Edwards V. Aguillard - Research Paper Example

Edwards V. Aguillard, 1987 (Evolution vs. Creation Science) The origin of man has been debated for long and has brought up many controversies about how people and other things came to existence. Some scholars have argued that man evolved from other animals, the apes, while others have argued that man was created by another supreme being (Jacobs 23). Evolution is the change that occurs in order for something to adapt well to its surrounding (Panafieu, Gries, and Asher 67). It was the first in the arguments on how man came to be. Studies were conducted in order to research the resemblance between man and other animals, particularly the apes (Ross 233). From these experiments and results, it was found logically to say that man evolved from apes. Theories were created that proved these points (Levesque 569). Then another science came into view: the creation science. With the creation science, it was argued that man was created by a supreme being, and that was the origin that proved somewhat true (Young and Strode 202). Over the years, scholars have argued about the existence and origin of man. Some have supported the evolution theory while others have supported the creation science. In this particular essay, attention will be focused on a case that was ruled by the supreme court in 1987. It was between Edwards and Aguillard. Edwards supported the evolution theory while Aguillard supported the creation science theory. By the end of it all, the court had ruled that both creation science and evolution be taught in public schools. A law was created for this purpose, which received much opposition from schools that were affected by this law. The argument was that if creationism was taught in public schools, it would be unconstitutional since it would attempt to make a particular religion more advanced than the other (Scott 199). With both theories about creation at hand, the main cause of concern was that one cannot be taught while the other is not. This would mean that if, say, creationism was taught and evolution was not, then students would dwell more about the knowledge on how people came to exist based on the creation theory (Jacobs, 33). They would not have come to know of a theory that taught the origin of man through evolution. In such a case, only one particular religion would be promoted and instilled in the young minds of students. A major question that people should ask themselves is: If one religion is taught in a public school science class, why cannot other theories about the development and origins of life also be taught in the same school? It was a biased move – one which would enable the existence and knowledge of one particular discipline while extinguishing the other (Scott 212). The major conflict was between the Creationism Act and its agreement with the Establishment Clause (Brownstein 15). The Creationism Act was such that it forbade the teaching of the evolution theory in public schools unless the teaching of creation science was also involved. At the time, there was no need for any of the theories to be taught in schools, but the Act stated that should one be present, the other should be present too. This meant that the only way evolution would be taught was by the inclusion of instructions from creation science. This, from any other view, indicated that one was nonsexist if the other was not in existence either. From this argument, it was viewed that this promoted creation science more than it did evolution (Young and Strode 232). It was more of promoting a religious doctrine that taught about the existence of life from a Christian point of view. So as to show that the Creationism Act catered for the best interests of students in schools, it was argued that both were the evidence proven scientifically, which dealt with creation and evolution, and there were also inferences from that scientific evidence (Haynes 40). Beyond doubt, both were to go side by side in science classes, and as it seemed, academic freedom was present. Academic freedom is the choice to freely choose what is to be taught, how and why. According to the appellants who implemented the Act, this was not academic freedom. There was no choosing what to do; there was only being told what to do and how. With the Act in place, the appellants were on the path to ensuring that teaching creationism and its principles promoted a particular religious sect or a group of religious sects. The teaching of creationism had one purpose: advancing a certain particular sect, doctrine or a group of sects (Scott 256). Those challenging the Act included parents of those children who attended public schools in Louisiana, teachers from those schools, and also religious leaders. They were of the opinion that the Act seemed to promote certain religious doctrines that were clearly not in their best interests. They sought an injunction and a declaratory relief. They wanted a court order that would enable them to stop the appellants from using the Act in public schools, failing which they would face the court (Brownstein 20). They also argued that they had a right to voice their own opinions about the Act and whether or not to oppose it. This was legit because they were above the legal and decisions. Also, they had a right to voice their own opinions on how best to proceed. They had one major arguing point: the Act violated the Establishment Clause (Brownstein 22). The argument was that those who opposed the teaching of evolution theories in schools did not have a particular liking of the discipline (Haynes 45). It was opposed by some religious denominations since it conflicted with their religious views and origins. It was seen as a way to discourage evolution from being taught. The Act violated the Establishment Clause in that it supported a different view than what the Clause stated (Scott 303). The Establishment Clause was violated in that the Clause forbade the enactment of any law that respected establishment of religion. The Act promoted certain religious doctrines, and this was clearly a violation of the Clause. Certain standards were set by the court in order to clarify that the legislation was in line with the Establishment Clause (Brownstein 45). The freedom was enhanced by rule; hence, they argued that it ensured that students would get to learn and hear more about theories of the origin of life. The Act dictated the teaching of the creation science in schools. The court argued that even before the enactment of the Act, teachers had a choice on whether to present more than one theory or not. That was what academic freedom meant. Before the law there was freedom, and after the law, there was a rule that did not seem to give teachers an option of whether to teach evolution alone or the creation theory alone. The state failed in its quest to have the Act not removed. When the court set the three rules that the Act had to abide by in order to remain in existence, it was found that the Act for one did not have a meaningful purpose. Its purpose was clear: to promote a certain religious cult at the expense of the other discipline. Secondly, it did not have academic freedom and had restrictions about teachers dictating to them what was to be taught and not. Another argument that was placed was that schools in Louisiana were given instructional books that were to assist in the teaching of creationism, but there was none that helped teach the science of evolution. This seemed to promote creationism more than it did evolution (Jacobs 102). This also meant that there was no equality in both. Evolution and creationism were bonded together in that wherever one discipline was the other followed suit. It was stated that the two disciplines be offered at the same time in the same institutions, but this was hardly the case since creationism seemed to take more credit (Scott 346). From this, it was argued that the legislators did not have a genuine motivation in order to pass the Act, and they concluded that the requirement of evolution to be taught alongside creationism did not have a secular purpose as intended and was restrictive. It was unconstitutional because of its violation and was removed from the constitution. The final judgment was that the Act was unconstitutional, and since it violated the Establishment Clause, it was taken down by the Court and ceased to exist as law. A great majority was affected by the ruling, particularly those who supported the teaching of creationism in schools, and also some religious leaders (Ross 313). Works Cited Brownstein, Alan. The First Amendment: The Establishment of Religion Clause : Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2008. Print. Haynes, Charles C. The First Amendment in Schools: A Guide from the First Amendment Center. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2003. Internet resource. Jacobs, John. Creation vs. Evolution: Do You Know All the Facts? Mustang, Okla: Tate Pub. & Enterprises, 2009. Print. Levesque, Roger J. R. Encyclopedia of Adolescence. New York: Springer, 2011. Print. Panafieu, Jean-Baptiste , Patrick Gries, and Linda Asher. Evolution. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2007. Internet resource. Ross, Hugh. Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2006. Print. Scott, Eugenie C. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2005. Print. Young, Matt, and Paul K. Strode. Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2009. Print. Read More