.atio nist Udicfs
Introduction
BACKG ROUND
11, c d istrict court dism issedMr. \Vebster's su it for failure to state a
claim upon which reliefcan begranted....le is wellsettled that, when
revie, vingthe grant of a mo rion to dismiss,we must assume the truth
of all well-pleaded facn,al allegarionsand 1nake all possible inferences
in favor of the plaintiff. 1
373
374 Appendix s
A. Facts
Ray Webster teachessocial studies at the Oster-Oakview Junior High
School in New Lenox, Ulinois. In the Springof J987, astudent in Mr.
\v'ebster's social studies class complained that Mr. \Xfebsrer's teaching
methods violated principles ofseparation between church andscare. In
addition ro the student,both the American C ivil Liberties Union and
the Americans United for theSeparationofChurch and Stateobjected
to !vlr. \v'ebster's teachingpractices. Mr.\Xelbsterdenied dieallegarions.
OnJuly 31,1987, the New Lenox school board (school board), tlirough
itssuperintendent,advised Mr. \Xelbs terby letterthat heshould restrict
hisclassroom instructioncothecurriculum and refrain fromadvocating
a particular religiousviewpoint.
Believing the superintendent's letter vague, Mr. \Xlebstcr asked for
furtherclarification in a letterdatedSeptember 4,1987.ln thisletter, Mr.
Webtseralsoset forthhis reachingmethodsand philosophyM . r.Webster
stated tliat thediscussionof religious issues in hisclass was only for the
purpose of developingan open mind in hisstudents. For example, Mr.
\v'ebsrer explainedrhar he taught nonevoluitonary theories ofcreation
to rebut a statement in the social studiestextbook indicating that the
world isover four billionyears old. Therefore, his reaching methods in
no way violated the doctrine of separation between church and state.
Nlr.\v'ebstcr contended that,at most,heencouragedstudents toexplore
alternative viewpoints.
'The JY ebstcrCase 375
Thesupetincendcncresponded co Mr. \Xe'bsccr's letteron October13,
1987. Thesuperintendentreiterated thatadvocacyofa Christian view-
point wasprohibited,although Nlr.Webster could discuss objectivelythe
historical relationship between church andstatewhensuch discussions
were an appropriate pareofchecurriculu1n. Mr. Webster wasspeci6c ally
instructed not co teach creation science, because the reaching of this
theory had been held by the federal courcs to be religious advocacy.
[This paragraph wasa footnote in the actual court record.] Edwards
u. Aguil!drd ... ( I987), the Supreme Court
determined that creation science, asdefinedin the Louisiana act in q
uestion,wasa nonevolutionary theoryof origin chat "embod ies the
religious belief chat a supernatural creator was responsiblefor
thecreationof hu1nankiod."
Mr. \Xe'bsterbroughtsuit,principally arguing chat theschool board's
prohibitions constituted censorship in violation of the first and four-
teenthamendments. In particular,Mr. \Xfebster argued chat theschool
boardshould permit him to reach a noncvolutionary theoryofcreation
in hissocial studiesclass.
Analysis
At theoutset, we note that a narrow issueconfronts us: Mr. \Vebster
asserts that hehasa first amendment right to detenninethecurriculum
content of his junior high school class. He docsnot, however, contest
thegeneral authority of theschool board, acting through its executive
agent, thesuperintendent, to set the curriculum.
This case does not present a novel issue. \Ve have already confirmed
the right of those authoritiescharged bysrate lawwith curriculum de-
velopment to require theobedienceofsubo rdinatee,nployeesi,ncluding
the classroom teacher.Judge Wood expressed thecontrolling principle
succincdy in Palmer v. Board of Educ . . . . 1979....when he wrote:
'The Jf?ebster Case
377
"Parents have a vital interest in what their childrenare taught.Their
representativeshave in general prescribed a curric.ulum. There isa com-
pellingstare interest in the choice and adherence co a suitable curricu-
lum for the benefit of our young citizensand society. It cannot be lefi:
to individualteachersto reachwhat they please." Yet Mr. \Vebster, in
effect, argues that the school board must permit him to teach what he
pleases. The first a mendment is " not a reacher licensefor uncontrolled
expression at variance with establishedcurricularcontent."... (hol ding
that individualteacher has noconstitutionalprerogative tooverride the
judgnient ofhissuperiors as to proper coursecontent.) ... (1973).Clearly,
theschoolboard had theauthority and the responsibility coensure that
Mr. \Xlebs terdid nocsrrny from che established curriculum byinjecting
religious advocacy into the classroom. "Families entrust public scliools
with the education of their children, bur condition their trust 011 die
undersranding that checlassroom will not purposelybeused roadvance
religious views that may conRict with the private beliefsof the student
and his or her family." Edtllf1rds . . . (1987).
A junior highscliool students inunarurc stage of intcllcccual devel-
opment imposes a heightenedresponsibility upon the school board to
control the curriculum. See Z.rka11 v. J#inaw Commu11i r School Corp.
. . . (1980). We have noted diar secondary schoo l teachers occupy a
unique position forinlluencingsecondaryschosotu l dents,thus creating
a concomitant power in school authorities to choose the teachers and
regulate their pedagogical methods. Id."TheStareexerrsgreatauthority
and coercive power through mandatory attendance requirements,and
because of rhc srudcnrs' emulation of teachers as role models and die
children's susceptibility ro peer pressure." Edwards. . . . (1987)
Ir is true that chediscrecionlodgedinschtlolboards is not completely
unfettered.For example,schoolboards maynocfire teachersfor rando,n
classroom comments. Zykan. . . . Moreover, schoolboards may nor re-
quire instruction in a religiouslyinspired dogmato theexclusion ofocher
poinrsofview. Epperson v. Ark,msas. . . ( 1968.)Thiscomplaint contains
noallegation rharschool authorities haveimposed"a pall oforrhodoxy"
on d1c offerings of die entire public school curricuulm, Keyishi,111 v.
Bo,zrd of Regents ... (1967),"which might either implicate thestatein
r.he propagation of an idencifiable religious creed t)r ocherwise impair
permanently thestudent'sability to investigate matters thatarise in die
natural course of intellectual inquiry." Zykan ....' D1erefore,this case
Appendix s
docs nor pl'csenr the issue of whether, or under what circumstances, a
school board maycompletelyeliminate material from rhe curriculum.
Cf Zykan. . . . (school,nay nor Aarlyprohibit teachers from mentioning
relevant material). Rather, rhc principle rhar an individual reacher has
no righr ro ignorerhedirectivesofdulyappoinrededucation authorities
is dispositive of this case. Today, we decide o nly that,giventhe allega-
tionsof thecomplaint, theschool board hassuccessuflly navigated the
narrowcharmclbetweenimpairingintellecrualinquiryand propagating
a religiouscreccl
Herc, thesuperintendentconcluded thatthesubject matt.ertaught by
l\1r. \Vebsrercreatedseriousestablishment clauseconcerns.c;( Edwards
. . . ("TheCourt hasbeen particularlyvigilant in monitoringcompliance
with the EstablishmentClausein elementaryand secondary schools.)";
Epperson ... (sch ools may nor adopt programs that aid or opposeany
religion). As rhe district court noted, the superintenden'ts letter is di-
recr.cdto thisconcern. "Educatorsdo not offend the l'irsr Amendment
. ..solongastheiractions arc reasonablyrelatedtolegitimate pedagogi-
cal concerns." Haulwood School Dist. v. Kuhbneier . . . ( I988 ) . Given
the schoolboard's important pedagogical interest in establishing rhe
curriculum and legitimate concern with possible establishment clause
violarions, the schoolboard's prohibition on the reaching of creation
science ro junior high students was appropriate. Sec l'a'1ner v. Board
of Educ....(197)9(school boardhas "compelling" interest in setting
the curriculum). Accordingly,the district court properly disnl isscd Mr.
\Vcbster'scomplainr.1
Conclusion
1he sa1ne biases of che court are evidenc here as in McLean (1982),
EdUJards (I 987) , an d D over(2005).Ourco111111e11cson chose cases,viii
not be repeated here (see chapters 3, 5,7, and 8).
2. H/ebsur v. Neru Lenox School Diilria, 917 F. 2,l 1004 (7, h C ir. 1990).
- - - - - - - - - A ee E=N
.ruX 6
Only Two Views
of Origin Events
of new life fonns is further proof for creation. Creationists believe chis
is not based ,nerely on rhe absence ofa particular n1eans for explaining
evolution (because there111aybeocher unknown natural explanations),
but it iscl1e presence ofpositive evidence (based on unifonnexperience)
thar leads us ro posit an intelligent cause for ne,v life fonns.
Evolutionists haveevery righr co concinue ro find natural causes for
,vhatever they can, based in unifonn experience. Bur in rhe absence of
all known natural causesand in cl1e presence of kno,vn causal connec -
tions benveen new life fonns and intelligent causes, creationists have
every right co present cl1eir evidence tor an intelligent cause of new life
fo rrns.\Xfhen chis is applied consiscencly,creationists believe the result.
is fair for both sides. For it turns our chat n1icroevolucion is based on
repeated observatjonal evidence in the present, but u1acroevolucion is
nor, for rwo reasons. Firsr, n1acroevolurion involves nor current evenrs
bur past, unobserved events.Second, rhereare no kno,vn forces regulaily
producing d1especifiedand irreduciblecon1plexiry inalivingfonn.And
in die light of fossil evidence for che sudden, fully fanned appearance
of ne,v life fonus, it is reasonable co posit an incelJigenc cause of d1en1.
Orher evidence &0111 the nature ofco,nplex syscen1s, interdependence
of basic forms of life, anticipatory design in nature, and the like also
point co an incelligenc cause. And rhere is no reason chis should not
be presented as one vie,v, along,vid, the opposing vie"' in high school
science classes.
Concl usion
TI1ere isa valid basic dualis,n berween creation and evolurion.n1ere
areonly C\voviewsoneacli point oforigin. And whatever argues against
one is rhereby an argu1nenr for d1e od,er . Bur n1ore man d1at, iris nor
rhe rnere lack of kno,vn natural causes that leads creacionisrs to posit
an inrelligenr cause oflife. Ir is rhe presence ofevidence chat poincs co
an incelligenc cause.
Ofcourse, it isalso trued1ac whac argues against one n1eans (n1echa-
nis1n) for evolution does noc cl1ereby refiJCe evolurion. Orher narural
causes ruay bepossible, bur ic isup co cl1eevolutionist co find d1en1. Bue
Only Two Viewsof Origin EYcnrs
Books
Bacon, Francis. Nwum Organum. New York:Co lonial Press,1899.
Barbour, Ian. h.mes ill Scie11ce alltl ReligionN
. ew York: Harper & Row, 1966.
Bcd,with, Francis.Ulw, Dmwinism,and Public Etl11c11tion. New York: Rowman&
Liulc lidd, 2003.
Behe, Michael.Danvins Blafk Box. New York: Free Press, 1996 .
Hers man, Jerry, and Gco rs c Howe. "VestigialOrg1111s'' Are Fully Functional: A !-li_;-
1ory1tndEva/11atio11ef1heVe.<tigi,,l Orga" Origins Concep.tKansas C ity: Crc.1tion
ResearchSociety Books, 1993.
Bergson, Henri. C,eati,,e Euolution. Translated b)' Arthur /v! itchell. New York: lv(a-c
millan, 19(1.
Blackstone, \Villiam.Ct>mmentaries t>n1he Law .<ofE11gla,ul.C hicago: Universityof
Chicaso Press,2002.
Budziszewski, J. flow to Stay Christian in Colleg.eColorado Springs: NavPrcss,
1999.
Campbell. John Angus, and Srcphen C. lv!cyer, eds. D11ri11i11i.w1, Dc,,ign,md Public
Education. East Lansing. /v!ich.: /vliclugan State University Press, 2003.
Conk in, Paul K. When All 1he Gods Trembled : D11n 11i11i.vn, Scop es,and .l1111e1ican
Inu llea" al<. NewYork: Rowman& Littlefield, 1998.
Darwin, Charles. On1he O,igin ofSpecie.t 6 th Edition, 1872. New York: New York
University Press, 1988.
---.OntheO,igin of Speciesand the Descentoflv!a11. Great Books of the \Vcstcrn
\Vorid. Vol. 49. C hicago: University ofChicago Press, 19 52.
386
13ihliography
Davis, Percival, Dean Kenyon, and Charles B. Thaxton. 0/Ptmdas and People: The
CentrniQ}'estion of lliological O,igins. Dallas: Haughton,1993.
Dawkins,Richard. The Blitul Hi1tch11111ker.New York: Norton, 1987.
Dcmbski, \Villiam. 1he Design Reuol1t1io11: A,wveringtheToughest Que.<tiom About
fntellige11t Design. Downers Grove, Ill.: lmerVarsity Press,2004.
Dcmbski, \'{fiJliam,ed.i\llere Crention: Science, Fnith,,md ln1elligent Desig11.Downers
Grove, lll.: lntcrVarsicyPress, 1998.
Dcmbski, \VilJia m, and l'vlic hacl Rusc,cds. Debati11g Design: Fn,m Darwi11 to DNA.
New York: Cambridge Ulliversity Press, 2004.
Dewe.yJo hn.A Common Faith.New Haven, Conn.: Yale Universiry Press,1960.
Dc\'\flof. David,John \Vest, Carey Luskin, and Jonathan \Vitt. 1i11ip,ingi11to Evolu-
tion: Intelligent Design ,wd the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Dedsio11. Seattle: Discovery
L,stitute Press, 2006.
De\Volf. Davdi, ct al."TeachingtheControversy: lsIt Science, ReUgi on,orSpeech?"
L1 Darwini.m,, Design, anti Public Ed11ca1ion.Edited byJolu1 A. Camp bell and
StephenC. l'vleyer. East Lansing, l'vlich.: l'-1ichigan State Unjversity Press, 2003.
Dreisbach, Daniel L 1hom11sjifjer5onnntlthe J#rllo/SepamtionBetween Church ,mt/
Srate. New York: New York University Press, 2002.
Frair, \Vay11e. Biology ttntl c , ation: An lntn1tluaion Reg11.-di11g Life ttnd Ifs Origin..,
Chino \/allci1Ariz.: Crcarion Research Society Books, 2002.
--. 1he CllSe fa.-c , 111ion. Chicago; ?vloody, 1976.
---.Science and C, 111itm: An !111roduaitm 10 Some Tough l;.<ue.<. C h ino Valley.
Ariz.: Creation Research Society Books, 2002.
Geisler,Norman. ls ,11an theMeasure?An E1111!11tttio11ofContemporm'Y llum ttni.m,.
Grand Rapids, l'-lic h.:Baker, 1983.
---.Kwwing the1iuth About C,eation. Eugene, Ore.: \Vipf& Srock, 2003.
---.1\1irncles1111tltheMode171 J.1intl.Grand Rapids, l'-1ich.: Baker, 1992.
Geisler, Norman, and Kerby Anderson. Origin Sciente: A Prt,p.o<tt! ji1>theCre,itiOTJ
Evolution Co11trove>-Jy.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1987.
Geisler, Norman, and William Nix. A General ln1.-od11t1ion to 1he Bible. C hicago:
Moody, 1986.
Gcislcr, Norman,and FrankTu rck.I Don Have Enough F'llitbta Bean Atheist. \Vhc-a
tOn,111.: C rossway,2004.
Geisler, Norman, wi th A.F. Brooke II,and ?.lark Keough.71,e Creator in theCou>t
,vo111. l'vlilford, l'vli ch.:?.Iott l'--ledia, 1982.
Gentry,Robert. C.-entions Tiny ,11syte,y. Knoxvlile: Earth ScienceAssociation, 1988.
Getting the Facts Sh-aight: A Viewers (;uide ta PBSs Evolurion. Seattle: Discovery
lnsrirutc Press,200I.
388 Bibliog raphy
Articles
Legal Cases
Abington School District v.Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
Aguillard v.Treen, 440 So.2d (1983); 720 E2d (CA5 1983);634 f. Supp. (ED La.
1985).
392 Bibliography
Barcds v. State of Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923).
BethelSchool Dist. No.403v. Fraser, 478 U.S.675 (1986).
Bisho,p , _Aronov.926 E 2d 1066( I Ith Cir.1991).
Board of Educacio n v.Allen,392 U.S. 236 (1968).
Brandon v. Board of Education, 487 F. Supp. 1219, 1230 (N.D. N.Y.), afia., 635 F.
2d 971 (2nd Cir. 1980).
C antwell v.Co nnecticut, 310 U.S. 296(194-0).
Celote.x Cor p. v.Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 ( 1986 ).
Chti ler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S.281 (1979).
Clements v. ]' ashing, 457 U.S.957(1982).
Committee for Public Education & Religious Libertyv. Nyquist, 413 U.S.756(1973).
Committeefor Pnblic Education & Religious Liberty v. Reagan, 444 U.S. 646( l980).
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890).
Dred Scott v.Sanford, 60 U.S.393(1857).
Edwards v.Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
Engel v.Vitale,370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Epperson v.Stateof Arkansas,393 U.S.97 (1968).
Everson v. Board of Educationof Ewing, 330 U.S. I (1947).
Fed. Energy Admin. v.AlgonquinSNG, l.nc., 426 U.S. 548, 564(1976).
Flcrchcr v. Pec k,6 Cranch87{1810).
Freiler v.Tangipahoa Board of Education, No.94-3577( l 997).
Grand RapidsSchool District v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985).
Harris v. leRae.448 U.S. 297 (1980).
Ha,.dwoodSchool District v. Kuhlmcier, 484 U.S. 260(1988).
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida, 480 U.S. 136(1987).
!Uinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340(1987).
Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S.345 (19 56).
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. \Vilson,343 U.S. 495 (1952).
Keith v. LouisianaDepartment of Education, 553F.Supp.295 (Jvll) La. 1982).
Kcyishian v. Board of Regents,38S U.S. 589 (1967).
Kit zmille,r, . Dover Area School Districc,400F.Supp.2d 707(lVI.D.Pa. 2005).
Larkin v.Grendel's Den, b1c.,459 U.S. 116 (1982).
Le,e, . \Vcisman, 505 U.S.577(1992).
LeVake v. b1dcpcndcnt School District,6S6,CX-99-793 (
D.lvli1m.2000). Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602( 1971).
Bibliog raphy 393
Levitt v. Co mmi11ccfor Public Educarion & Religious Libercy,413 U.S. 472(1973).
Los Angeles[City of] v. Preferred Co mmunications,476 U.S.488(1986).
Lynch v. Donnelly,465 U.S. 668(1984).
lvfarsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783(1983).
lvlcColJum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S.203 (1948).
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Unio n of Kenn,cky,545 U.S. 844
(2005).
lvlcDonald v. Board ofEleetion Conun'rs ofChicago, 394 U.S. 802 (1969).
lvlcGowan v. Seate of Maryland,366 U.S.420(1961).
lvlcLean v.Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F.Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982).
lvleek v. Pittenger,421 U.S.349(1975).
lvleyer v.Stace of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390(1923).
lv!odrovich v.AlleghenyCou nry,385 F.3d 397 (2004).
Moore v. Gaston Co unty Board of Educarion, 357 F.Supp. 1037 (\V. 0. N. C.
I973).
lv!o,.crcv. HawkinsCount y Board of Educatio n, 827 F. 2d 1058 (1987).
lv(uellcr v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388(1983).
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Seed Corp., 301 U.S.1 (1937).
l)almerv. Board of Education of the City ofChicago.603F.2d 1271(7th Cir.1979).
Pahner v.n,ompson4 . 03 U.S. 217 (1971).
Pdoza v.C apistrano Unified School District, 917F. 2d 1004 (1994).
Pierce v.Society ofSisters, 268 U.S.510( 1925).
PlannedParenthood v.Casey, 505 U.S. 833(1992).
Recd v. Van Hoven, 237 F.Supp. 48(\V. D. MI 1965).
Richardsv. UniredStar<-s, 369 U.S. 1 (1962).
Roe v. \"{1adc,410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (198 1).
Scopes v.State of Tennessee.105,120, 289S.\V. 363,367 (1927).
Segraves v.StateofCalifornia, Ca.Super.Ct. 278978U (1981).
Shelton v."Tucker,364 U.S.479 (1960).
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398(1963).
Smith v. Stare of Mississippi. 242So.2d (1970).
Seate of Tennessee v.Jo hnScopes, 5232 (1925).
Sccdc v.\Vacers,527S.\V.2d 72 (1975).
Sco ne v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39(1980).
lcxas Educarion Agcnc)' v. Leeper, 893$. \V. 2d 432 (Tex. 1994.)
394 BibHog raphy
Thomas v. Review Boa rd, Ind iana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707
(1981).
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971).
Tinker v. Des1'1oi.nes Independent Commu nitySchool District, 393 U.S. 503(1969).
Torcaso v.\Varkins, 367 U.S.488 (1961).
United Scares v. Emmons,410 U.S.396(1973).
United Stares v. O' Brien, 391 U.S. 367(1968).
United Stares v.Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) .
Van O rdcn 1. Pcny,545 U.S.677(2005).
Villageof Arlington Heights v.!vfctropolitan HousingCorp.. 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
\'i'aUace v.Jafli-cc, 472 U.S. 38(1985).
\'i'alzv. Tax Co mm'n of New York City,397 U.S. 664(1970).
\'i'ashingron EthicalSociety v. District ofColumbia, IO1 U.S. App. D.C. 371. 249
F.2d. 127 (1957).
\'i'arson v.Jones, 80 U.S.( 13 \V.111.) 679,728(1872).
\'i'cbstcr 1. New LenoxSchool District,917 F.2d. I004(7th Cir. 1990).
\Vidmar v. Vinccm, 454 U.S. 263(1981).
\'i'illoughbyv. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D. D. C. May 18, 1973), affd. 504 F. 2d 271
(D. C. Cir. 1974),ccrt. dcnicd,420 U.S.(1975).
\'i'isconsin v.Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
\'i' ittcrs v.\'i'ashingcon DepartmentofServices for Blin,I. 474 U.S. 481(1986).
\'i'olman,. \Valrer, 433 U.S. 229(1977).
\'i'right v. Housron Lldcpcn dcm School Distric t, 366 F.Supp. 1208(S.l). 1972).
Zorach v. C lauson,343 U.S. 306( l952).
Zykan v. \Varsaw (Indfana) Comm unity School Corporation and \Xfarsaw School
Board of T rusrees,631 F. 2d. 1300 (7th Cir. 1980).
Index
Abingto11Sthoo/.Di1ni<1 t'. Srhnnpp ( 1963). SS. Bible: incrr:mcy of. 173. 366 - 367: andliccnlism.
88.99.102. 105.144. 145.188.189,190. 173;:u the sourceor scientific discovery. J33.
191. 192. 197. 269.274. 303.307 179.270
ACLU,,. Amoic,,, 7/Jr.{Scars;mdOncn).31Jn3S Bible Sct(nc(' Association, lOl
Agassiz. Louis. 32.32116. 68 BigB,ngrhoo,y. 168.257.260, 268.381
Aguihtr FdtOJI ( J98S), 211 Biological Sciences Curriculum Snidy ( 8SCS}.
Ag,,,11,ml v. T>= ( 1983),187.196 100
Alito.S:i.mud.209. '293,297 flqi /q,gy A SarrbforOrderi11Comp/exit:,, 112
Bird. w,nddl. 91. I17. 127. 127nl2. 137. 139.
Altizer.Thomu J.J..153
186
A1nericanAssodation for the Ad\'ancanent of
Hl:1cks:roncs Comme111,1da, 267
Scic.rKc' . 21nl Bliss, Rkhud ll., 112
Americ:m ChiJ LibertiC$ Union (ACLU).35,
8r1mJ,m r1. /Jo111'(/ of Edu(111ion ( 1980 }. l IS
zn.305: Acadeinic f-recdom Coounin, Bryan,\Villia1n)<'nn ings.34. 36. 176: first s.ixcch
308 of in Scopes trial. 56- 58; l3$t speech of in
amhropic principle.250, 300 Sropnrri2t72: asa witnessinSroptstrial.
anri-cvohnion Jaws. 22, 177 70-71
Aquinas.Thomas. 170, 217. 366 Buddhism. 153
archaoology. 256:and th< Bible,133.179. 270 Bud:r.iszc wski.J.. 306
Ari,t0de, 135, 159,161, IS i, 207,265-266,301 Bucll,Jon. 23- 24, 183
atheism. I53
attorne-y.strainingof in f=in t Amendment issues. Gu1111,,d/ ,,. Comurticut ( 1940), 196
296-297 Ca.rd,Orson Scon.247
Augustine.3<'.-<i ciuuJity.principleot: 249.2'>8-259, 267.268.
299
Ce/o,rx Co,-p. Cam: Jt( l986). 199
Bacon, Francis. 165. 166.258-259
Chittick . Donald. 121. 304
Bubour. lao.133 '"Christi:m Ooccrinc of Creation and the Riseof
Bands" Stateoflow,r ( 1923),84 Modenl NamralScienc:c.The'"(Foster).271
llche, Mich,cl, 25- 26. 217, 218.219, 224, 226- CJnisti.111i.\11111ifo10,.'.I.(Sdt1cfl'e-.r),317
227.246n 13. 251nI 9 Chry$/e, C.Ot-p,,,,uitmv. Bto:,11( l 979) . 102
lkrgwn, Henri. 32,273n52, 286 Cirizcns for F:1irncss in f.ducation,91
&rhdSdwol Dis.tNo.403v.. f-hue,( 1986) . 188 CiJJ of Los Angdts u. Pnfe,rt'AO,nm1unir111fom
Bia,(Goldb<rg).304 (1986).374
39S
lntici:
Norman Geisler isthe author orcoauthor of over fifty books and numerous arti cles. -
f-or o ver forty }'Cars D r. G ci :-le r has ta ug ht at the univcrsit)' o r g radu:itc le veland has ..
spoken throughout the United Statesand in twenty- five other countries . Dr. Geisler -
cu1Tc ntly $ervc:s:is dean of Southern Evangelical Se minal')'. ..
SCIENCEANOFAITH
ISBN -13: 978 -1-58134-836 -1
ISBN -10: 1-58134-836-3
9; ] IJ[lJll