|
Creation Science and the Law
Once upon a time Creationists would get states to outlaw the teaching of evolution (this was what the Scopes trial was all about -- a Tennessee statute forbidding the teaching of Darwinism). Their reason for the legislation was simple enough: evolution was contradicted by the Bible. However, this prohibitionist tactic proved ultimately to be a losing proposition. Given the Supreme Court’s "Establishment Clause" decisions since WWII, legislatures couldn't legally get science out of the classroom because it conflicted with religion. Were the Creationists defeated? No, they adopted another tactic. If they couldn’t get science out of the classroom because it conflicted with religion, perhaps they could get science out of the classroom if it conflicted with other "science" -- or at least they could get both "scientific" stories taught. Thus was born thirty years ago "creation science." Creationists tried to meet evolution on its own ground. Creationists also attacked on another front, insisting that the theory of evolution was itself an expression of a religious view -- secular humanism. Constitutional fairness required that if evolution is taught, creation science must be given a place too. You can see both of these strategies embodied in the Louisiana law below. ***** THE BALANCED TREATMENT FOR CREATION-SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION-SCIENCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL INSTRUCTION ACT Purpose: To promote academic freedom Definitions: creation-science = the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences; evolution-science = the scientific evidences for evolution and the inferences from those scientific evidences Provisions (i)
evolution-science may not be taught if creation-science is not taught; ***** The Argument for Balanced Treatment Premise 1. There are two and only two scientific explanations for the beginning of life -- evolution and creation science. Premise 2. Since there are only two possible explanations of the origin of life, any evidence that tends to disprove one necessarily tends to prove the other. Premise 3. The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. Premise 4. Creation science is educationally valuable. It can and should be presented to children without any religious content. Premise 5. Although creation science is educationally valuable and strictly scientific, it is now being censored from public schools. Evolution is misrepresented as an absolute truth. Conclusion. This censorship violates the Establishment Clause because it advances a religion, namely, secular humanism; and it violates academic freedom, since it unfairly denies students a legitimate alternative scientific perspective. [The Act and the Argument are taken from Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, and elsewhere, in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)] ***** On its face, the Act seems to promote a secular purpose and hew to secular means. Only "scientific evidences" are permitted in class. Competing theories of origins are to be taught without any religious content. How so? What counts as "scientific evidence"? Can the Creationist say that the first Book of Genesis counts as evidence? It would seem not; otherwise, teaching creation science would violate the stipulation against teaching religious content. So, let's assume that creation science advances only the thesis that the universe (and life) has a creator, "however you define creator," as the legislation's sponsor put it. Justice Scalia, in his defense of the Louisiana legislation, claimed that creation "only posits a creator; it does not posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of veneration and worship by Christians and Jews; it does not even posit Aristotle's Unmoved Mover." It posits nothing religiously particular. But look what happens, then, to the Argument for Balanced Treatment. If Scalia is right, creation science should be compatible with any number of possible creators. If creation science is not supposed to be tied to a particular religious account of creation, then premise #1 is simply false. There aren't two theories of origins but countless ones. There is Darwinian evolution; and then there are hundreds of creation stories from cultures around the world. According to the Hopi, for example, Taiowa the Creator made the world four times, destroying the first by fire, the second by ice, and the third by water. Life was created by the Spider Woman, using dirt, saliva, and the powers given her by Taiowa. And according to the Hindu, the Yoruba, the Winnebago, the Maori, the Japanese, the Seneca, the Norse, . . . . ad infinitum. If creation science posits no particular creator, it should be compatible with all these stories. The alleged gaps in the theory of evolution theory should count in favor of all these stories. The fact is, of course, "creation science" isn't compatible with just any creator of the universe and the Louisiana law does not envisage teaching Hindu creation stories in the classroom. The language of the Act tips its hand. It requires approved "creation scientists" to help with the science curriculum. What does that mean? It means people approved by the Creation Research Society or the Institute for Creation Research. To see what these outfits believe, check them out. [return to Carter Supplement] |