REASON OF THE COURT:

“The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.”… “The Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment.” The Court ruled that government intention to promote religion is clear "when the State enacts a law to serve a religious purpose. Since the legislative history of the Act constantly referenced the religious views of the legislators, the Court became suspicious of the State's claim that the Act supported academic freedom.”(10) The Court found that the intent of the legislator was to narrow the science curriculum in order to support a particular religious belief. In support of this finding the Court noted that the Act's supporter favored that neither creationism nor evolution be taught. Therefore they concluded that the Act damaged both academic freedom and science education. “The Court also found that the Act did not allow teachers any new flexibility in teaching science that they did not already possess. “The Court noted that no Louisiana law barred the teaching of any scientific theory about biological origins. Thus, since teachers were already free to teach scientific alternatives to Darwinian evolution, the Court reasoned that the Act did not expand the academic freedom already enjoyed by teachers in Louisiana. Having rejected the State's reason for the Act, the Court then uncovered what it regarded as the true intent of the Louisiana law: the promotion of a particular religious view. The Court found that the Act had a "discriminatory preference" for the teaching of creationism because it required the production of curriculum guides for creationism. Further, it found that only creationism was protected by certain sections of the Act, and that the Act undercut truly comprehensive science instruction by limiting the theories of origins to be taught to only two: evolution and creationism. To sum up, the Act directed public resources to the teaching of a religious doctrine (creationism) in the science curriculum of public schools; at the same time, the Act discriminated against other scientific theories of biological origins.”(10)