Edwards v. Aguillard
Appellant
Edwin W. Edwards, Governor of Louisiana
Appellee
Don Aguillard
Appellant's Claim
The Creationism Act was legal.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Wendell R. Bird, Special Assistant Attorney General of Georgia
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Jay Topkis
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), ThurgoodMarshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens, ByronR. White
Justices Dissenting
William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
19 June 1987
Decision
The Creationism Act violated the Establishment Clause and was therefore unconstitutional.
Significance
The case is significant because it reaffirmed that the advancing of any religious doctrine violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to theU.S. Constitution.
In June of 1987, the Supreme Court voted to reject a law passed by the stateof Louisiana. The rejection of this Louisiana law was to set a precedent in religion and freedom of religion-related cases. The Louisiana law required teachers in the state to teach "creationism." Although some people believe creationism, also known as creation science, to be a fact, others believe it to bea theory--a proposed but unverified explanation. In dealing with the case ofEdwards v. Aguillard, the High Court had to deal with many issues including creation science, evolution, religion, and education. In the end, theSupreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law violated the Establishment Clauseof the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because of this violation, the law was found to be unconstitutional.
To understand this case one must first understand the Louisiana law. Then onemust come to understand how the Supreme Court justices arrived at their decision. The state of Louisiana passed a law it called "The Creationism Act." Under the Creationism Act teachers were required to teach both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation science.
The theory of evolution states that human beings evolved, or came into beinggradually, over time. The theory of creation science disagrees with the theory of evolution. Creation scientists believe the origin of life did not happenover time, and that humans did not evolve from lower life forms. Louisiana'sCreationism Act said if one theory is taught to students, then both theoriesmust be presented. Challenging the Creationism Act were Louisiana parents, religious leaders, and teachers. A Federal District Court declared that Louisiana's Creationism Act was unconstitutional and both the court of appeals andthe U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Federal District Court's decision.
The U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause prohibits the passage of any lawthat takes away an individual's freedom of religion, whether that person selects a religion or decides on no religion at all. The question the Supreme Court asked itself was did the passage by the state of Louisiana of its Creationism Act violate the Establishment Clause. Based on its long history dealingwith the religion clauses of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court had developed what became known as the Lemon test. The Lemon test allowed the SupremeCourt to decide whether or not a certain piece of legislation violated the Establishment Clause.
The Lemon test itself evolved over time. Many cases, including Everson v.Board of Education, Engel v. Vitale, McGowan v. Maryland, Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, and the case lending the test its name--Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971--among others, provided precedents on which to build the Lemon test. The Lemon test theSupreme Court used to decide whether or not the act violated the clause included the justices' answers to three separate questions. The justices found that the answers to their questions were: 1) Yes, the legislature passed the law with a non-religious purpose. 2) Yes, the primary effect of the law was toadvance or inhibit religion. And, 3) Yes, the law created an excessive meshing of religion with government. So, by answering yes to its three part question concerning the violation of the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court ruled against the passage of the act.
The Supreme Court, in making its decision, brought to light several points about the Creationism Act that were discriminatory. The act required that teachers develop curriculum guides for creationism but not for evolution. The Supreme Court said this was discrimination. The act forbdale local school boardsfrom discriminating against creation=scientists, but not teachers who taughtthe theory of evolution. The Supreme Court said this was discrimination. And,the High Court noted, the act endorses the creation-science=held religious belief that a supernatural being created human beings. This, the justices agreed, violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
By challenging the constitutionality of the act in court, the Louisiana parents, teachers and religious leaders participated in what became a landmark case dealing with freedom of and from religion. After the Supreme Court ruled, Louisiana Governor Edwards along with others involved in the educational system in Louisiana agreed not to implement the Creationism Act. In summary, the case is significant because it reaffirmed that the advancing of any religiousdoctrine violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S.Constitution.
Related Cases
Creationism Act
The Creationism Act was a 1981 Louisiana law that sought to bar the teachingof evolution in public school classes unless "creation science" was also taught as a possible origin of organic life. The theory of evolution proposes that animals and humans evolved from one or two primitive life forms over 3 million years ago in a process of natural selection. Creation science, however, dates the start of human life on earth back 6,000 years ago as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible.
Sources
Sanders, Alain I. "LAW: Memories of the Monkey Trial."Time, 29 June 1997.
Edwin W. Edwards, Governor of Louisiana
Appellee
Don Aguillard
Appellant's Claim
The Creationism Act was legal.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Wendell R. Bird, Special Assistant Attorney General of Georgia
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Jay Topkis
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), ThurgoodMarshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens, ByronR. White
Justices Dissenting
William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
19 June 1987
Decision
The Creationism Act violated the Establishment Clause and was therefore unconstitutional.
Significance
The case is significant because it reaffirmed that the advancing of any religious doctrine violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to theU.S. Constitution.
In June of 1987, the Supreme Court voted to reject a law passed by the stateof Louisiana. The rejection of this Louisiana law was to set a precedent in religion and freedom of religion-related cases. The Louisiana law required teachers in the state to teach "creationism." Although some people believe creationism, also known as creation science, to be a fact, others believe it to bea theory--a proposed but unverified explanation. In dealing with the case ofEdwards v. Aguillard, the High Court had to deal with many issues including creation science, evolution, religion, and education. In the end, theSupreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law violated the Establishment Clauseof the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because of this violation, the law was found to be unconstitutional.
To understand this case one must first understand the Louisiana law. Then onemust come to understand how the Supreme Court justices arrived at their decision. The state of Louisiana passed a law it called "The Creationism Act." Under the Creationism Act teachers were required to teach both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation science.
The theory of evolution states that human beings evolved, or came into beinggradually, over time. The theory of creation science disagrees with the theory of evolution. Creation scientists believe the origin of life did not happenover time, and that humans did not evolve from lower life forms. Louisiana'sCreationism Act said if one theory is taught to students, then both theoriesmust be presented. Challenging the Creationism Act were Louisiana parents, religious leaders, and teachers. A Federal District Court declared that Louisiana's Creationism Act was unconstitutional and both the court of appeals andthe U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Federal District Court's decision.
The U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause prohibits the passage of any lawthat takes away an individual's freedom of religion, whether that person selects a religion or decides on no religion at all. The question the Supreme Court asked itself was did the passage by the state of Louisiana of its Creationism Act violate the Establishment Clause. Based on its long history dealingwith the religion clauses of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court had developed what became known as the Lemon test. The Lemon test allowed the SupremeCourt to decide whether or not a certain piece of legislation violated the Establishment Clause.
The Lemon test itself evolved over time. Many cases, including Everson v.Board of Education, Engel v. Vitale, McGowan v. Maryland, Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, and the case lending the test its name--Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971--among others, provided precedents on which to build the Lemon test. The Lemon test theSupreme Court used to decide whether or not the act violated the clause included the justices' answers to three separate questions. The justices found that the answers to their questions were: 1) Yes, the legislature passed the law with a non-religious purpose. 2) Yes, the primary effect of the law was toadvance or inhibit religion. And, 3) Yes, the law created an excessive meshing of religion with government. So, by answering yes to its three part question concerning the violation of the Establishment Clause, the Supreme Court ruled against the passage of the act.
The Supreme Court, in making its decision, brought to light several points about the Creationism Act that were discriminatory. The act required that teachers develop curriculum guides for creationism but not for evolution. The Supreme Court said this was discrimination. The act forbdale local school boardsfrom discriminating against creation=scientists, but not teachers who taughtthe theory of evolution. The Supreme Court said this was discrimination. And,the High Court noted, the act endorses the creation-science=held religious belief that a supernatural being created human beings. This, the justices agreed, violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
By challenging the constitutionality of the act in court, the Louisiana parents, teachers and religious leaders participated in what became a landmark case dealing with freedom of and from religion. After the Supreme Court ruled, Louisiana Governor Edwards along with others involved in the educational system in Louisiana agreed not to implement the Creationism Act. In summary, the case is significant because it reaffirmed that the advancing of any religiousdoctrine violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S.Constitution.
Related Cases
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
- McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 429 (1961).
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
- Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973).
Creationism Act
The Creationism Act was a 1981 Louisiana law that sought to bar the teachingof evolution in public school classes unless "creation science" was also taught as a possible origin of organic life. The theory of evolution proposes that animals and humans evolved from one or two primitive life forms over 3 million years ago in a process of natural selection. Creation science, however, dates the start of human life on earth back 6,000 years ago as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible.
Sources
Sanders, Alain I. "LAW: Memories of the Monkey Trial."Time, 29 June 1997.
Further Readings
- Benen, Steve. "Evolving Debate." Church & State, October 1998, p. 13.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- Lemonick, Michael D. "Dumping on Darwin." Time, March 18, 1996, p.81.
- Schmidt, Karen. "Creationists Evolve New Strategy." Science, July26, 1996, p. 420.
User Comments Add a comment…
7 months ago
Roy » Roy_isawesome ((at)) yahoo dot com
so your reasoning is that since the THEORY of evolution has a hole in it, that creationism also fails to answer, god must have made everything. thats as religious as it gets, and creationism fails to answer, where did the creator come from? did he just apear in burst of light and say, why dont i create humans! no, the truth is that there is no reason behind creationist beliefs other than man's necessity to argue, and to feel like there is life after death. the catholic faith is based on belief not fact, noone really knows if Jesus lived or not, the church tells you that you must believe, follow the good Shepard. well if Jesus is the good shepard then the church is its sheep dogs, barking and snapping, preventing us from excercising our free will, which is one of creationism's biggest ideals, that man was created with free will and when we die the wonderous thing that just happened to decide to make us will decide wether we have been good or bad and our spirit will then be sent to heaven or hell so we can live eternally. does THAT sound logical? most devout catholics believe the earth to be not much more than 4000 years old, this is due to creationism's teachings, saying god made the earth in 7 days and made civilized man and told them not to talk to the snake and yada yada yada, 4000 years later here we are. or wait, almost every other aspect of science points to the earth as being millions of years old, and mankind itself only to be about 12,000. or did god make all the fossils and stuff too? due to incidents such as the salem witch trials, church was separated from state to avoid a religious mindset interfering with logic. but wait, who funds public schools? oh thats right! the state, so your "narrow-minded" school would offer students the most sound theory known to man, and the only one that accounts for everything but the existence of the universe, and offer as well, a course based on religion, in a public school, were some poor students parents would force them to take it as opposed to evolution, and alter their mindset to one more based on religion, even without their knowledge. theres a reason for private schools, and a reason for separation of church and state, evolution has taught us that much.
9 months ago
Anonymous » ussmwm ((at)) aol dot com
Although I do agree that the law should not be upheld, it not for the same reason. Creationism, in my opinion, appears to be the only viable option, even by using the process of elimination. Evolution has one giant whole and contradiction in it that I have yet to hear an answer for: Where did the universe come from? Either you say there was a beginning, which requires something(or someone) to cause such beginning, or you must say that it always existed. The law of cause and effect is one firmly held naturally law. The universe’s infinite existence violates that law. Therefore, there is no logical way of evolution being true. Since there is only two options, Creationism(Intelligent Design) is the only remaining option.
The reason I do not agree with this law is because the possible backfire it could create. Just as law should not be used to restrict religion, neither should it be used to force others to abide by religion. Each public school should teach each subject by its own accord, and let the students make up their own minds. We should not force one point of view on them. We should not make up their minds for them. Any school that denies that, supports a biased point of view and is corrupting the next generation with the model of being narrow-minded .
9 months ago
Janet Greene » jezebel12345 ((at)) hotmail dot com
I am relieved that this so-called "law" was overturned - the supreme court got rational just in time. But I AM horrified that there was enough support in the state to even IMPLEMENT the "Creationism Act". It is patently absurd. Creationism runs contrary to all evidence. Why is it that people need evidence for everything in their lives, but when it comes to the truly important issues, they use "faith" based on nothing? How can creationism be taught in schools, with a straight face? Shouldn't the "flat earth" theory get equal standing with "round earth" enthusiasts? And I happen to think that the theory that the planets and stars all revolve around earth to be a valid theory also. I think we should teach that in schools. WHAT GIVES????