DISSENT:

In a 7-2 decision Justice Scalia debated Justice Brennan. Here is an excerpt: “During oral argument, Justice Scalia peppered attorneys with questions about whether this or that form of creation would necessarily be religious. He asked the state’s attorney, Wendell Bird, whether creation-science might allow for creation by “a giant slug” as well as a more personal God. Bird agreed that creation-science made no assumptions about the nature of the creator—only that there was one. When it came time for argument by Topkis, Scalia returned to the issue of whether creation by a creator was an inherently religious concept. The justice asked Topkis whether he “considered Aristotelianism a religion?” Topkis replied, “Of course not.” “Well, then,” Scalia asserted, “you could believe in a first cause, an unmoved mover, that may be impersonal, and has no obligation of obedience or veneration from men and, in fact, doesn’t care about what’s happening to mankind—and believe in creation.” “Not when creation means by a divine creator,” Topkis ojected. “That’s the test.” He added that there could be no doubt, given the history of the statute, that Louisiana meant “divine” creation, not creation by an unmoved mover. Justice Scalia has a reputation for throwing attorneys off-balance with elaborate hypothetical questions. True to form, he posed for Topkis a long hypothetical question—for the purpose, presumably, of demonstrating that a law could have a religious motivation and yet be constitutional. “Let’s assume,” he began, “that there is an ancient history professor…who has been teaching that the Roman Empire did not extend to the southern shore of the Mediterranean in the first century A.D. And let’s assume a group of Protestants who are concerned about that fact, inasmuch as it makes it seem that the Biblical story of the crucifixion has thing a bit wrong.” Concluding his story, Scalia tells Topkis that the upset students march “to the principal of the school, and say, ‘This history teacher is teaching what is just falsehood.’ And the principal says, ‘Gee, you’re right.’ And he goes and directs the teacher to teach that Rome was on the southern shore of the Mediterranean in the first century A.D.” The principal’s order was “clearly” religiously motivated, Scalia asserted, but wouldn’t it also, he asked, be constitutional? Topkis replied that he thought the hypothetical was distinguishable from his case. In the history class example, he said, the principal’s motivation would not be religious, rather “he would be acting out of the scholar’s interest in truth”—a worthy and a constitutional motivation. Louisiana’s motivation, however, “by every index we can possibly have” is nothing but religious, Topkis argued. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Scalia insisted, all that matters is that legislators sincerely believed that creation science was scientific. It is not necessary, for constitutional purposes, that their collective assessment was right. If a legislature full of ignoramuses requires geography teachers to teach that the earth is flat, it is a sorry state of affairs—but not an unconstitutional one. Moreover, the fact that many supporters of the law might also have had religious motivations is of no concern. Scalia noted that the Court would never “strike down a law providing money to feed the hungry or shelter the homeless” just because legislators might have had religious beliefs that influenced their decision. Scalia left little doubt that he thought the majority let its own views about creation science and evolution—rather than the beliefs of Louisiana legislators—determine the outcome of the case. He reminded the majority that Senator Keith “repeatedly and vehemently denied that his purpose was to advance a particular religious doctrine.” He cited his testimony at the first hearing on the legislation: “We are not going to say today that you should have some kind of religious instructions in our school….I am not proposing that we take the Bible in each science class and read the first chapter of Genesis.””

YOUR OWN ARGUMENT:

The Courts argued that teaching Intelligent Design was and is unconstitutional. Declaring that this idea, of intelligent design, is seeded in some religion and therefore violates the First Amendment because it teaches the existence of an intelligent designer is by no means any ground to remove this science from the classroom. Is there an Empirical basis? I believe so, along with many thousands of others, let me explain. Irreducible Complexity; In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”(12) Well, we now know, seeing that it is the twenty-first century, that there are many organs, systems, and processes in life that fit that description. One of those is the cell. The cell is irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex system is, “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” (13) Nevertheless, many others claim that Irreducible Complexity is not a product of design but can evolve. Evolutionary proponents claim that, “Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity (It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created. (14)) ” (15) “Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

* Deletion of parts
* Addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* Change of function
* Addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* Gradual modification of parts


All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).” (15) However, This does not explain the problem with genetic limits, cyclical change, and nonviability of transitional forms. Genetic limits seem to be built into the basic types. For example, despite efforts from scientist to manipulate fruit flies, their experiments have never yielded more than fruit flies. This is significant because the short life of fruit flies allows scientists to test generations of genetic variation in a short period of time. Furthermore, not only are there genetic limits to change, but the change appears to be cyclical. When looking closely at this change genetics shift back and forth in a limited range. For example, when looking carefully at Darwin’s finches there are many different beak shapes and sizes. These beaks have evolve over a period of time do to feeding in different, “ ecological niche’s.” (16) The larger beaks of the finches helped the birds crack larger, harder seeds during drought, and the smaller beaks helped crack smaller, softer seeds. Now, understanding that when the larger beaked finches were exposed to dryer climates for extended amounts of time the birds adapted, “ the proportion of finches with larger beaks grew relative to the smaller-beaked finches. The proportion reversed itself following a sustained period of wet weather. Notice that no new life forms came into existence, they always remained finches; only the relative proportion of existing large-beaked to small-beaked finches changed. Nevertheless, the court made the ruling that all Intelligent Design did was show that there were flaws in the evolutionary theory and some questions that evolution could not explain therefore Creation Science (Intelligent Design) was not a science but an argument against the evolutionary theory. I do, on one hand, understand the reasoning of the court and why they would not allow the teaching of Intelligent Design, do to the First Amendment, on the other I don’t, do to the simple fact that regardless of the fact that the concept of God is synonymous with the Christian religion and others does not negate the fact that there might be, and do to some very strong arguments, can show that there has to be a God. This is the reason, I believe, there should be some education teaching students these arguments and scientific reasons for Intelligent Design. The simple fact that God exists says nothing about what religion it is or what religion to choose. The “State” would not be violating, “The separation between Church and State” just by the fact that there are no ties between a specific Church and the Government.

RULE OF LAW:

Preceding Edwards v. Aguillard was the 1975 legal case Daniel vs. Waters. For the same reasons listed above the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee’s law regarding, “equal time” in evolution and creationism in public schools. “The Federal District Court ruling was that the Tennessee law was "a clearly defined preferential position for the Biblical version of creation as opposed to any account of the development of man based on scientific research and reasoning. For a state to seek to enforce such preference by law is to seek to accomplish the very establishment of religion which the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States squarely forbids." (US District Court, Daniel v Waters, 1975)” (11)

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)

DECISION OF THE COURT:

“The court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the Lemon test. This test, which was first enunciated by the Court in Lemon vs. Kurtzman, consists of three prongs:
1. The Government’s action must not promote a particular religion or religious view
2. The Government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of the government and religion.”(7)
While finding that the Louisiana statute failed to comply with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another”)(8), the Court encouraged teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." The Court found, which we will find their reason later, that by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term "Creation Science," the act endorsed a particular religious viewpoint. In addition, the Court found that the prerequisite of an all-inclusive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught.”

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.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

“EDWARDS, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. v. AGUILLARD ET AL. No. 85-1513 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 482 U.S. 578; 107 S. Ct. 2573; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2729; 96 L. Ed. 2d 510; 55 U.S.L.W. 4860 December 10, 1986, Argued June 19, 1987, Decided.” (1) “The Creationism Act forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in "creation science." No school is required to teach evolution or creation science. If either is taught, however, the other must also be taught. The theories of evolution and creation science are statutorily defined as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences."” (2) Apparently, The State of Louisiana passed this law because they were trying to create an equal opportunity for the students to learn both, “Sciences.” This was in turned challenged by a group of parents and others from the community for violating the Establishment Clause. “According to them, any requirement of teaching creationism is an impermissible support of religion.”(3)