ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Looking at the “Issue Of The Case,” it was seen that, “The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose.”(4) The State of Louisiana said that this act was for protecting academic freedom. The State of Louisiana argued that the act did not violate the First Amendment because this method did have a secular purpose, “of strengthening and broadening the academic freedom of teachers.”(5) “Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to replace the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the evidence on the subject is without merit.” (6) Additionally, the law that was intended to create unity and an understanding of both, “Sciences” ultimately created a schism by discrediting evolution by counterbalancing its teaching with the teaching of creationism.