Norman Geisler

Creation & the Courts

Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom
"Norman Geisler hasalwaysbeena't rail-blazer'for people whowant to speak
out about theirfaith,and Creation and the Courts blazesa trailinto the truth
of creation vs. evolution. Through his firsthand personal experience in the
'Scopes II trialandhisexhaustiveresearchinto othersi1nilar trials,Geisler will
d raw you into the world of our legal system, better preparing you to address
issues ofcreation and evolution."
- Josh D. McDowell,
author and speaker

"As both an eyewitness in thecourtroom and a highlyrespectedscholar in the

classroom,Norman Geisler providesa unique perspectiveto one of the most
critical discussionsofour time. From theScopes trial to the recent Dover case,
Geisler s ummarizes and countersthe often unexamined assumptio ns left in
their wake. Thisisan invaluable resource on thesubject,and I enthusiatsically
recom1nend it.'
- Ravi Zacharias,
author and speaker

The concept of "intclligent design is beingdebated by jurists and scientists as

well as the media all across A1nerica.Dr. Norman Geisler's Creation and the
Courts adds to thosediscussionsthe impo rtantperspectiveofa philosopher,
theologia,nand biblicalscholar.Of all thesuperb monographs written by
Geisler, thisone may be the most important. Every pastor and the(!)ogian
should read this volume this year."
- Paige Patterson,
President,Southwestren Baptist,n eologiacl Seminary

"Norman Geisler has provided a compilation and commentary on the issue

of evolution,public education, and the courts that will serve asan impo rtant
resource fordecadestOcon1c.Dr.Geislerconvincinglyshows that n1uchof the
debateover this issue is a jurisprudential mess resultingfrom philosophically
confused though well-meaning scientists and jurists. H e()ffcrs just thesort of
claritythisdebate requires."
- FrancisJ. Beckwith,
Associate Professor of Church-StateStudies,Baylor University,
and author of Law, Danuinism, and Public Educ,1tio11
Creation & the Courts
Creation & the Courts
Eighty Years of Conflict
in the Classroom and the Courtroom

Wi t h Nev e r Bef or e Publ i sh ed Test i mo ny from t he "Scopes II" Tr i a l

Norman L. Geisler

CROSSWAYBOOKS
A PUB LISHING MINIST RY OF
GOOD NEW'S P UBLISH ERS
\VHEATON. ILLlNOIS
C,-,atirm andtheCourts:Eighty }tm1 q{Conjila in 1/11: Classroom ,md the Courtroom
Cop yright 2007 by Norman L. Geisler
Published by Cro,sway llo-Oks
a publishing ministry of Good News I)ublishcr$
I 300 Crescent Street
\Vhe-ato n, IIHnois60187

All righu reserved.No pareofchis publication ma.ybe reproduced. scoredin.a retrieval system,
<>r t ra nsmitttxiin an)' form by any meah1 . elect ronic-, mechanci.\), photocopy.recording,or
otherwise-. without the:prior p('rmission of the:publisher,c::xcc."Ptasprovided by USAcopyright
law.

Covc::r des ign: Josh Dennis

Co,er arc: Court<.'$y of 8ridgcman An Library; t)'p wricer illustration. iSc0<.k Photos
First priming2007

Printed i.n the Uoited States of America

Library of Congress Catalogmg-in-1'1,blieation Data

Gdsk r. Norman 1..

Crc."atiol\ and the co urcs: dghry years ofconflict i.1\ chedassroom and the<Ou.rt
room: with never befurc pubHshc..'(I tc l1timo n y from the "'S copesII" friaJ / Norm..ut L.
Gcislc::r.
p. cm.
lnd ude:1 b ibliog raphical refcrtJ)C-cs and index.
JSBN-13: 978--1 S8134-836-I (t pb)
ISBN- JO:-1 58 134 -836 -3
l . Creat ionism- Study and tc".achi1)g - Lawand legislation- United Scates. 2.
Evolution-Studyand teachi.ng- Law and lcgisfatio n- United States, 3. Religion in
public s<."hooh-United Statd.I.. Title.

Ki:4208.S.S34C4S 2007
344.73'0796- dc22
2006032679
SH 17 I6 IS I4 13 12 11 IO 09 08 07
12 I I 10 9 8 7 6 S 4 3 2 I
 Contents

f'orcword by Duane T. Gish 9

Preface by \X'ayne Frair 11
AcknowlcdgmcntS 19
lnuoduction 21

I. The Scopes Trial (1925) 31

2. "!lie Epper:;011 Supreme Court Ruling( I 968) 79
3. The McLean Trial (1982) 9I
4. The1cscimony 'llley Refused co Transcribe 147
5. The Edwards Supreme Courc Ruling{1987) 183
6. Sc-alia's Dissenting Opinion in the Edwards Case{I987) 205
7. The DoverCase{2005) 213
8. Should C reation Be Taught as Science in PublicSchools? 239
9. Lessons co Be Learned 28 I

AppendL, I. Secular 4cdia Coverage of the MrLelln Trial 313

Appendix 2. C hrist ian!v!edia Coverage of rhe McLeanTrial 333
AppendL, 3. MyChristi,mity Tod"J Article on theMr.Lea11 Trial 341
Appendix 4. ACLU Mockery of C reatio nist Beliefs: The Cross-
Examination They Refused to Transcribe 349
Appendix 5.1he Webster Case 373
Appcntlix 6. Only hvo Views of Origin Events 37 9

Bibliography 386
Index 395
 Foreword
Duane T. Gish'

o one is better prepared rhan Dr. Nonnan Geisler to wrire

an accountofd1eArkansas creation/evolution trialof1981.
Geisler was nor onlypresentduringd1e rrial;hewas rhelead
wia1ess for d1ecreationisrsideand oneofirsn1ost brillianrwitnesses. His
resrimony, in 1ny vie,v (I ,vas present duringdieentire trial), eltectively
den1olished rhe n1ost in1porranr thrust ofthecase by theACLU. Unfortu-
natdy,in rnyopinion, notesri1nony, and noeffort byany teain oflawyers,
no inanerhowbrilliant,could have won rhecaseforrhe creationistside.
Judge Overton accepred die ACLU n1ind-set d1acanything diac hintsof
God, even scientific evidence for creation, 1nust be barred fron1public
schools.Secular hu1nanis1n willbeour official stare-sanctionedreligion,
ifJudge Overcon's decision is allowed co stand.
Geisler's account of the trial(seechapter3) iscarefully and thoroughly
docu1ne nced.His descriptio n of the actual course of the trial is inter-
esting, and his critique of Judge Overron's official decision is incisive,
l . Dr. Gish, a leading scien tistdefender of creatio n, was pre.,;cnt forthe entire 1981 "Scopes
II"trial in Arkansas. He\\ San cxpcrradvisor to thedefe1Hcal'1d isa norcdamhoranddebater
on bd,alfof scientificcreationism.\'v'ith onl)1nin or ed i ting , th.is is theforewordhewrote for
11JeCn:,lfor in 1he Cour/t'()()J ( NormanI...Geislerwith A. E BrookeII and MarkJ. Keough
(Milford. Mich.: Mott M<dia.1982)).

9
10 Foreword

thorough, and accurate. Geisler'saccount isin refreshingcont.rastcothe

usually (d1ough not always) discorced and biased accounts d1acappeared
in me ,nass 111edia and a relief fro,n the sophistry char appeared in so
many scientific journals. No eye\vitness account can be accurate in all
derails, bur I can certainly reconunend d1is book's fair and thorough
account of rhe fan1ous 1981 Arkansas crearion/evolurion rrial
 Preface
Wayne Frair'

Geisler on the Stand

In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) che court con

sidered an Arkansas statut.e that required balanced teaching of both
evolucion and creation ,vhen the subject oforigins wasdiscused. Afi:er
a nvo-,veektrial, Deceniber 7-17, 1981, rhecourc ruled on January 5,
1982that diestatute was w1constitutional because itessentiallywould
pro,note a biblical religiousview.111is Arkansas statutewasaforerunner
of che subsequent one in rhe state of Louisiana.
The Dece,nber 1981 trial effectively ,vas a cravescy of justice, as is
niade dear in d1e only book by a person who ,vas d1ere for the entire
trial (Norn1anGeisler, The Creator in the Courtrooni, 1982) . 111e fed-
eral courc judge, Willian1 Overton, ,vas fi:0111 che start biased against
diedefense.
I personally arrived in d1e courcroo1n on Friday, Dece,nber 11, the
final of five days of testilnony by die plaindffs, ,vho were represented
1. Dr. f:r3ir was pre.i:cnt :n the Arkansas 1\rlr.Lean trial ( 198 1- 1982 ). H e was an expect
witne-ss who spoke i1\ favor of te--.iching both e,o lutio r) and creati o 1\. Dr. Frair is a 01 1\g;cime
science teacher,author, fnemberoftheprestigious Ame-rican Association forthe Advnnce.ment
of Science, a1)d a worldrenownedexpert on turtles.

II
12. Preface

by the A1nerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The first , vitnessfor

the defense,Dr. Geisler, ,vas on the witnessstand in the afternoon of
Dece1nber 11. At that ti1ne I was siccing next to Dr. Duane Gish, ,vho
,vas k.110,vn as a leading creationist and an unexcelled debater in che
n1odern crearionist 1nove1necn.2 Geisler's presentation ,vas superb (see
chapter4), and at icsend Gish ,vasabsolutelyexuberanr(see foreword).
In no uncertain ,vords he declared co 1ne that Geisler successfully had
derno lishedevery oneof the argu,nenr.s presented by ACLU witnesses
during their precedingfive days of testin1ony.
n1en in the cross-examinatio n (see app endix 4), ACLU la"'Yer
Anrhony Siano began ro n1ock Dr. Geisler based nor on his court
testi1nony bur rather on so1ne co1111nencs dealing wich spaceships rhac
Geisler had n1ade in a pretrial deposition. Geisler cried in vain to be
straightfonvard and honest as the cunning la,vyer goaded hin1 ,vith
superfluo us n1ockeyr- a p itiful rn iscarriage of justice diat ,vas not
opposed byJudge O vercon.

My Testimony
On the following Monday I had the opporrunicyco be o n the ,vir-
nessscand for about one and a half hours. Coverage of rny cescirnony is
given in chapter 7 ofTheCreatorin the Courtroorn.I said chat Arkansas
,vas "on chevery curcingedgeofan educational1noven1enc" chat,vould
i1nprove rhequalicy of U.S.educacion. \ \'i'irhout hesiracion I added chat if
Charles Darwin , vere alive today he would beacreationist. I backed up
cl1atstaten1enc wirh quotations &0111 L.S. Berg, A.H.Clark, H. Nilsson,
G. A. Kerkut, and S. Lovecup. n1ese dace back to the I920s.
n1efinal1nacerial I used was fro1n che fa1nous British paleonto!ogisc
Colin Pacterson,,vho had spoken abouc a n1onth earlier (Noven1ber 5,
1981) in Ne,v York City at the A1nerican Museun1of Natural History
(Aiv!NH). Paccerson had expressed strong feelings against evolurion,
and I quoted from hiscalk.l11e ACLU la,vyerobjected, but forcunacely
2. Sec Marv;n I... Lub<JOlW.Frum Fi.<h 10 Gish (San Diego. Calif.: Catio-n Lifc. 1983).
Preface 13
Judge Overton overruled because I had been there for that AMNH
presentation.
I felt that111y testi1nony,vou.ld havea positive i1npact tor truth inop-
position to,vhachad been heard fro,n che plainriffsand dieir,virnesses.
1lieya.II had been coadied rhoroughly ro stress two issues.1liese ,vere
(I) diere is no science supporting a creation posirion, and (2) creation
is religion, ,vhich should noc be intruded into science. 1liey said chis
repeatedly, even rhough rhe Arkansas law at issue in the trial prohib-
ited religious instruction and clearly defines "crearion science" as"die
scientific evidences for creation and inferences fron1 rhese scientific
evidences."
Newspapers and niagazines across che councry thrived on articles
about c.lie rrial- son1every fair and ochers n1isleading (see appendices
I and 2). Agenerally quite accurate newspapercoverage of the whole
trial was written by reporter Cal Beisner and appeared in theweekly Pea
Ridge (/lrkansas) County Tinies, \Ved nesday,Decetnber 30, J981 . One
very biased and inaccurate report ,vas wrirren by Roger Le,vin and was
published in dieJanuary 8, 1982 issue of Science,3 arguably die world's
leading weekly publication ofscientificinfonnarion. A niajor portion of
the reporc wasagross,n isrepresencacionofn1y tesrin1ony. Afi:er reading
Le,vin's article I wrote a let ter co the ,nagazine, fron1whicli I quote:

Roger Lewin's treatment (Scienc2 e15:142)... of the Little Rockcreation

trial fallssomewhat short of thequality of reportingI would consider
the readesrof Scienceshould expect....
Nlypresentation until cross-examinaiton emphasized scientific data;
and amongother things Iendeavored to make clear that from literature
dating back into the 1920's and up to the presenttime there is a bod)'
of information published by respected scientists who have theorized
and speculated in ways more consistent with a creation model than
a macroevolutionary model. A Russian book, No,nogenesis or Evol,,-
tion Detenninedb_y Law by Leo S. Berg (o riginal edition 1922), was
republsihed by Massachusetcs Instit ute of Technology Press in I969.
The [foreword) to the recent edition was writtenby TheodosiusDob-
3. Roger Lewin. "\X1 hereIsthe Sciencei1'l Creation Sci<.':nc e ?"' Science 215{Januar')8, 1982 ):
141-146.
14 Preface

zhansky,who described Bergas"oneof theoutstandinginrellectSa,nong

Russian scientists"and further that "the depthas well as theamplitude
of hisscholarshipwe reremarkable." (p. xi) In this 477-page book Berg
demonscrareschar livingthings havedeveloped polyphylecically.
lhere havebeenotherscientific (and "non-religious") writingsinclud-
ing(British) Kcrkut's hnplications ofEvolutio11, Pergamon Press,196 0.
which havecasrdoubt upon a monophylecic model. I quoted from chis
book at the trial because much of what Kcrkut says currently is very
pertinent. For instance:

Jv!oscst udents become acquaintedwith manyof thecurrent con-

cepts in biology whilst still at school and at an age when niost
people are, on the whole, uncritical. Then when they conic to
study che subject in moredetailtheyhavein their minds several
half-truthsand1nisconceptionswhich tend to prevent them fron1
coming to a fresh appraisal of the situation. In addition, with a
uniformpatternofeducation111os tstudentstend tohave diesame
soreofeducational background and soin conversation and discus-
sion they accept common fallaciesand agreeon matters based on
thesefallacies.
le would seem a good principle roencouragechestudy of "sci-
entific heresie.s"n iereis alwaysthedanger that a readermight be
seducedbyoneof theseheresies bur the danger is neitherasgreat
nor as serious as the danger of havingscientists brought up in a
typeof mental st rait-jacket or of taking them soquickly through
asubjectthat theyhave notime co analyze a nd digest the material
they have"studied."Acareful perusalof the heresies wUI also in-
dicatethefacts in favour of thecurrently accepted doctrines, and
if theevidence against a theory isoverwhelming and if there is no
othersatisfactory theory co take its place weshall just have co say
chat we do not yet know die answer.
There isa theory whidi statesthat many livinganimalscan be
observde over thecourseof time t<) undergochanges so that new
species arcformed.niis can becalled the"Special Theoryof Evo-
lution" and can be demonsrrated in certain cases by experunents.
On the other hand thereis the theorythat all theliving forms in
the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from
an inorganic form.111is theory can becalled chc"GeneralTheory
Preface 15
of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently
strongto allow us to consider it asanything more than a working
hypothesis.It is not clear whether the changes that bring about
speciation areof thesame nature as those that broughtabout the
development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future
expei,m
ental workandnot bydogmaticasscnions thattheGeneral
Theoryof Evolution must becorrect because there isnothing else
that will satisfactorily take its place. (156- 157).

Itcertainlyis true thatthere arcdifferences ofopinion amongcreation

ists as there arc among evolutionists, but both creation and evolution
models can be presented in a broadsense within biology classes without
this being a "religious" exercise. Neither evolutionists nor creationists
need be paranoid regarding this issue, but weshould realize that in our
countryweenjoy freedom efrdigion, not frcedomfiom religion.
The causes of science ed ucation will not be served well by name-
callingand misrepresentation or distortion of theideas beingptesented
by those with whom we disagree. It is true that most scientists today
believethat macroevolution isa well-establishedconcept; however, for
improvingscholarship and understanding,especiallythose promoting
only macroevolution probably will profit from perceptivelyheeding
what responsible creationists arc tryingto say.

Theeditors ofSdencedid nor print anyportion of n1y lecceror even ac-

knowledge havingreceived it. n1eir published , vrire-up of n1y resrin1ony
ac che Arkansas crial ,vas so inaccuraced1ac I ,vondered if rhe aud1or,
Roger Lewin, even was in d1e cowcroon1 when I gave cescin1ony.
I had ,vricren the ler.te r to Science ratherquickly and soon realized
chat there,vasa Joe111o re I could have said; so I co,nposed the following
to present a 1nore accurate account of,vhac I accually had said during
the crial:

Ihave been researchingin biochemical taxono,nyof reptilessince 1960,

anddiddiscusssomeof myresearchfrom the wimessscand. Thiswrite-up
n1entions three bookswhich wereearlierones referred to;howeverIalso
quoted from a 1960 book,a1969 bookandocherliterarurereaching into
16 Preface

the70s. These authors basicallydid not just havesome misgivingsabout

someaspcccs ofevolutionary theory, they had serious objections.
My own studies on erythrocyte size indicated that an evolutionary
progression isanything but obvious from thefacts. Blood cellshave not
become smaller as animals have climbed the evolutionary tree because
thelargest cellsarefoundamongamphibians andsome birds have larger
cells than some fish.
\Vith regard to the matter of my stating that considerable progress
has been made in past decades, this iscompletely obvious. In my cross,
exan1ination ACLU lawyer Bruce Ennis n1e11tioncd in asomewhat casual
wayseveral fields ofendeavor; and hesaid:"Haven'c we madeprogressin
these?"Theanswer wasobviously,"Yes;"and I was not chinkingof myself
inan adversarial rclacionship co thelawyer ac ch ispoinc. I recognize now
that I should have showed how in thesefields theevidencehas pointed
more coward a creationist position than a macroevolutionaryone. For
instance, genetic drift. Genetic drift does not help in understanding
macroevolution. It isone of their problems, because it runscounter co
what would beanticipated on the basisof natural selection....Sowhat
to me wasan extremely minor concession to thislawyerhas been made
to look as though it were a big concession on my part.
Duringmy testimonyIindeedstressed the"limited change,node!";and
I referred to the natural groups which arc found in nature. Act 590 used
the term"kinds1hisconcept, bythe,v-ay, isnot a newone because it was
commonly held 150 years ago. ln fact,a recent book (Pitman,?vlichael.
Adam And Evolution. Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker Book House: 1984)
presencs nature asconsistingofard1etypes, which was the term used more
than a century ago.
The question about the number of these "kinds" is a very good one.
Atpresent we do not know. I wouldestimate perhapssomewhere in the
vicinity of8,000. It is not ea,1to beconcrete regarding"kinds"any more
tha n it is for systematisrs to give a definition of any of the raxonomic
categoriesother thanspecies. Onecannot readilydefine anorderexcept
in relation toclassand fa,nily;and I triedto make thisclear to thecourt.
Our taxonomic sd1emcs arc human inventions; they arc not rigid, but
they are practical. Ascientist who understands taxonomy is not deeply
concerned about having precise definitionsforhiscategories.1hesame
holds for the "kinds" concept.
Preface 17
Asamatteroffact,Ididdefine"kind"in termsofrcproduction,which
is at least a partially acceptable definition. lf organisms can reproduce
hybrids, d1ey rnay beconsidered to belong todiesarne kind. (SecLester,
Lane P., Bohlin, Raymond G. The Naturtd Li111its to Biological Change.
Grnnd Rapids. i'vll: Zondcrvan Publishing Ho use, 1984.) J'v! y current
opinion,which wasestablishedafter my research reported in 1985(Frair,
\Vayne".Biochemical evidence for theorigin and dispersion of turclcs."
Proceedings o_f the 11th Bibel-Science Association N111io11al Co nference;
1985August 14-16;Cleveland, OH. Harley Hotel: 97-105;and Frnir,
\Vayne."Theenigmatic platdcss river mrde,Carettochelys, inserological
survey."] Herpetology. 19(4):515- 523:1985), is chat curdes represent
asinglekind....
Next, the matter of the "ancestry" for man and apes. Lawyer Ennis
referred to a quotation in our book from theologian Leupold; and he
tried to make iclook as though I had said chis. Idid nor say ic;andeven
though I mayhave agreed with che statement, I indicatedco the court
that I,..,. s there to talk aboutscientific mattersand not rnyown personal
beliefs about the Bible and what it says.
Lastly, with regardco the matteroffaith, it certainly iscrue chat faith
isinvolved whethera person holds toan cvohrtionor a creation position.
Often thedistincrion isnot,nadedearly between thefaithconunirn1ent
to a belief in supernaturalismor naturalism. One takeseither of these
two positions;onealso takes theposition eidierthat there,..,.JS an abrupt
appearance of unrelated groups in nature or that all typesoforganilms
arc related in a single tree(seel' rair, \Vayne. Biochemical evidence for
the origin and dispersion of turtles.) ...
It is my hope that futurescholars will obtain a copy of the trial trnn-
script; but if this is not possible,ac lease my opinion regardingsome of
these matters now should bed earer.

Transcript Blockage
Because of ocher co1n1ninnencs, I did noc cry seriously co obrain a
rranscript of rn y t rial testin1ony until the su1nn1er of 1998. I contacted
the attorney general, , vho referred n1e t.o the Federal District Court
Clerks Office in Litcle Rock. He called n1esaying cl1at die records had
 Preface

been transported co Fort \W'orch, Texas. Bue1ny efforts co learn ho,v co

locate rhe records chere ,vere unsuccessful.
My next seep ,vas co contact a very capable and experienced lawyer.
After considerab le effort, she reported a level of frustration sin1Uar co
,ny own. I chen suspended niyeffortscoobta in die transcripts,pending
furdier ri,ne and resources tor following through widi ocher possible
options.
Even diough I and od1erdefense,vicnesses so far have noc been able
coobtaincopiesofourdetensecescirno nies,Dr.Geisler hassubsequnetly
obtained his,,vhich ispresented in this book (seechapter 4and appendix
4). I nor only listened c.o his oral cescilnony as it was given ac che c.rial
bur also heard all the odier nine detense tescinionies, each of which
produced valuableinfonnacion supporting Ace 590.
But it wasGeisler'spenecratingpresenra6on d1ac ex-posed diefallacies
of dieplaintiffs'underlyingphUosop hical positions. Histrialtestiinon',)
no,v published in d1is book, stands as a 1nonun1ent of po,verfiil and
persuasive logic.1l1is ,naterial had an in1porcanc h isto ricalinipact, buc
now char ir is in prinr ,nany years lacer, ic wUl serve co enlighten and
encourage 1nany of us ,vho still are facing si111ilarchallenges coday.
 Acknowledgments

I wish coexpressdeepappreciation to ,ny wife,Barbara,,nyassistants

Christina \Voodside and Lanny \Vilson, and to ,ny friend Doug Van
Gordon for their valuable help in die preparation of d1is1nanuscirpt.
 Introduction

reacion versus evolutjon is in the ne,vs again. In fact, it has

never left the newssince che Scopes trial of1925. It hasonly
--- gone d1rough 1nou11Cain peaks and valleys.' The 1nosr iin-
portant of these "peaks;' as far as me courtsare concerned, include the
follo,ving decisions.2

'Il1e ScopesTrial (192 5)

n1e caseof State of Tennessee v. john ThoniasScopseisoneofdie n1ost
fanious trials in Anierican hisrory.n1e issue,vas whecher or nor ir,vas
constitutional co teach evolution instead ofme biblical accotult ofcre-
ation in public sdlools.111e la,v in question read:"It shall be tmlawful
for any ceadler . . . ro reach any meory rhat denies che srory of Divine
Creation of n1an as caught in che Bible, and co teach instead d1ac1nan
t.1hebattlehas recently reachedsuch a fc\fe:red pitch chatone writerdescribed the March
2006 meeting of the Amerci an As.sotiation for the Adv:rncerne-ntof Scienceas a "c'..a11 coarms
forAmerican scientists.ineaol to recruit troops for chc es calating waragainst crt"atio11ism:ind
its spinoffdocrrine,, intd Jige1'\t d ign" (Richard Monastersky, "'O n the Fro1u Linesin the\V.u
over Evolution;"' Reut1rcb1111dB 001>;]vforch IO. 2006 ).
2. Ot her court ca:-cs ba riflg on,d e i:-sue iodudc H-1,shingum Etbkal Socil!IJv. Dimicrof
Columb1i1 ( 19 5 7) . Sm;,!,v. , fississipp;(1970), fVrig/11v. Hou.<01 11 J11di!pe11de 111School D;,,,.;a
(1972),A1oor, v. Ga,w11Co11111y Bo11rd of Ed101 11io11 ( 1 973), Sie ek v. I-later< ( 197 5), and Mm
Onkn v. Petry (2004).

21
 l_n rrod uction

has descended fron1 a lo, ver order of anilnals." n1e decision rendered
by rhe Daycon, Tennessee courc ,vas char ir ,vas illegal ro reach evolu-
tion, and.John Scopes wasfoundgnilcy ofdoingjusc chac.n1e resulcing
fine ofSlOO was later overturned on a cechnic-.iliry:on lya jury, not rhe
judge, had the aurhoriry co assess rhe fu1e.

TI1eEpperson Ruling (1968)

Tennessee ,vas nor cheonlyscare thac had anti-evolutionlaws. Siniilar
laws were passed in Oklahon1a, Florida, and Texas. Becween 1921 and
1929 such bills ,vere introduced in son1e C\venty scate s. Oklaho1na re-
pealed cheir la,vin 1926, buccherennessee la,vstayedon chebooksuntil
1967. Arkansas t.oo ,vas a holdout, but dieir law, vas finally addressed
by d1e U S. Suprerne Court in 1968. In chis Epperson v. Arkansas deci-
sion che Courc snuck do,vn die last scace anci-evolutionary la,v. Frorn
che Court record ,ve read:

Appellant Epperson,an Arkansas publicschool teacher,brought thisac-

tion fordeclaratory and injunctivereliefchallengingtheconsitrntionaliyt
of Arkansas'"anti-evolution"statute. That statute makes it unlawful for
a teacher in anysrate-supportedschool or university to teach or co usea
textbook that teaches"thatmankind ascendedor descended from alower
order of anunals''.. . . Thestatute violates the Fourteenth Amendment,
which embracesthe First Amendment's prohibitionofstate lawsrespect-
ingan establishmentof religion. . . . The sole reaso n for the A,kansas
Jaw isthat a particular religiousgroup considers theevolution t heoryto
conAict with the account of the origin of man ser forth in rhe Book of
Genesis. . . . The I'irst Amendment mandates governmental neutrality
between religion and religion,and between religion and non-religion .
. . . A State's right to prescribe the public school curriculmn docs not
include the right to prohibit teachingascientific theory or doctrine for
reasons rhat run counter to the principles of the hrst Ainendmcnt.. . .
The Arkansas law is not a manifestation of religious neutrality 3

3. Epperson v. S1,ueof1Jrkn>1S11S, 393 U.S.97 (1968).

 lntroducti.,,n 23
111eSupre1ne Court ruled chat it,vasa violation ojthe First Arnendrnent
co forbid che reaching of evolution in publicschool.s

1J1e Segraves Ruling (19 81)

In Segraves v. Sta.teof California, a California superior co1ut ruled

char che California Scace Board ofEducacion's Science Framework pro -
vided adequate acconunodacion co Kelly Segraves's vie,vs,contrary to
his argu1nenc mac che discussion of evolucion violaced his children's
freedon1of religion. Furd1ec, thecourt dernanded apolicychar. included
allareasofscience, noc juscorigins.This ruling did nor penecrateco die
heart of the issue of ,vhether teaching creation was a violation of the
First Arnendnienc. Decenninacion of chis issue would a,vair me next
cwo decisions.

TheMcLeanRuling (1982)
In1\llclean v./ l rkan sasBoard of Education, the issue,vas whether it
was legal for the State co 1nandate that, whenever evol ution is c.aught,
creation should be caught as well in a balanced creacnienc of bod1.
'llie U.S. Discricc Courc ruled chat this ,vould constitute "... an es-
rablish1nenc of religion prohibired by die First A1nend1nenc co die
Constitution which is1nade applicable to thestates by die Fourteenth
A1nend1nent." \X1 hy? In die judge's words, because, "In cradirional
\'v'esrern religious dioughr, checonception of a creator of the world is
aconception ofGod. Indeed, creation of the world 'our of noching' is
che ulcilnate religious scace1nenc because God is che only acror." 4 1 he
case was never appealed, since Jon Buell of the Dallas-basedFounda-
cion foroioughc and Ethics, which evenrually produced a rexcbook
(Of J>andas and People)5 for reaching creation alongside evolution

4.i\1clea11v. Ark111m1.<Bonni ofd11ca1io11, S29 F.S upp. l2SS(E.D. Ark.1982).

S. Pc:rc-i 1I Davisand Dean H. Kenyon, and Charles B.1' h11xton, Of P1md,u 11111i Peopk : 1/Je
CcmralQ1.1 tio 11of BiologicalOrigi11s (Dallas:Haughton.1993).
24 Introduction

in public schools, requested chat the Arkansas attorney general not

appeal the case.n1e Foundarion believed rhar a si,nilar la\v rhac had
been enacted in Louisiana ,vas better ,vorded, had lessbaggage, could
be berrer argued, and, therefore, had a beccer chance ofsuccess \vhen
appealed co che Supre,ne Court. I personally felt that thedo,vnside of
d1is \Vas rhar theMcLean courc decision, ,vid1allofirs problen1s and
,veaknesses, would becon1e a bad precedent for fucure decisions ifleft
unappealed. 'TI1isis precisely whar happened when acase involving d1is
issue went co die Supren1e Court (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987).

Mozert v. Hawkins Cortnty Boa1d of Education (1987)

Students and parents had clainied char it ,vas a violation of d1eir

First A1nendn1enr rightsoffreeexercise of religion for rl1eschool board
co be "forcing srudenr -plainriffsco read school books which reach or
inculcate values in violation of rl1eir religious beliefsand convictions."
Evolution was onesuch vie,v co,vhich they objected.1l1is ,vas upheld
by the District Court but overruled by the Sixth Circuit Courc.' I11e
larrer court argued d1ar even though students ,vere offended, d1ere
,vas no evidence chat anyone was "ever required ro affinn his or her
belief or disbelief in any idea or practice" caught in d1e cexr or class.
'I11e courc insisted char mere ,vasadifterence benveen "exposure" and
being "coerced" co accept rhe ideas.1l1ey noted d1ar d1e only way co
avoid all offense was not co reach anything.1hey insisted char: "111e
lesson is clear: govenunenral actions that1nerely offend or cast doubt
on religious beliefs do nor on char account violate free exercise.n1ey
insisted d1ar rhis exposure co offensive vie,vs ,vas si1nply a 1narrer of
"civil tolerance"oforher views and did nor con1pel anyone toa"religious
tolerance" whereby they were con1pelled co give equal scacus co ocher
religious vie,vs. "Ir 1nerely requires a recognition rl1ac in a pluralistic
society we111usr. 'live and lee live.'"6
6. 1\1ou n v. HnwkimCu1111ry Bonnlef Educntio11, 8 2 7 F. 2d 1058(1987).
l ntroducti.,,n lS
The Edwards Ruling (1987)
n1eLouisia11a la,v was shorter, bur it coo n1andaced chat creation be
taught ina balanced waywhenever evolutionis caught in public schools.
\Vhen chislaw was reseed in the highest court, chejustices ruled{7co 2)i
in Edwardsv.Aguillard (1987 ) that it wasan tmconsric.uc ionalviolation
of rhe First An1end1nenc. co1nandace ceachingcrearion ina balanced way
whenever evolutioniscaught in publicschools. In theCourt's o,vn,vords,
""The Ace in1pennissibly endorses religion by advancing che religious
belief char a supernatural beingcreaced huniankind."S
Since the tirne ofEdu1ard,, rnany creationists have clung to ,vording
in the decision which allo,vs for teaching"all scientific theories about
che origins of hu111ankind" or "any scientific theory char is based on
established facc."9 n i is chey see a.s grounds for allo,ving creation {or
incelligenr design, as1nany no,v prefer co c-.tll it ) along,virh evolurion.
Ho,vever, focusshirred fron1scare1nandaced la,vscoworking,virh local
school boa.eds.Others have beensatisfied " rh theEdwards court'sstace-
rnenc diac"\Ve do noc irnp l y char a legislacure cou ld never require char
scientific critiques of prevailing scienrific cheories be caughr."10 Thus,
chey haveacce1npced a negative pach ofgecringcexcbooksand scliools ro
adrnic char evolution isonly a cheory, nocaface,and/ or roallowcritique
ofevolutionary views.Sri!!ocher efforrs haveseeded for si1nply geccing
creationist rna cerial inco public school libraries and hopefully inco die
hands ofbiology teachers,vich die hope diar d1ey,vill voluntarilyceach
both evolution and creation.
More positive efforts co teachdesign alternatives coevolutionhavebeen
orga11izedunder rhe na,neofche"inrelligencdesign"{"ID") ,novern enc.
Under die initiative of Universiryof California acBerkeley lawprofessor
PhillipJohnson in his book Darwinon Trial (Regnery, 1991), the pace
wassecforattacking rJ1e naruralsicic gr0Lu1ds forevolurion wirh die hope
d1acso1ne fonn ofinrelligenc design could becaught alongside evolution
in publicscllools. Micllael Behe's land1nark volwne, Darwin'.; Black Box
7. Rehnquist and Sc-alia diSS(1UCd. Seechapter 6.
8.&luMrds v. Agui//,,,-d, 482 U.S. 578 (1987 ).
9. !hid .
I0. Ibid.
 l nrrod uction

{Free Press, 1996),gave a scientific defenseof intelligent design on the

n1icrobiologicalleve1.n1is, con1bined ,vich aseriesofvolun1es by \X/illian1
De1nbski (see his Mere Creatio:nScience, Faith, and Intelligent Design
[InterVarsity, 1998)), fonns the basis tor this growing nioverne nc.
Differences benveen che ID n1oven1enc and che earlier "sciencific
creationisni" 1nove1nent include several th ings.11 First, ID as such is
nor conunitced to teaching a specific view of the age of the earth. TI1e
question issin1ply left ope n. Secon, d ID n1akes no affinnations about
the nature or scope ofNoali's flood.Tiiird, ID advoc.ates niake no iden-
tificationofchecauseof incelligentdesign with Godor anysuper naniral
being. Fourrh, they oppose laws1n andac.ing che teachingof creation or
intelligent design. Rather, they concentrate onlyon showing diatso1ne
intelligent cause (whether in or outside che universe) is a n1ore likely
cause for first life and ne,v life forn1s. In d1is ,vay they hope to esc.ape
rhe religious baggage of che "scienrific crearion" 1nove1nenr and avoid
the wrath of the high court against 1nandatingteaching about a creator
or any supernatural c.ause. Ho,vever, d1is hope ,vas dashed in d1e first
test ofID in rhecourts (Dover, 2005).

The Webst er Ruling ( 19 9 0 )

InWebster v. New Lenox SchoolDistrict (seeappendix5) d1e tableswere
turned. Ray \Vebster, who c.aught social studies at the Oster-Oakvie,v
Junior HighSchool in Ne,v Lenox, Illinois,sued rheschool for forbidding
hin1toteach"creation science" in hissocial studiesclass. Webster clainied
th is ,vasa violation of his First and Fourteenth A1ne nd1ne nt rights.
Tiiesuperintendentof die scliool clain1d e \'{febsterwas advoc.ating a
Christian viewpoint that ,vas prohibited by the high cou,rr and that he
wasinstructed not co teach "creation science, bec.ause che reachingofchis
theory had been held by d1efederalcourts co be religious advocacy. . . . In
Edwardr v. Aguillard ... (1987),the Supre1ne Court [had]detennined
11. Al$.O,bause ID is lessdd-i11ed than mostcreatiooisl efforu i.o 1..hecouru., i t h:i.sa more
di\ rse <:t )11s ritue1\cy. indudingpr01>011tnrsof Ea.su m O rthod O',.'\.)' Judaisin, Roman Cathoilcisr. n,
and the U ni fication C hurch. Mostcreationists,ltowe'\ er,would co nsider themselves Christian
fuodamcncalis.rsorevangcli'-'3ls.
lntroducti.,,n 27
chat creation science, as defined in che Louisiana ace in question, ,vas a
nonevolucionar)' theoryoforigin chat 'enibodies thereligious belief chata
supernatural creator ,vas responsible for rhe creation of hw1iankind.1'"2
lliedistrictcourtconcluded chat\Vebscerdid nor havea FirstAmend-
1nenc right co teach creation science in a publicschool and detennined
chat cheschool board had the responsibilitycoensurechat che"Establish-
nienc Clause" of the First Aniend1nenc ,vas not violated. "By relyingon
Edwardr v. Aguillard (1987), rhe disrrict court decer111ined that reach-
ingcreation science would constitute religious advocacy in violation
of die first a1nendn1ent and char die school board correctly prohibited
Mr. \1Vebsrer fro1n reachingsuch1nacerial." Stran gely, diecourc added,
"Webster has noc been prohibited fro1n teaching any nonevolucionary
theories orfro1n ceachinganyching regarding rhehistorical relationship
benveen church and srare.n" niis failure on die pare of che courts co
see chat rheo nly "nonevol urionayr" view isso,ne fonn ofcreation (see
appendix 6) continues co be a proble1n for die creationist cause, as is
evident in d1e DiiVer decision (see chapter 7).
On mesurface, it would appear diac Web.<te1; iflefi: standing, would
eliJninace allpossibility of reachingcreacion inpublic school.sHowever,
there were niitigacing circtunscances in Webster (see appendix 6) chat
lefi:a crack in d1e door for reaching ID in science classroonis. Bur that
door waslacer slauuned shut by die Doverdecision (2005).

The Peloza v. Capistrano Ruling (1994)

In Peloza v. Capistrano me Ninrh District Court of Appeals upheld
rhe ruling d1ar a teacher's freedo1n ofreligion,vas notviolated byaschool
discricc's require1nenr char evolution be raughc in biology d asses. le ruled
that theschooldisrricr had the right co requirea teacher co reachascientific
theory sucl1asevolution iJ1biologyclasses. Ofcourse, chis rulingdid not
scarediat creation could not be taught.Forevolutioniscs,diishad already
been decided by rheEdwardrdecision( I987). Mosecreationi stsdisagreed,
12. /Yebsu , v. Neiv [ .LJ1oxSc/10()[Di11r,ics 9 I 7 F.2d. I004(7th Cir. 1990).
13. Ibid.
 lnrroduction

dailningthat creation cot1ld be taught asoneof thealteniate d1eories of

origin allowed by Edwards. Orhercreationiscs,like niyself, fearedrhat the
courts ,vould see this as applying only to alcernace naturalistic d1eorie.s
n1e Duverdecision (2005) confinned chis fear, acleaseona localscale.

The Freil.er Ruling (1997)

In Freiler v. Tangipahoa Board of Education the U.S. District Court
of Louisiana rejecred a policy d1ac required char a disclai111er be read
whenever evolution is taught, ostensibly co prornoce critical diinking.
n1ecourt noted d1ac chis disclai,nerappliedonly co evolution, noc co
creation, and therefore chac, "in rnaintaining diisdisclairner, rheSchool
Board is endorsingreligion by disclairning che teaching of evolution
in such a rnanner as co convey the rnessage that evolurjon isa religious
vie,vpoinc char runscounter co... ocher religious , ews."14Lacer, in 2000,
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affinned die decision. n1echiUing
effect of this rulinggoes beyond chis particular disclairner and discour-
ages ocher disclain1ers as well, even though the actual decision does noc
rule ouc rhe possibility oforher disclain1ers regarding origins.

The LeVake Ruling (2000)

Le/lake v. Independent School District can1e fro,n che District Court tor
the' Ih irdJudicialDisuicc ofche Stace ofMinnesota. Rodney LeVake, a
high scl1ool biology reacher, had argued for his righc co reach"evidence
both for and against die theory" ofevolurion. l11eschoo l district con-
tended that his proposal did not match diecurriculum, which required
ceachingevolucion. Given che precedent case law requiringa ceacherto
reach ,vhar he ishired to teach,checourr ruled d1ar LeVake's freespeech
righcs did nor override rhe required curriculuu1 and the school district
,vas nor guilry of religious discritninacion in denying his righr ro reach
both forand against evolution. [nreresringly,d1isisexacdy rheopposite
of,vhat evolutionists argued ac the Scopes trial in I925.
14. . Freilerv. 1iwgip,,ho Bo111rlofEductllion, No.94-3577 (1997).
Introd uctio n

The Do v er Ruling (:z.o os )

'I11e first test for teachingintelligent design (ID) hit.thecourts in the
Kitzntiller v. Dove, Area School District case.111e Dover Area Schoo l
District near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, had adopted a policy requiring
that students be read astaten1ent d1at included the following:

The Pennsylvaina Academic Scandards requiresstudentstolearn about

Da,-wins theoryofevoh1tion... . Because Darwin's theory isa theory. . . .
the theoryisnot afact., .. Intelligent designisanexplanationof theOl'i
gin ofl ifc thatdiffers from Darwin's view.'llic reference book,"Of Pandas
and People," isavailableforstudents who might be intele'stedingaining
an understandingof what intelligentdesign actually invo hes.')

"1l1ispolicy was noc puc fonvard by any group connecced wid1 rhe
ID 1nove1nent, sucil as the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, nor by
rheproducers of the ID cexcfor public schools, OfPandasand Peopl.e16
Indeed, rhe associate director of rhe Discovery lnsrjruce, John Wesr,
released a scacen1enc \vhich read in pare, "Discovery Insciruce st rong ly
opposes che ACLU's efforc co n1akediscussions of incelligenc design
illegal. Ac chesa1ne tin1e, wedisagree \vithefforcs cogee chegovenunenr
ro require che reaching of incelligenc design ."17
111eDover policy\vas opposed by the ACLU andA1nericans United
forSeparation ofChurch and Stateand defended by the1110111as More
Law Cencer, a Christian la\v finu based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.111e
D over case was heard by U.S. District Courc JudgeJohn Jones III be-
nveen Septen1ber26and Nove1n ber4,2005. 111edecision was rendered
on Dece1nber 20,2005. le ruled char (I) che Dover School Disrriccpolicy
is unconstitucional, (2) intelligenc design and creation its progenicor
are not science and should not be taught in Dover science classes, and
(3) intelligent designand o therforn1sofcreation areessentiallyreligious
and are, therefore, a violarion of the Firsc An1end1nent escablishn1enr
IS. Kin;mi/Jerv. Dw er/ /Y<t1 School DiSlr,ia 400 ESupp. 2d 707(M.D. Pa. 200S).
t6.See 11o t< S.abo\e.
17 . See Joh1l G . \V est. "D iscovery (nsrirute's Po irio 110 11 D o ve r, PA' l ntellig,enr De
sig11 Case,"' S e ptem be r 2 1, 200 5, at h ttp :/ / w ww.d isco ve,r)'o rg / scripts / vie ,vD B/ index.
php?'command= \i cw&id
= 2847.
30 Introduction

clause. In the words of the courc," For rhe reasons chat fo llo,v,,ve hold
chat the ID [intelligent design] Policy is unconsrirucional pursuant co
che EscablishniencClauseof the First Arn endrne ncofche UnicedSraces
Conscicurion and Art. l, 3 of the Pennsylvania Consciru tion."18
n1e Dover decision has nor been appealed because thescliool board,
whicli nowhasan anri-creation rnajority, does nocwanccoappealir.How
ever,theissue inevitably willberaised again andevencuallywillbe brought
before che U.S. Supre1neCourr. How the Co urr,vill rule no one knows
for sure. Bue if precedent is followed, it is 1u1likely d1ac rhe h ighcourt
wUl (I) allo,v any aearion or designview co be 01andaced for scliools,or
(2) allow any vie,v robe caught rhar in1pliesa supernatural creator.
Meanwhile, che lessonsofhiscory rnaybegleaned coguide chefurure
of chis discussion. Having been an eye,vicness of che fiunous "Scopes
II" (McLean, 1982)19 trial, I feel co,npelled co case what light I can on
chis very irn porcanc issue. Indeed, since che Arkansas cotucs refi.1sed co
publish 1ny cesci1nony (g iven in I98l), ,vhich was crucial ro che our
con1eofdie trial, until after rheSupren1e Court ruled against reaching
creation six yearslacer (in 1987), there isa viral pare ofhiscory diarhas
been hitherto unkno,vn chat is now being revealed for che first cirne in
chis publication (see chapter 4). Ir is co d1ese ends char I present d1is
in1porcanc but 1nissing link in die hiscory of che creacion-evolucion
conrroversy, in che hope char it 1nay case s01ne light on che issue as it
is no,vagain coining inro che courrs and- hopefully- havea positive
influence on die ouccon1e.

I8. Kitzmiller11. Dw er / / r, 11 Sd,ool.Di.< fl'irt,4-00 E Supp. 2d707 (M. D. Pa. 2005).

19. See our e ycwitn<:ss account in Norman L. Ge isler with A. E Hrooke ll and Mark J.
Keo ugh. IheCre,11or i11 th e Courtroom:' Scop,s//' (Milford.Mich.: Morr Medfa. 1982).
 ,
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f" -- -

The Scopes Trial (1925)

Background of the Controversy

Charles Darwin started theevolution revolution.n,ere,vere evolu

tionists before Darwin,even inancient tinies, but Darwin ,vas chefirst
co propose a plaL1sible scientific ,nechanisrn b y,vhich evolution could
have occurred. Between the 1859 publication of his landn1arkvolunie
OntheOrigin o/Speciesand 1900,the naruralisric n1acroevolution theory
literallyconquered the inrelleccual scientific,vorld of the \'v'est.
Frorn the beginning, serio us religious and n1oral irn plicatio ns
wereapparent in Danvin'stheory. Dar,vin hirnselfcalled iat ,nydeity
' Natural Selectio n.'"' n1e very subtitle of his book, referring co che
"pre servation of favoured races in the struggle for life;has racial
irnplic atio ns. Alfred Wallace, rhe "coinvencor" of natural selection,
t. D,uwio said., "I speak of natural selection as an active powt'r or dciry.,. . To bel ievein
rnirat'ufous creatio ns o r in the.'<ontin ue_d inter vcJltiOn of creative po, cr' is tO ma ke'my deit y
"Natural Selection" supc.rfluous' and co hold the Deity- if such rhcre be- acc.owltable for
phenomena whit h arc rightly -attr ibuted o o ly to hi s magnificent laws"{Darwin, in a let tt.rro
Asa G ray. June S. 18 6 1 ( in li-ancis Darwfo, ed., Thel,i j'e11nd l.,erte:'r,ofCl11Jrl..r.J Darw
,in 2 vols.
(NewYork: Basic Books.1959), 2:165)).

31
 32. Creation and the Courts

deified die very evolutionary process. "\Vallace put 1nore and n1ore
en1phasis on rhe spiritual agency, so that in The J,Vqr/d qf Lift it is
described as 'a Mind noc only adequate co direct and regulate all the
forces at ,vork in living organisn1s, but also the more funda,nental
forces of the whole material universe: For 1nany years \Vallace was
inceresced in spiritualisn1 and psychical research."2 Darwin's friend
Karl Marx declared, "But nowadays, in owevolutionary conception
of the universe, there is absolutely no rooni for eid1er a creator or a
ruler."3 Henri Bergson deified the evolutionary process in his ,vork
Creative Evolution (1898 ), calling ic a Life Force. Herbert Spencer,
,vho1n Danvin called "our great philosopher," 1nade evolution into
a cosniic process. ln Gennany, Ernst H aeckel, who developed social
evolution fro1n Danvin's theory, clai1ned that"d1e idea of'design' has
wholly disappearedfrorn chis vast province ofscience."4 As Harvard
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould ,vould later explain,"Evolution
subsrituced a naturalistic explanation ofcold co1nforc for our forn1er
conviction that a benevolent deity fashioned us directly in his own
.
11n age...." 5
In An1erica a few strong voices spoke against Darwin. In 1860 the
fa,nous Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz wrore a critical review of On
the O,igin of Species.6 At Princeron, Charles Hodge wroce a srrong cri-
tique in 1878 titled What Is Danvini.7,7t? H isanswerwassrraight co rhe
point:"\VhatisDarwinis1n? Ir isAd1eisn1.Thisdoes nor1neantliat l'vlr.
Darwin hi1nself and all who adopt his viewsare atheists; bur it 1neans
mat his theory is atlieistic, diat tlie exclusion of design fro1n natureis
2. ' \Xlalla<e, Alfred:' in PaulEdwords,ed.. 7heh uydoped1i1ofPhiw.<op,hy 8 vol,. (NewYork:
MacmiJlanand nlc Free Press, 19 67 ). 8: 276.
3. Karl Marx and l'ricdrich Eng,d . On Religion (New York:Schoxken. J964). 29S.
4. Ernst 1-foeckd, 1be Riddleefthe Univ erse111the Closeof 1/Je N int leentb U mury(New
York: Harp & Brothers, 1900), 260.
S. Stephc1l:ja yGould,citedil'ljo n:uhaJl: \'v"dl s , 1 h el'olhicaliJ /ncon'ttl ()uitlel.fJ Dnrwiuism
n11d /11u llig e111 Design ( \X'.u hington. D.C.: Regnery, 2006), 62.
6. Agassiz wro te in Amerfr'a 11J our111ti of Sd enu : ..[Darwi11] ha s lo st sight o f the m o st strik
ing of the f('atures.::ir1:d theone which pervadesthe whole. 11:an 'K')y. d'l1..t there runs through out
Nature unmisatl.-able c ,idcn ceofrhou,gchcorrespondillS to the mentaloperationsof ourown
mind" (''Professor Agassiz o n tl1c Ori gin o f S pec ies; A.r1,eri &m j ou n 111i of Stien 30 (June
I860):143- 147. I49- 1SO).
 33
. . . tanta1no unc co acheisn1:1n1e logic is in1peccable: no design, no
designer; nocreation, nocreator. Evolutionasa theory isatheistic,even
d1ough not all evolutionists are ad1eirss.
Perhapsthe n1ost frightening consequences of Dar,vinisn1 ,vere the
ethical ones. In 1924ayoungAdolf Hider wrote1\1ein Kanipf,in,vhid1
he proposed follo,ving rhe exa,nple of evolution and weeding out the
,veaker breedsof1nankind. And he proceeded co put his proposal into
action, exrenninating d1ose he considered less fit. Hitler justified his
action byevolucion, clai1n ing,"IfNacure does not wish tl1acweaker indi-
vidualssho uld macewith thesrronger,shewisheseven less that asuperior
race should intennlugle wid1 an inferior one; because in sucli a case all
her efforts, throughout hundreds of tl1ousands of years, ro establish an
evolutionaryhigherstage of being, ,nay thus be rendered futile."8
The i111plicationsof Darwinisrn were nor perceivedquicklyinAnierica
by the religiousconununiryin general.9 ln fact, it cook sorne sixry years
and a World War. Bur by che ciine of Hitler che irnplicacions ,vere be-
corn ing clear. One year afi:er H ide r'sracist book, the people of Tennes-
see passed die Buder Ace on Mardi 13, 1925, forbidding die cead1ing
ofevolution in the public schools. lncerescingly, the biology textbook
d1ar had been used in die schools before d1is taught a racisn1sin1Har ro
Hider's views. To quote frorn the book:

At thepresent time thereexist upon theearth five races. . . . These arc the
Ethiopian or ncgro type,originatingi11Africa; the Malayorhrow11 rnce,
from che islandsof the Pacific; the Arnerican Indian;the Mongolian or
yelJow race,includingthe nativesofChina.Japan, and the Eskimos; and
finally,thehighestt_ypeofall thi,Cauc,1sia11s, represented bythecivilized
whiteinhabitantsof Europe and America.10
7. Charles Hodge. "\X'hat Is Oan,,;ni5m?"' in, JVl11tt l s Da rwi nim'J! /Ind Otlu1
fVritings
011Sdt11te a11d Rligio11, od. .M:uk A. Noll ,nd D,vid N. Livingonc (Grand lbpid,. .Mich.:
Baker, 1994), 177.
8. H ider,1\fei11 K11mpf (New Y<>rk: Rcynal & Hitchcock, 1940), 161- 162 .
9. See David Livingstone, D111w i11$Forgotten Defenders(GraodRapid:s, Mich.: f.et<.h nans,
1987).
10. George \X1illirun H unter,.11Civi cBiofogy (New York: American Book Company,
1914), 196 (emph,:sisadded).
34 Creation and the Co urts

Although such racist i1nplicacions did notcon1eout at theScopest rial,

ic ,vas clear froni the speech prepared for che trial by Willian1Jennings
Bryan,leaderofcheanci-evolucionniove1nent, diac bodi diecheological
and ediical i,nplications ofevolution were paraniowu in che 111inds of
che anci-evolurion forces. 'fwo citationsfi-0111 che speedi ,vill niake che
point: "Bur ic is not a laughing nianer ,vhen one considers chat evolu-
tion not only offers no suggestions as co a Creator bur tends co put die
creative act so far a,vay as co case doubt upon creation itself" (325).11
Indeed,Bryanpoineed coscariscics showingdiat halfofall scienciscs did
not believe in God (329-330). He concluded: "If all che biologists of
the world teach chisdoctrine - as Mr. Darrow says diey do- rhen n1ay
heaven defend dieyouth ofour land frorn their in1pious babblings" (333).
Furdier, Bryan saw dieseriousethicali1nplicacions ofevolucio n. Hecited
agnostic Clarence Darro,v's defense of a young1nan who allegedlyhad
co111111irced111urder. Darrow had argued char it was the influence of die
atheist and evolurionisc Friedrich Nietzsche o n rl1e young ,nan rhat led
hi1n codoic(330-331). Bryan alsociced Danvin hi1nself (in The Descent
ofMan) approving of savage and barbarous aces in eniularion of nature
whidi weed out die weak and inferior breeds (335). Bryan swnnied up
cheissuerl1is way:"Let us,then,hear checonclusion ofdie whole ,nacrer.
Science isa1nagnificenr n1acerial force, but icisnota readier of n1orals. le
can perfect1nachinery, bur ir adds no n1oral restraints roprorecc society
fron1che1nisuse of die n1achine" (338).
Evolutionist,son rheorher hand,sa,vcreacioniscs' efforts asan arce1npt
cosquelch freedo,n and scientific progress. Darro,v'sconcludingconunenrs
at die uial s1u11up dieir feelings: "I d1ink chis case will be ren1en1bered
because it is rhe first case of d1is sore since ,ve stopped trying people in
Arnerica for,virclicrafc because here ,ve have done our best co curn back
the ridechar hassought coforce itself upon chis-upon chis niodern world,
of restingevery face inscienceby a religious dicru1n"(317).
11. . All references to thetrialtranscript in thischapter are from
\VUli:unHillea.rya.ndOren
\Y/. Met:1.g<:r, eds., 1/u, ,Varkl's Mou FitmouJ COurt 1'rit1i: 1i!mu i.stt J;llolutitmCa.sr. (Cincinna ti,
Oh.io: Nariooa.l Book Cornpany, 19 25). which cootains the u iaJ tr:tnsr:ript plus the 1t xr o f
Bryan'sPropt>scd Add.res.'5inScopesCase"( 32 1- 339 }. The speechwall prep lrc::d fordclivcryat
the trial hut not givenbeeause arguments tO thejur}'by both sit'lcs were elim inated by mut ual
agt<Xll'ICOC.
Th c St:op,s Triol (,91;) 35
Background of the ScopesTrial
It isin d1iscontext that what has been called "che world's111ost fa111ous
court n ial"11occurred.111e ACLU, eager foran opportunity cochallenge
therennessee law forbidding the teachingofevolution, advertised cogee
son1eone to break thela,v. John Scopes,a young teacher, volunteered co
doso,13 and che rescishistory.Licde Dayton,rennessee, becaineacircus.
n1e rnedia of the world converged oo the Rhea County Courthouse,
where on a sultryJuly IOch the trial began. For the rest of thestory,rather
d1an referencing the popular rnovie InherittheWind,wecanconsult d1e
actualstenographic record of the proceedings published in TheWorld's
MostFa1nous Court Trial: Tennessee Evolution C'ase1.4Anocherexcellenr
source is Edward J. Larson's Pulitzer Prize-winning book Surnrnerfar
the Gods,15 one of the best books ever ,vriccen on the crial.

TheTennessee La,v Forbidding the Teaching of Evolution

'The focus of die Scopes trial was che 'fennessee lawforbidding che
teaching of evolution ,vhich ,vas enacted on March 21, I925. le read
in pare:

Section I. Beice nacted by theGeneral Assembly of theSeateofTennes-

see, that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities,
Normals and allother public schools of cheScare,which arcsupporced
in whole or in pare by the public school fundsof thestate, to teach any
theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as caught
in the Bible, and to teach instead that man hasdescended from a lower
order of ani111als ( 5).

' fl1e case (No.5232) wascalled State ofTennessee v.John7hornas Scopes.

' ll1ecrial lasted for eighc days, fro,n July 10 through July 21. Clarence
12. Sec1\0te 1 1, :1h o ve.
13. n\c indictment accused Scopes of teaching evolution on the specific day of April 24,
1925. Lncr.Scopes could not remember if he hadactually taught evolution on that parti<'ular
day.No1\et hdess,the trial proceededoi1 the assu.-nprio 1\ d\at he had.
14. Sec note 11, alx wc.
IS. falward J. Larson. SummerJit heGods ( New York: Basci Books. 1997 ).
 Creation and the Co urts

Darrow, fan1ous agnostic ACLU lawyer, was lead attorney for the de-
fense. Willia1u Jennings Bryan, one-cin1eDeniocracic presidential can-
didate and defender of creation, ,vas a visitingattorney for chescare.

Highlights from the Trial

\Vhile cheentire crial transcript is,veil,vordi reading, certain high-
lighrs are ilnporranc for rhe ongoing saga ofcreacion in rhe courcs.1lie
actual legal issue was: did or did not John Scopes "[reach]any cheory
chat denies the story of the Divine creation of 1nan as taught in the
Bible, and ... reach insteadchar 1uan hasdescended fro,u alower order
ofani,nals"in violation of thelaw of die scareof Tennessee?

First Day (Friday,July Io)

OPENING PRAYER ' '

1lie court ,vas opened in prayer by Rev. Carnvrighr, ,vho besought
"God, our divine Father . . . the Supre1neRuler of the universe" for
,visdo1n for rhe court and jury, justice for me defendant, re1ninding all
in accendance char diere is aday con1ing when"all of the nations of die
eard1shall srand before1liy judg1nenr bar."1l1e prayer was ofiered in
"diecause of rrudi and righteousness." le concluded, "co1liyglor)' and
grace for ever n1ore. A1nen" (3).

INTRODUCTION OF ATTORNEYS
Judge Johnr. Raulston asked Attorney General To1n Sre,van co in-
troduce dieoutsidecounsel for rhesc-ate, \VilliainJenningsBr)'an and his
son (who was unna,ned in d1ecourt cranscript, since he"need[ed] no in-
troduction".) For d1edefense Mr. (Judge) Neal,Clarence Danow, Arthur
Hays,Mr. Dudley Fieldi\1alone, and Mt 'Ilion1psonwereintroduced(4).
Odier attorneys for the state included Mr. McKenzie aiid Mr. H icks."
16.' l he c-ruc-ial part t>feach prayer is induded her<::since theseprayc.rsweredisputedby
thedefense.
17. l hc court reco l'ds i.ncJuckd vc..-ry few 6rst Hames.
 37
THE LA,v THAT SCOPES Is ALLEGED TO
HAVE VIOLATED WAS READ
Tiie la,v in quescion ,vas Chapeer 27 of che Aces of 1925 of che
Srace ofTenne.ssee, enact.ed on March 21, 1925.n1e ace was read as
folJo,vs:

Section I. Be it enacted by theGenernl Assembly of theState of'lc nnes-

see, that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities,
Normals and all()ther publicschools of cheScace, which aresupp(lrted
in whole or in part by the public school fundsof chc state, to reach any
theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught
in the Bible, and to teach instead that man hasdescended from a lower
order of animals(5).

THE READING OF GENESIS CHAPTER ONE

Judge Neal d1en said, "Since d1e ace involvedin this investigation
provides chac ic shall be tu1la,vful co ceach any d1eory chac d enie s the
divine creation of n1an astaughc in dieBible, it is proper d1at I call you r
arcencion co the account of 01an's creation as caught in the Bible, it is
proper iliat I call your arcenrion co the firsc chapcer of Genesis." n1e
chapter,vas read inics enci recy.'The crucialparrsare repeated here fro,n
the court record:

In the beginning the Lord [sic] created the heaven and earth....And
Godcreated great whales,andeverylivingcreat ure thatn1ovcth....And
God made che beasts of che earth ali:er his kind, and cattle after their
kind,and everyt hing that creepech upon t.heearth ali:er his kind. . . . S()
God created man in His own image, in the image of God.created He
him; male and female created He them (vv. l, 21, 25, 27) (5-6).

THE CHARGE OF THE JUDGE TO THE GRAND ]URY

Judge Neal charged: "You ,viii bear in niind chat in chis investiga-
tion you are noc inceresced co inquire into che policy or wisdon1of chis
legislation....Oucronstitution in1poses upon the judicial branch the
interpretation of statutes and upon d1e executive branch the enforce-
nienc of die la,v" (6). He cold chen1 che violation ,vould only be a ,nis-
 Creation and the Court$

de,neanor, buc re,ninded che,n there areserious1nisden1eanorssu,d1 as

chose involving"cheevil exainple of the teacher disreg-ardingconsticuced
authority ind1e verypresence ofche1u1developed 1nind \vhose choughc
and1noral he directs and guides" (7).

A NEW INDICTMENT 1S RETURNED

Born sides agreed co quash me original indicnnenc (No. 5231) and
replace it ,vim a ne,v one (No. 5232).' TI1is was apparendy co avoid its
beingoverturned on a cedlnicalicy.' The judge na1ned it C:ase JV o.5232
State of Tennessee 11.john 1hornas Scopes (7 ).
n1eonly ocher significant occurrence diefirst 1norning,vas concer n-
ing the con1petency of me ,vicnesse.sDarro,v expressed his belief: "I
chink that scientistsare co1npecenc evidence-or con1pecenc witnesses
here, toexplain what evolution is, and chat diey areco,npetent on boch
sides" (8). Accorney General Sce,v-arc responded: ",ve diink mat it isn't
co1npetent as evidence; diat is, it isn'cconipecenc co bring inco diisc-.1se
scienciscs who cestify as co what d1e rheory ofevolution is or incerprec
che Bible or anyd1ing ofchat sore" (8- 9). He suggesced, rherefore, chac
chey go inunediacely co qualify jut)' n1en1bers so as noc co polluce che
jury pool by die discussion.
1l1e resc of che day was spenc interviewing pocenrial jurors. When
one prospective juror, Rev. Massingill, was asked by Darro,v if he ever
preached foror against evolution, heanswered:"\Xl'ell, I preachedagainst
ic, of course! (Applause)." At this outburst che judge ,varned: "if you
repeac d1ac, ladies and genclenien, you ,viii be excluded" (14). 'There
ensued a shore disagree,nenc over ,vherher diey should S\vear in d1e
jurors i,n,nediacely or wait w1cil Monday ,norning.

Second Day (July r3)

OPENING PRAYER

'The invocation on the second day of the crial was offered by Rev.
Moftett co"God, our Fad1er, 'Thou \Vho are me creator of d1e heaven
and che earth...."He prayed tor "wise decisions" co be ,nade and tor
The Scop,s Trial (, 92;)
39
"blessing" of cl1e jury, the lawyers, the ,nedia, all involved in this case
"in the nan1e ofour Lord and Saviour,Jesus Chrise" (45).

SWEARING IN OF J URY
Before the jury ,vas s,vorn in, the judge had to call for order in d1e
counroo1n (45), saying, "wecannot proceed in thecourrroo1_n, as1_nany
people as the reare without absolute order" (46).Before rhe jurycould be
s,vorn in thejudge considered the n1otion to quash cl1e indicnnent.'The
indiccrnent was read firsr. In part itcharged d1at:"Johnn1on1asScopes,
heretofore on cl1e 24th dayof April, 1925, in cl1ecounty aforesaid, then
and there, unlawfully did ,vilfully teach in me public schools of Rhea
county ... acertain theory and d1eories d1at deny thestoryof d1edivine
creation ofn1an as taught in the Bible,and did teach instead d1ereof that
111an has descended fro111 a lo,ver order of aniu1als ... " (47).

THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT

n1e defense men ,nade a1nocion to quash rhe indicnnent. They ar-
gued against both theindicanent and theanti-evolutionact on,vhich it
was based,citinga longlist of reasonsdivided into three broad categories.
First, cl1ey discussed conscirutional issues:
a)111e act is in violarion of Section 17,Arricle II of rhescare consti-
rution, which scares d1at all bills n1usr have only one subject and it be
clearly srated in me ride (47-48);
b) Ir violates Secrion 12, Arricle XI: "Educ-arion robe cherished;
since ir does not cl1erish a student's education in science.
c) Ir violatesSection 18,Article11, whicl1says,"No billshall beco1ne
a la,v w1cil icshall have been read and passed, on rluee difierenc days in
each house, and shall have received, on itsfinal passage, in each house,
rl1eassent of a1najority... ." (48);
d) le violates Section 3, Article I, n,ac all n1en have a natural and
indefeasible right co worship Al1nighry God according co rhe diccaces
of his own conscience" (48);
e) le violates Section 19, Article I, whicl1 scares, "That rl1e printing
presses shall be free co every person....l11e free con11n1u1icacion of
40 Creation and the Courts

thoughts and opinions isone of the invaluable rightsof 1nan, and every
citizen 1nay freely speak, ,vrice and print on anysubject ... " (48- 49).
Defense attorney Hays joined in che defense argunient char the
indictnient was indefinite, insisting that Scopes ,vas "charged in che
caption of the act,vich one thing and in the body of che indiconenr it.
is put in another ,vay" (55). le is also noc clear, he said, what "teach"
nieans. !fit nieans sirnply exposingstudencs co die theory, "I presun1e
our teachers should be prepared co teach every theory on every sub-
ject. Noc necessarily co reach a thing as a face" (56)."Ir should noc be
,vrong co teach evolution, or certain phases of evolut ion, but nor as a
fact" (56).
Arcorney Hayssuggested char diecourt consider a hypodierical law,
parallel co rhe evolution la,v, chis one forbidding die reaching of a he-
liocentric universe, ,vhich "denies the story char the earth is the center
of die universe, as caught in rhe Bible, and [teaches] instead, diac che
eard1and planets niovearound die siui" (56). He concluded: "My con-
tention is that an act of that sort is dearly unconstitutional in that it is
a restrictjon upon the liberties of the individual. . . . nie only distinc-
tion you can draw between this statute and die one we are discussing
is that evolution is as111uch a scientific fact as the Copernican dieory,
bur rhe Copernican theory has been fully accepted, as chis [theory of
evolution] niust be accepted" (56-57). llius, "To niy niind, che diief
point against theconstitutionalityofchislaw ischar itextends the police
powers of the scace unreasonably and is a restriction upon die liberty
of die individual." Ir,vas unreasonable,hesaid, because "ic would only
be reasonable ifit tended in son1e way co pro1noce p ublic niorals" (57).
And chis is nor possible unless we kno,v what evolution is.
f) It violates Section 8, Article I, diac,"No1nan can bedisturbed buc
by la,v. n1at no nian shall be taken ... or deprived of his life, liberty or
properr.y but by the judgnienc of his peersor thelaw of die land" (49).
g) It also violates Section 9, Arricle I on "Rights of che accused in
crilninal prosecutions"(49).
h) le violates Section 14, Article 1, ,vhich says "chat no person shall
be puc co answer any crin1inal charge buc by presennnenr, indicnnenc
or irn peadi1nen t" (49).
 41

i) It violatesSection 8, Article II,,vhich forbids passingla,vs"for the

benefit ofany particular individual, inconsistent ,vid1 d1egeneral la,vs
of me land" (49).
j) le violates Sect ion 2, Article II, char "No person [ is] co exercise
powers of n1ore man one deparunenc" (49).
Second, diedefen secharged char"che inclicanenr issovague asnor co
infonn chedefendant of die nature and cause of die accusarion against
hiin" (49).
Finally, d1eyclairned d1ac"d1e aceand d1eindicanenc violateSection 1
ofrne Fourceenrh ,unend1nentofdieconscicucion ofdie Uniced Scares,"
which says, "No state shall n1ake or enforce any law which shallabridge
die privileges or iln1nunicies ofcitizens of rhe Uniced Scares" (49- 50).
\Vich d1e court's approval, d1e defense began co argue dieir points.
' ll1efollo,ving highlights are inscruccive.
First, chey argued char rhe law in question had c,vo subjects: evolu-
tionand creation.n1e cideof dieacespoke of "e,olu cion;' bur die body
spoke of"any dieory," nor just die dieory ofevolution, which violated
Seccjon 17,Article ll of rhe state consricurion, mar all Bills n1usc have
only one subject and d1ac it be dearly scared in die ride (47).
Second, chey argued rhac the ace violated Section 12, Article XI of
the state constitution, ,vhich scared diat education is co be cherished.
1l1e la,v clearly scared chac chis includes "lireracure and science" (5 1).
But, "in no possible ,vay can science be caught or science be studied
,vimout bringing in rhe docrrine of evolution, ,vhich mis particular
ace accen1pcs co 1nake a crilne." llie defense ,venc on co say,"\Vhedier
it is true or noc crue, allche i1nporcanc n1accers of science are expressed
in che evolution no1nendarure" (51).
lliird, mey pro1nised co address lacer die cl1arge of me alleged ir-
regularit yof me passage of che bill.
Fourth, che defense considered it "the 1nosc sacred provision of the
consrirution of Tennessee . . . char all 1nen have a natural and indefea-
sible right c,o vorsh ip Ahnighcy God according co the dictatesof their
o,vn conscience; ... chat no hun1an authority can, inany case ,vharever,
concrol or inrerfore \virh rhe rightsofconscience." lliis diey called "d1e
niosc irnporranc contention of diedefence" (51 - 52). Hence,"Our con-
42. C reation and the Co urts

tention, to bevery btief; is chat in this act there is1n ade1n andacor y the
teaching ofa particular doctrine chat conies fro,n a particular religious
book,and co thacexcenc, . . . they connavene che provisions ofour con-
scicucion" (52) .
1J1e jury retired in spice of the objeccion of che detense because che
judge felt chac "if you genclenien are going co discuss niaccers cl1ac are
vital co the issues in this case, before the co1ut, it is in die discretion of
the court co have the jury retire" (52- 53)1.8
Fifih, che defense argued char me right to freedo1n of expre ssion
applies '\vhecher diesire ofit is in a schoolhouse, or store, or screet, or
building, or any place. . . li111iced only by . . . responsibility under libel
la\v" (53).
Sixth, in accord ,virh Seccion 9, Article I of me scace co nscicucion,
\vhichde1nandsa cleardefinitio nof thecriine, thedefenseinsisted char
"mecrime in chisace- the definition issoindefinited1at it isabsolurely
ilnpossible for the defense co kno,v exacdy the nature ofitscharge-of
die charge" (53).' fl1isisparcicularly crue, cliey said, since it isspeaking
about "a doctrine in cl1e Bible (\Vhich] isso indefinite d1at every rn an
that reads me Bible \viiihaveadifferen.tinterpretation asto exactly what
mac rheory of creation is . . ." (54). Furd1er, "we mink diat me indict-
ment should set out just exaccly \vhat our defendant \vassupposed co
have caught" (55).
Finally, chey clain1ed "charourrnain contention afterall,rnay it please
your honor,is thatthisis nota properthing/or any Legislature . . . tonzake
andassign a-rulein regardto. In thislaw thereis anattenzptto pronounce
a judgment and conclusion in the realm ofscience and in the realm o_(
religion" (55,eniphasis added). ln brief, they argued chat ic. \vas not che
province of die courrs co 1nake pronounceu1encs in chese areas.

STATE RESPONSE TO DEFENSE ARGUMENTS

1J1e stare offered rwo responses co che defense, me firsc by accorney
McKenzie. He n1ade c,vo1nain points. First, hesaid, rheSupren1e Courr
of Tennessee had ruled coo ofien on d1is issue. n1e language of ch e
18. l hough the st(:oogrnpher (oreditor?) puta .. mark attheend of the $Cntence..clearly
che judge he-reiJ\ e xpre. sed his \'icwand inuncdiacdy ruled accordingly.
 43
indiccn1enc was che language of che scacuce: "no particular religion can
be taughc in rhe sd1ools. \1Ve cannot read1 any celigion in rhe schools,
cherefore, youcannot ceach any evolucion, or any doccrine chacconAiccs
wirh che Bible'. fhat secs thern upexacdy equal. No pareof theconstitu-
tion has been infringed by this acr." Furchennore, he argued, che U.S.
governn1enc recognizes che right ofd1escace co regulace icsO\vnschools
and sends it federal funds co do so.
As cochedefense's hypochecicalilluscracion involving die Copernican
d1eory, d1is'\vas nor acallasiJnilarcase cod1isace; ichas noco1u1eccion
with ic; no sudi acr aschat hasever passed rhrough rhe fertile brain ofa
Tennessean" (57). In shore, che scare said, it ,vas a false analogy.19
As tor d1eclarityof rhelaw, McKenzie argued in eftect chat citiesdo
nor have co beexact or compiece descriptions of what is in chelaw, only
accurate ones- goodenough "cogive notice to d1elegislature d1ac d1ey
should prevent surprise and fraud in d1eenaccn1enc ofhnvs" (58).
Again concerning che clarity ofche la,v, McKenzie insisted that"you
donocconstrue d1esesc-aruces according to d1eir technical sense, unless it
isa technicalscacuce; you consrruerhen1 in conunon ordinarylanguage,
and give dieo1an interpretation like rheco1111non peopleofd1isstatecan
1mderscand" (58). \1Ve do die san1e ming when wesay cl1ac "U nder die
la,v you cannot ceach in che co1nn1on schools rhe Bible. \Vhy should ic
be i1nproper co provide rhat you cannot teadi mis orher rheory?" (58).
Furrher, as co cheir argunienc about die schools' right co cherish sci-
ence, "che legislacure wider che conscirucional provision rnay as ,veil
esrablish a unifonn syscen1 of schools and a unifonn adn1iniscracion of
rhe111 . . ." (59).1he scace has d1e inherent right co control its schools.
So, "if they chink die teadiing ofevolution is harrnful co die children
of die srare,... rhey n1ay pass rheace" (59). Furcher, eve11if chey do noc
d1ink ic is harrnf ul, as"che supren1e head of che schools, ... 1hey can
pass rhe la,v under the inherent po,vers vesced in cheui" (60 ).
Finally, d1e scace accorneyssaid, clai1ning an alleged right ro teach
anything wider die right co worship law is"ridiculous."Aceacl1er hired
19. m is rcspo 1'lsc is notably Wt".J.k, $ince it does nor givethe strongdissimilarities r-0 show
that it is a false analogy. Ifcrolution were an <:1npiriC3l science and creation were not. then it
wouldha'\C b<:eo a goodanalogy.
44 Creation and the Courts

to teach n1ad1e111aticscannot decide on his own to teach architecnue.

n1e reaching in d1eschools has noching,vhareverto do ,vim religious
,vorship, and as Mr. McKenzie brought out, he can preach as he,vanes
co on d1e screers- his religious righrs- burhe cannot preach dieni in
school"{60).

ATTORNEY GENERAL $TE\"ART RESPONDS TO

THE MOTION TO QUASH
Sre,varr rerurned cotheobjection cl1ar rhela,v and itscaption did not
coincide. Headded diat in Tennessee la,vthecaption could be broader
d1an die law but nor d1e reverse. All that ,vas necessary was char. chey
be "genna ine [sic] one to the ocher" {62). And born the caption and
the l.nv "deal ,vid1 only one thing, and d1ac is to prohibit rhe teach-
ing in die public schools of Tennessee die evolutionary cheo ry" (62).
And as for rhe possibility that the la,v was broader than rhecaption in
d1at ic n1ay be affinning d1aconecannor bod1reach evolution and also
reach d1ar die Bible is untrue, d1is ,vould be elilninaced by"rhe rule of
construction in Tennessee which prohibits the court froni placing an
absurd conscrucrion on rhe act"{62).
He alsoadded co d1e alleged "cherish . . . science" pareofd1econstitu-
tion the argu111ent of Justice \Vhite's dissenting opinion chat di is was
n1erely a direcrive co rhe legislacors char expressed a popular feeling of
rhe people and ,vas not a constitutional n1andate to put science over
everyrhingelse{62- 63).
He then addressed the "free ,vorship" argun1enc, noting rhat "this
[la,v] . . . does not even approach interference ,virh religious ,vorship"
(65) . Ir was addressed only to public school sysce1u.s"1his does noc
prevent any n1an froni worshiping God as his conscience directs and
dicraces" (65 ). Ir did noc require anyone co join a particular denon1ina-
tion, contribute ro a particular religion, or accend any given church.
Ar rhis point Clarence Darrow objected, clailningdiat d1elawseated
mat "no preference shall ever be given, by law, co any religious esrab-
lish1nen.c" He insisted rhac rhe Tennessee an ri-e volurionla,v erred by
"giving preference codie Bible." Heasked,"Why nocdie Koran?" (65).
Ste,vart's answer was: "1l1e laws of me land recognize me Bible; die
 45
lawsof the land recognize the la,v of God and Christianityas a part of
the con11non la,v." In short, "We are not living in a heathen councry."
Sre,varr asked rhe ACLU arcorney, Malone: "Do you say reaching die
Bible in che public school is a religious ,natter?" Malone responded,
"No." And he hastily added: ho,vever,"I would say co base a dieory set
ford1in any version of d1e Bible co be r-aughr in d1e publicschools isan
invasion of the rights of the citizen, wherherexercised by policepo,ver
or by the legislature"(66).
Sce,van continued his argt1n1ent by pointing our that "le is nor an
invasion of a n1an's rel igious rights.He can go co church on Sunday o r
anyother day that rhere ,night bea1neeting... ." Rather,"thisisrhe au-
choricy,on d1e pareofdielegislature ofchescare of Tennessee, codirect
dieexpenditure of dieschool fundsof mestateand chrough di is ace co
require chat rhe ,noney shall nor bespent in the teachingofthe theories
diac con/lice orcontravene che Biblesrory of,nan's creation" (67).
Stewart then addressed the "freedoni of speech" argun1enc of me
evolutionists,charJohn Scopes had a right cogive hisviewsonevolution
any,vhere he wanted, including in the public schools.Stewart responded,
"Under chat question, I say, Mr.Scopes n1ighchave taken his scand on
the st.reet corners and expounded until he beca-1ne hoarse, as a result
of hiseffort and ,ve could not interfere ,vith hi1n." But "he cannot go
inro d1e public schools, or a school house, which is concrolled by che
legislarureand supported by the public fundsof thestate and reach this
dieory" (67-68).
Darrov, shifi:ed the topic, inserting: "\Ve claini the sracuce is void"
because it was notspecific asco,vhac thecri1ne was.Stewart responded,
"The wordingof theindicunenc coniplieswich che,vordingof thesracuce.
Insuch acase it isgenerally held co begood"(68). Furdier,in Tennessee
la,v, "lessstrictness is required in indiccn1enr.s for 1nisdea1neanors [sic]
than in felonies" (69). It ,vasspecific enough for d1e purpose. Everyone
ki1e,v char Scopes wasn't indicted for"arson"orfor"cransporringliquor."
Rad1er, "He is herefor teachinga theory d1at denies che story ofdivine
creation .. ." (69- 70).
Alier lookingover dieoriginal lisr ofargu1nencs che defense offered,
Sce,vart narrowed die list co ,vhac hecalled "die principal one, I di ink
 Creation and the Co urts

on which chiscase rescs. lcische Fourceench An1end1nenc coche Uniced

Scates Constitution" {70), ,vhich says,"Nor shall anyscare deprive any
person of life, libercy or properry wid1ouc che due process ofla,v, nor
deny co any person wid1in its jurisdiction d1e equal protection of che
la,vs" (71) . On chis basis, Sce,varc said, evolutionists argue char rhe
scare (and its schools) has no right ro abridge freedon1 of speech for
che evolutionist view in schools. Sce,vart respo nded by citing a cotuc
precedent on chevery issuein Meyerv. Stateo/Nebraska,in ,vhich che
court seated:"Nor haschallenge been n1ade co rhescace's po,ver co pre-
scribeacurriculun1for insticucions which irsupports"(71). He added,
"How1nuch stronger could d1ey 01ake rhelanguage? How rnuch n1ore
. . . would ,ve have d1e1n say d1an co recognize d1e right of che scare of
Tennessee co direct and control die curriculu1n in die Rhea County
High School?"{72).

CLARENCE DARROW'S SPEECH FOR THE DEFENSE

' fi1enext d1irceen pages of die transcript record Clarence Darrow's
fiunous anti-bigotry speech, in ,vhich he uses the cern1s "bigotry" and
"bigoted" noless than eleven tin1es. Along,virh chisd1ereisaliberal use
oforher pejorative tenns,sud1as "fi.u1da1ne ncalsic"(79 - 80, 82,86) and
"funda111eocalisni" (87),"oarro,vness" (77),"not roleraot"{84),"harred"
(87), "veno1n" (80),"ignorance" (75,79,87) or"ignornnt" (76). Search-
ing for rhe diread of his argun1enc is difficult, but a do1ninant d1e1ne
is d1e need co preserve freedo111 of dioughc and speech. He 1nakes d1e
follo,ving points:
First, legislatures have die right co prescribe cnrriculun1 only within
lin1ic.s"'fl1ey co uld not prescribe it, . . . under your constitution, if it
on1irced arirhnietic and geography and ,vriting." Nor "could d1ey pre-
scribe it if rhe courseof srudy , vas only co cead1 religion .. :' (75). Nor
could rhey"establisha cou rse in rhe public sd1ools of reaching that the
Christian religion asunfolded in d1e Bible, isrrue, and iliacevery orher
religion, or1nodeor sysce1n of ethicsisfalse.. ." (75).
Second, he argued: "And so it is, unlessdlere is left enough of rhe
spirit of freedo1n in rhe state of Tennessee, and in rhe Uniced Sraces,
mere is not asingle line ofany constitution d1at cru1,vithscand bigotry
The &opr.;Trial (, 91;) 47
and ignorance when itseekscodestroyche rightsof the individual; and
bigotry and ignorance are ever active" (75).
1l1ird,"I chink che sooner \Vegee rid ofir in Tennessee rhe bercer for
the peace of Tennessee, and the better for che pursuit of knowledge in
rhe,vorld .. ." (75).
Fourrh, he insisted char "111ere is nor a word said in the statute
aboucevolucion, there is not a word said in d1estatute about prevent-
ing che teaching of the theory of evolucion-not a ,vord," as there
was in rhe caption. And, "Does the caprion say anything about rhe
Bible?" (76).
Fifth, che sracuce referred co che Bible as a "divine" book, "But che
srace of Tennessee under an honest and fair inrerprerarion of rhe con-
srirurion has no 1nore right co teach the Bible as a divine book rhan
char rhe Koran isone,or che book ofMonnons, or che book ofConfu-
cius,or d1e Buddha, or the Essays ofE1nerson, or any one of d1e od1er
10,000 books co which hu1nans have gone for consolation and aid in
dieir troubles" (77). "No legislature is scrongenough in any scace in
che Union co characterize and pick any book as being divine" (77).
Here Darro,v attenipced co show d1e Bible wasa purely hwnan book.
"le i s not a book of science. Never ,vas and was never 1neanc robe."
In face, "1here are c,vo conflicting accounts [of creation) in che first
nvo chapters" (78). In addition, he said, d1ere were so1ne 500 seers or
churches who did not agree an1ong theu1selves as to ho,v co interpret
d1e Bible (79) .
Sixth, Darrow argued, chislaw,vas inspired by"d1e fw1dainenralisrs
[who] area.Ji-ereverybody chat thinks. I know why he [John Scopes] is
here....because ignorance and bigotry are rainpane, ai1d it is a 111ighry
strong co1nbinarion, your Honor, it niakes hini fearful" (79).
Seventh, "Now as co thesr.aruce itself: It is full of\ veird,strange,irr1-
possible and in1aginary provisions. Driven by bigotry and narrowness
rhey co1ne together and 1nake d1is statute and bring this licigacion. I
cannor. co nceiveanyd1ing greater" (77).
Eighili, Da1To,v argued char John Scopes should have raughc evolu-
tion because "che doccrine ofevolucion . . . (is) . . . believed by every
scientific nian on earth" (80).
 Creation and the Courts

Ninth, "rhe indicunenc is void because it is uncertain, and gives

no fact or infonuacion and it seenis to ,ue the niain thing diey did
in bringing diis case ,vas to cry to violate as ,nany provisions of the
constitution as they could, to say nothing about all the spirit of free-
don1 and independence that has cost the best blood in the world tor
ages" (81).
renrh, Da1To,vargued, rhe scare by its consricution is cou1n1itted co
teaching science and "is conuuitted ro teaching die trudi." And on no
readingof "d1espirit of rhelaw"20 concerningfreedornof religion should
d1e trudi about evolucion be kept our of our schools (82).
Elevenm, Darro,v declared mac me"funda,nenraliscs" who inspired
chislaw were enen1ies of"freedom"and rhat the lawresulted in"tyranny";
and headded, "since n1an wascreated out ofd1edust of theearth (Gen.
2:7] . . . there is nothing else your Honor diat hascaused rhedifterence
ofopinion, ofbiccerness, of hacred, of war, ofcruelty, that religion has
caused" (82).
T,velfch, he said again, there are over 500 seers or dlurches, aJI of
then1havingrheirown interpretation ofScripture. \Vho isco say,vhich
one is right? Yer chis law den1ands that one of these interpretations be
correct inorder tor one to understand it.Yet it considers hini acriniinal
ifhe breaks ir (82- 83).
Thirteenth, "Can a legislative body say 'You cannot read a book or
rakea lesson, or1nake a talk on science until you first find our whether
you are saying [anything] against Genesis'?" (83).
Fourcecndi, "Jc,nakes the Bible die yard srick co n1easure every ,nan's
intellecr, co n1easureevery n1an'sintelligenceand ton1easureevery n1an's
learning" (84). But chis is to establish religion.
Fifceenrh, " Yes, ,virhin litnirs rhey have [ rhe right co esrablish cur -
riculun1]. \Vedo nor doubt it, but d1ey probably canner say,vritingand
arith,netic could not be caught, and certainly they cannot say nothing
can be caught unless ic is first ascertained chat it agrees ,virh me Scrip-
tures; certainly rhey cannot say d1ac" (84- 85).
20. Darorw is umvltringlyquotingthe Bible (2 Cor. 3:6) in supporto f his view, though he
ad.mitte.d he W.1.$ UJ'laware of his sourc<.
 The Scop,; Trial (191;) 49
Sixteenth, this la,v n1akes it a cri,ni nal ace co teach evol ution in a
publicschool. Ifso, then it should be a crin1inal ace co do it in a private
school or co ,vrice it in a book or newspaper (86- 87).
Finally, Darrow attributed the lawin question to the "religious big
ocry and hatred"of "ftmda1nen calis1n." H e insistedchat" Ignoranceand
fanaticis,n is ever busy and needs feeding" (87) and pleaded that the
la,v beoverturned lest wego",narching back\vard ro the glorious ages
of the sixceenchcentury ,vhen bigots lighted fagots to burn die 1nen
who dared co bring any intelligenceand enlighcenn1enc and culture co
the hurnan mind" (87).

7 /Jird Da y (July I4)

' ll1e cl1ird day of che trial began ,vich Darrow objecting co opening
prayer on rhe grotu1ds cl1ac it ,night bias d1e case. Sce,varc reforred co
hin1 as "rhe agnostic counsel for die defense" (90) and said "ch is is a
God fearing counny."' n1e judge afl:irrned be "basno purpose except co
find cl1e truth and do justice" (90) and overruled Darro,v's objection
on thegrounds it had been hiscuscon1 to open die courc in prayer. Dr.
Scribling cl1en prayed co"Our Fad1er;' thesource of all blessing,asking
hin1 co blessche proceedings of me courc, and petitioning God mat
there rnay"be in every heart and in every 111ind a reverence co meGrear
Creator of che ,vorld" (91). Lacer a group of clergy fro1n "ocl1er chan
funda111ental ist churches" requested chat cbey be allo,ved to pray roo.
' ll1ejudge requested d1elocal"pastor'sassociation" cochoose cl1ose who
,vottld lead in prayer (93 ).

Fourth Day (]11fy rs)

OBJECTION ABOUT PRAYER

As die fourd1day of the trial began, ACLU attorney Neal objected
again about prayeron diegrounds d1acit injected a religious aanosphere
inco diecase. Mr. Hicks repliedfor thestate:"' I11eysay, yourhono1 d1ac
evolution is nor- does nor conrradicr cl1e Bible-does not conrradicc
Christianity. \'v'hy are rhey objecting to prayers ifit doesn't contradict
so Creation and the Cc:mrtS

the Bible- doesn'tcontradict Ch ristianity," notingchey had had a Uni-

rarian, aBapcisr, and aMed1odisr pray on different n1ornings.'Tiie judge
replied, "Thecourr believes char any religious society d1ac is,vord1y of
me nanie should believe in God and believe in divine guidance I
don't chink it hurts anybody and I chink ic ,nay help so,nebody. So I
overrule rhe objecrion" (96).

STE\X'ART A POLOGIZ ES ABOUT "AGNOST IC "

COMMENT
Defense accorney Hayscookexception co diepreviousday'sconunenr
abouc me "religious viewsof me counsel for the defense" (97). He had
been referred co as"d1eagnostic counsel for d1edefense" (90).Sce,varc
apologized, and Haysaccepted his apology. l11e judge arunonished die
pressabout a ne,vsleak (97- 98). Darro,v said he considered ic not an
insult buc a co1J1pli111enc robe called an agnosric (99).

)UDGE OVERRULES MOTION TO Q UAS H

lhe judge rejected the ACLU n1ocion co quash rhe indictment.He
noted rhat "checaption coversallche legislation providedfor in che body,
and isgern1ane diereco,and in no way obscures dielegislarion provided
for" (100). He furd1er noted d1at ""Il1e courts are not concerned in
questions ofpublic policy or the n1otive that pro1npcspassageorenacr-
01enc ofany particular legislation." For "'I h e policy, n1ocive or wisdon1
of rhe srarures address rl1eniselves co the legislarive deparrnienr of die
scace, and not the judicial departnienc" ( IOI). Nor does ic violate any
freedo1n of thought or,vorship for chedefendant since "rhere is nola,v
in che srace of Tennessee char undercakes co co1npel diis defendanr, or
any od1er citizen, toaccepte111ploy111ent in die publicschools." Further,
"ll ie relations between rhe teacherand hisemployer arepurely contrac-
tual and ifhisconscience constrains hi111co teach dieevolution d1eorv,

he can find oppor ttu1ities elsewhere . . ." ( I02).nie ocher grow1ds of
me 1nocion co quash were rebutted as well, using precedent cases cited
by the state and ochers such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Leeper v. the
State,and IYfeyer v. Nebraska.'Die judge nored froni che Meyer casedie
diccwn:"Nor has challenge been111ade of the'state'spo,ver to prescribe
The ScopesTrial (192;) 51
acurricuhun for instinicions which itsupports'" ( I07). Heconcluded,
"The court, having passed on each ground chronologically, and given
che reasons therefor, is no,vpleased cooverrule the,vhole niotion, and
require thedefendant ro plead furdier" (108).

THE PROSECUTION OF THE CASE BEGINS

Preli1ninariesbeingour ofche way, cheactual prosecution of diecase
began.Thewitnessesand jury werecalled (1I0-111). Mr. Neal pleaded
"not guilcy" on behalf of thedefendancJohn Scopes (112).

MALONE OUTLINES DEFENSE CASE

Attorney Malone began me case for che defense ,vich a quocacion

not identified but fron1John 4:24, declaring: "'Ilie defense believes
chat 'God is a spirit and they chat ,vorship Hini niusc ,vorship Hi1n in
spirit and in cruth'" ( I I2). He then gave the basic points of che defense
as follows:
First, "1l1e defense contends diac coconvict Scopes die prosecution
n1ust prove that Scopes noc only caught me theory of evolution, but
that he also, and at che saine cin1e, denied the d1eory of creation assec
fordi in the Bible" (113).
Second, hesaid, rhedefense also believed mac"che prosecution n1usc
proveasparr of its case,vhacevolution is" (113).
Tiiird, "die defense believes diere is a direct conflict beC\veen the
theory ofevolution and me theories of creation sec forth in che Book
ofGenesis" (113).
Fourd1,"Neidier dowe believe diat thestoriesofcreation assecfordi
in che Bible are reconciliable or scientifically correct" ( I13).
Fifrh, nonedieless, che defense would show diat"diere are n1illions
of people ,vho believe in evolution and in che stories of creation as
sec forth in the Bible and who find no conflict beC\veen the cwo"
(113).
Sixd1, "\Vhile the defense d1inks mere is a conffict beC\veen evolu-
tion and the Old resta1nent, ,ve believe there is not conflict beC\veen
evolution and Christianity" (113). ""Iliere niay be a conflict benveen
evolution and die peculiar ideas of Christianicy, whid1are held by Mr.
s2. Creation and the Courts

Bryan ascheevangelical leader of che prosecution, buc we deny chat the

evangelicalleaderofche prosecution isanauthorized spokesman for che
Christians of rhe United Scares" (113).
Seventh, Malone cited Bryan assaying, "cocon1pel people co accept
a religiousdocrrine by aceoflaw was to n1ake not Christians but hypo-
crites" (114). For religion is a n1atter oflove, not of force.
Eighth, he argued chat "Chriscianicy is botu1d up wich no scientific
theory, chat it has survived 2,000 years in che face ofall rhe discoveries
of science and chac Christianity wiU continue co grow in respect and
influence if rhe people recognize char d1ere is no conflict wid1 science
and Chrisrianicy" (115).
Ninth, hesaid diedefense believed char"thereisno branch ofscience
which can be raughr today ,virhour reaching rhe d1eory ofevolution"
(115).
Tench, Malonealsodain1ed d1ar rhedefensewould supporcevolution
fron1science,offeringe1nbryologicaldevelopn1enc asevidence. Hecired
"gill slirs ofan en1bryo baby" as one exan1ple, clain1ing "The e111bryo
becon1es a hun1an being when it is born" (l l 4-115).
Elevend1, heclai111ed diedefense would sho,v die practical benefirsof
evolurion for111ankind, in agriculture, in geology, and in "every branch
ofscience" (116).
T,velfi:h, hesaid chat "the book of Genesis is Ln part a hy1nn, in part
anaUegory and a work of religious interpretations ,vriccen by n1en,vho
believed that theearth wasflat and ,vhose authoritycannot beaccepted
co control che teachings ofscience in our schools" (l 16).
Malone concluded his stunn1ary of\vhar the defenseintended co do
bysaying: "1l1e narro,v pu rposeof the defense is coestablish the inno-
cence of che defendant Scopes.n1e broad purpose of die defense ,viii
be co prove rhar che Bible is a work of religious aspirarion and rules of
conduce which 11111st be kept in the field of theology" (I 16).
After an objection by rhe scare co 1nencioning Bryan by 11an1e and
Bryan saying he did noc1nind but would sec the record srraighc about
his vie,vs when he had an opporcw1icy ( 117), the jury,vassworn in by
the court (119).
 53
\ V I T N ESS ES FOR THE STATE TAKE THE STAND
Mr. Walcer \Vhire, superinrendenrof rhe Rhea Counry Sd1ool D is-
crier and che firsr ,virness called by rhe srace, verified char Scopes ,vas a
science reacher, d1ac hecaught outofa textbook tided A Civic Bi(Jl(Jgy, by
George\X/illiam H uncer,21 d1ac he had reviewedche whole bookarotu1d
April 21, and mac he had re,narked co \Vh ice chat "he couldn 'c reach
biology wichoucviolatingchislaw" (120) and chat he[\Vhice] believed
d1ac Scopes did ''ceadl" evolucion fron1 rhac texc to me Rhea Councy
scudencs. ACLU attorney Haysobjected co the Kingja,nes Version of
d1e Bible beingoffered asevidence for"d1e Bible"in d1ela,v, nocingthar
d1ere were nwuerous versionsofd1e Bible,of difterenr cranslacions,and
even me Cad1olic Bible, vid1 "80 books"22 ( 123) in ic asopposed co66
in Prorescanc Bibles (123). Asrudenc inScopes'sclass, Howard Morgan,
answeredche question abouc teaching evolution: "Did Pro( Scopes
reach it co you?" by responding,"Yes,sir" (125). Anod1er pupil, Ha rry
Shelcon,confir n1edchatScopeshad taughcevo lucion cochen1( I29).11r.
Robinson, n1en1berof thesd1ool board and ownerof d1escore thacsold
theevolutionbiology books, also testified toaconversation ,vithScopes
wherein he ad,nicred d1ac "any reacher in the scare who ,vas reaching
H unter's Biology was violating melaw;iliacscience cead1ers could nor
read1Hunter's Biology wid1our violacingd1elaw" (129).
Under cross-exa,ninacion, Darro,v had Robinson read sections fro,n
H unter's book about ,vhac evolution n1eans, and that there are "over
500,000 species of ani,nals"(131).Stace'sattorneyStewart had Genesis I
and 2 read in order cogee it into the record, and the scace reseed itscase.
1l1e defense called Professor Maynard M. Mercalf, a zoologisc fron1
Oberlin College inOhio, tothescand. Hetestified d1ac,"l a1n absolucely
convince d fro,n personal knowledge rhac anyone of d1ese1uen [ in ,ny
field] feeland believe,as a,naccerof cotuse,iliacev(Jlution isafact" (137,
e1up hasisadded)H . ewenron cosay,"bucI doubt very n1uch ifany c,voof
21. Sec no ce 1 0, ah o \'c.
22. n l is ls an<:m ) r.Roman Catholics acc <:p t t) ll l)1 11 of the 14 AptXTyphalbooks into thc:ir
Bible. and only7 of thanarc li$t("d in the table of contenu, with 4 additions being made co
Danid and Esther. rhis makes :1 to tal of 77 books ln the Ro m:H 'I C..-..cholic Bible bur0 11ly 73
listed in the table t'lf co nt<:n rs:46 in the OT and 27 in the NT.Sec Norman Geislerand \Xlilliam
Ni..,.AGe11er11l /111rod 11aio 11 to tl u Bibk (Chicogo: Moody. 1986). chapter 15.
54 Creation and the Co urts

the111agree asto theexact 1net hod by,vhich evolution has been brought
about"(137). Lacer hedescribed evolutionas"a cremendousprobabilicy;'
,vhich it "would beentirely i111possible forany norn1al huo1an being" co
have"even for a n1on1enc cl1eleasedoubt"abouc (143).'Il1eonlyevidence
healluded co, ho,vever,,vassiluilariries a1nonganiluals and"varietiesof
hunian kind appearingearlier in the geological series" (143).
(11ie jurywas rerired while theacrorneys argued about whecl1er rhese
scientific testinionies abour evolution were relevant to die case.)
111e ,virness continued: "1lie face ofevolution is a rhiog char is per-
fectly and absolutely clear . . . [ bur] cl1e niecl1ods by ,vhich evolution
has been broughc abouc-d1ac ,veare nor yet in possession ofscientific
kno,vledge co answer" (139) . \Vhen asked ho,v old lite is, his "guess
was "600,000,000 years" (141).

Fifth Day {July r6)

OPENING PRAYER
Dr.J.A . Allen, a Church of Christ pastor, opened i11prayer co"Our
Farner whoarcin Heaven," mac""I1ly\Vord niay be vindicared, and d1ac
'Th y rrnch u1ay be spread in the earrh."111is he prayed "in rhe na1ne of
Jesus. Ainen" (145).
After 1nore wrangling beC\veen d1e accorneys about die need for sci-
encific cestiniony (145- 1 47), rhe scare nioved co exclude che evidence
on diegrounds that"under die wordingofdieaceand interpretation of
che act, which ,ve insist interprets itself; d1is evidence would beentirely
inco1npecent" (147).To para.pluase,the law ag-dinsc teachingevolution
is the la,v, regardless of theevidence fo r it or against it.So,"there is no
issue left except me issue as co ,vherher or noc [whar Scopes taught]
conflicts wid1 die Bible" (148).

BRYAN'S SoN's SPEECH ON THE DANGER OF EXPERT

\VITNESSES
111e son of \VillianiJennings Bryan then pleaded d1e case against
expert cescilnony, arguing d1at it is"me weakest . . . and n1ost danger-
ous" and diere is no way co contradict ic since ic is only an opinion
 The Scop,s Trial (, 92;) ss
(150).Another"danger involved in receiving theopinion of the witness
is that the jury ,nay substitute such opinion for their own"{151) even
though it is"largely a field of speculation besought ,vich picfails and
tuicercaincies" (151). And "le is generally safer co take the judg,nenc
of unskilled jurors than the opinions of hired and generally biased
experts" (150-151). Furchennore, '"D1ere is no issue of fucc raised by
evidence, che faces are agreed upon both sides" (152). So,"To pennic
an expert co cescify upon chis issue ,vould be co substantiate [subsci-
rure?] crial by experts for trial by jury, and co announce co the ,vorld
your honor's belief chac this jury is coo stupid co decern1ine a siniple
question offucc" (153).

ACLU ATTORNEY HAYS RESPONDS

Defenseaccorney Hays responded chat rhedefense agreed charScopes
taught evolution, "but as to ,vhether diat is contrary co . . . the Bible
should bea,natterofevidence" (154). Furrher, the jury needed to know
rhe faces ofscience in order to kno,v ,vhat evolution is. Further, evolu-
tion111ust be proven to becontrary to"the Bible."But which Bible? And
whose interpretationof ic? ( I56). Furilier, he said, me defense needed
co beallo,ved co present the fuccsofevolucion,,vhich, he believed,,vere
as finnly established as"die Copernican theory," which was "accepted
by everyone today" (156). Further, tor che cou rceven to renderan in-
forn1ed decision, "thecourt 1nust take testilnony and evidenceon tacts
which are nor ,natter s ofco1n1non kno,vledge" (157).

STATE'S ATTORNEY H ICKS ARGUES FOR THE CLARITY

OF THE LA\V
l\.fr. Hicks, attorney for the srate, argued diat the words of die la,v
icself"predude che introduction of such tescin1onyas they are crying
co bring into the case" (161) . 1he la,v says ic is tuila,vful co reach "any
d1eorydiat denies thestoryofdivinecreation . . . ascaught indie Bible."
n1atis dear.So, if the next phrase is not clear (chat is, if "th at nian has
descended fron1 alo,ver order ofani1nals" is noc clear), then ir n1ust be
understood in rhe light of the first ph rase. For rhe cotuts have ruled
d1at "if oneclause of that statute, one part of it isvague, not definitely
56 C reat ion and the Co urts

understood, . . . you1nusc co nstrue the whole statute together" (161).

"They cannot cake che first pan of che Statute and leave off the lase,
which Mr. Darro,v ende avored to do here the ocher day in his great
speech... (162). Furd1er,when"che languageused isnot entirelyclear,
dte courr1nay, to deterniine die nieaning, and in aid of ch e interpreta-
tion, consider che spirit, inrenrion and purpose of a law... ." And the
purpose of the law"is to prevent the teaching in 01usc hools d1at n1an
descended front a lower order ofaninials, and when he (JohnScopes)
taught rhac, as has been proven by our proof in chief, he violated die
law, and cannot gee aro1uid it" (162).

STATE'S ATTORNEY MCKENZIE A RG UES "\)(IF, H AVE

CROSSED THE RU BI CO N"
Scate'sanorneyMcKenzie observed chat thecoun had already"crossed
the Rubicon" when the judge ruled that the act was clear."'01at never
lefi:a nythin gon the faceoftheearth codetenn ine,except ascotheguilt
or the innocenceof the defendant at bar in violating that ace" (166).
Tiie judge then asked McKenzie if he believed the divine story of
creation indie Bible,vassoclear that"no reasonable111indscould differ
as co the 111echod of creation, that is, chat ,nan was created, co,nplece
by God." He answered "Yes" (166). n1e judge reinforcedthe question
by saying, "And in one ace, and not by a mecho d of growch or devel-
op1nenc; is char yo1u- position?" McKenzie responded, "Fron1 lo,ver
ani,nals- )'es,d1ac is exactly right" (166- 167).n1en the judgeasked,
"do you clailn that if you1neec the second clause, by in1plication oflaw
you have n1ec che requiren1ent. of the first ?" McKenzie replied,"Yes,
chat is exactly it" (167).

THE SPEECH OF \)(/JLLI AM JENNINGS BRYAN

n1eafternoon of the fifi:11 day began with a speech by \Xl'illiani Jen-
nings Bryan, who niadethe following n1ain points.
First, "we believe dle court should hold, d1at die (scientific] cesc-i
1nony iliac defense is now oftering is not con1pecent and nor proper
testilnony ... " (170).
 57
Second, "our position is chat the scacuce is sufficient.... The scacuce
needs no incerprecacion (171).' l11esecond pare'\vas careful codefine
what it rneanr by the first part of thestatute." le "rernoves a!Jdoubt" by
pointiogouc "specifically what is rneanc" (171).
' l11ird",Mr Scopes knew" ' h at cl1elaw wasand kne,v what evolucion
,vas, and knew char it violated cl1e la,v, (and] he proceeded co violate
rhelaw.n1acis theevidence before rhiscourt,and,ve do noc need any
expert co cell us what chat law n1eans" ( I7 1).
Fourrh, rheopposirion is saying ineffect,"No, noc rhe Bible, yousee
in thisscare cl1eycannot teach the Bible.111ey can only teach things that
declare it co be a lie, according co rhelearned counsel.n1ese people in
chescace- Chri scian people- havecied cl1eir hands by cl1eir cons titu-
tion" ( I7 2).
Fifth., "'The question iscan a rninoricy in chisstate corne in and corn-
pela reacher co ceach d1ac the Bible is not true and n1akerhe parents of
rhesechildren pay theexpenses ofdie teacher co cell theirchildren what
chese people believe is false and dangerous?" (17 2). "And die parents
have a right co say cl1ac no teacher paid by cl1eir n1oney shall rob cheir
cl1ildren offuicl1 in God and send d1e1n back co cl1eir hon1e,sskeptica,l
infidels, or agnostics, or acheisrs" {17 5).
Sixth, Bryan acracked evolutiondirectly, asserting: "My concenrion
is that the evolutionary hypothesis is nor a theory, your honor " (176)
because ir. h as never been confiro1ed by face rhac ther e is "a single spe-
cies, the origin of ,vhicl1could be er-aced roanod1er species" (177 ). He
clailned, "the Christian believes ,nan con1es fron1above, but cl1ee volu-
cionisr believes he n1usc have co,ue fro,n belo,v" (174).Heshowed rhe
evolution treein Hunter's C i vic Biology book froru,vhich ScopesaJJeg-
edly had r.aughc{174). Hecited Darwins' Descentoflvfan {18 7 1 ), where
Darwin said tnan carne fron1che "ne,v,vorld . . . 1nonkey" (176).
Sevench, Bryan affirrned his belief chac (1 ] " rhe Bible is che Word of
God ... [2] die record ofdie Son ofGod, (3] che Saviour of me world,
(4) born ofche virgin Mary,(5) crucified and (6] risen again.23111ac Bible
isnocgoing co bedrivenoucof d1iscourt byexpercswhoco111ehundreds
23 . He rc Bryan states six of th e fu nd ame ntal d octri nes that charac te rize a
"fundamCJ'l list."
s8 Creation and the Courts

of miles to testify that they can reconcileevolution \vich itsancestor in

the jungle, with 1nan 1nade by God in His in1age . .. (181- 182).

CLARENCE DARRO\X''S RESPONSE

Darro,v read a quotefrou1Bryan, in which Bryan said, "le isthe ducy
ofd1e university . . . co be rhegreacscorehouse ofdie wisdon1of theages,
and to leest.udencs go there, and learn, and choose." He continued me
quote,"Everychanged idea in the world has had itsconsequences. Every
new religious doctrine has c reated its victims" (182).' The ilnplication
see1ned to have been thac chis \vas inconsistent wid1,vhac Bryan was
nO\Varguing.

MALONE'S RESPONSE
ACLU attorney Malone n1ade a variety of observations. His con1-
1nencs ranged fro1n die trivial co che profound. 'Tiiefollowing isa st1111-
111ary of his n1ain points.
Firsc, he correc,dv noced diac "ic does see,n co 1ne mac \Ve have'gone
far afield in diis discussion" (183).
Second, he chen proceeded co criticize Bryan, whoui he classed as
"dieleader of die prosecution," for beinga "propagandist" and1uaking
a"speecli against science" (183).
1hird, hecharged charcreationists \Vanr everyone co believe che\Vorld
isonly"6,000 yearsold,""che world wasllar," and cheearrh is"checenrer
of che universe" (183).
Fourm, in response to die Darwin quore about nian coming froni
n1onkeys, he noted thechange in evolucionisr,s', iews,asking:"Haven't
welearned anythingin seventy-fiveyears?" Healso likened creationists
to d1e Ro1nan Carliolic persecution of Galileo, who opposed me view
diac die sun 1noves around dieeardi (183).
Fi.fi:h,he perceived dieconflict asoneofideas"by n1enof two fr.unes
of mind": rheological andscienrjfic.11ierheological 1nindhedescribed
asonediat wasclosed, established by rhe revelation ofGod in the Bible,
which it believed should be widerstood literally.111escientific1nind, by
conuast, was open, in progress, changing, and nor based on any reve-
The Scop,s Trial (, 91;) 59
lacion frorn God. le believed chat the Bible isonly an inspiration and a
guide, a set of ideasand sernions (184).
Sixth, "'ib is theory ofevolution, inone forrn oranother, has been in
Tennessee since 1832, and I think it is incunibenc on the prosecution
co incroduce ac lease one person in chescare of Tennessee whose n1orals
have been affected by the reaching of chis theory" (184).
Seventh, if the state was correct in its understanding of the anci-
evolurion la,v, rhen"or" and nor"and" should haveconnected rhe rwo
paresof ic. Bue ic does not, and so the scace111ust prove cwo things, not
just one.
Eighth, he asserred, che Bible is nor a book of science. Hence, rhe
state is wrong in clainiing in effect that "only che Bible shall be taken
as an authority on the subject of evolution in a course on biology"
(185).
Ninth, in response co the judge's question heaffirrned his belief chat
"dte dieo ryofevolution is reconcilablewith diestoryofdivine creation
as caught in die Bible" (186). Hence, the defense does not believe that
God created the first ,nan "complete all aconce" ( I86).
Tenth, !Vialone uttered one of the ,nose profotu1d lines in d1e trial:
"For God's sake let the children have rheir tninds kept open-close no
doors co their kno,vledge; shur no door fro,n me,n. Make che discinc-
rion bet\veenrheologyand science. Let rheni haveboth. Let dieni both
be caught" ( l 87).
Eleventh, Malone also niadeso,ne profow1d scacen1encsabout crum:
""Diere is never a duel with the crud1.1lie crud1 always,vinsand we are
not afraid of ir.n1e rruch is no coward. n1e trum does nor need die
la,v. n1e truth does not need the forces of governrn e nc. . . . n1e crud1
is imperishable, eternal and inunorcal and needs no hunian agency co
supporc ir" (l87).
r,velfih, brinuning with opri1nisni, Malone proclairn e d: "\Xie are
ready. We feel ,ve stand ,vidi progress. We feel ,ve srand ,virh science.
\Xei feel westand wid1 intelligence.\Xei feel we scand ,vich fi1nda1ne ntal
freedo,n in Anierica" (188) .
60 Cn.atfon and the CuurtS

0ARR0\X' Aoos SOME COMMENTS

Clarence Darrow then added son1e choughcs of his O\vn. First, "\Ve
say char God created 1nanout ofche dust of theearch issi1nply afigure
of speech" (188).
Second, when asked:"[Do) you recognize God behind thefirsrspark
of life?" Darro,v ans,vered: "\Ve expect 01osr of our wirnesses to cake
diat vie,v. As co n1e I don't pretend co have any opinion on ic" (188).
Third,''there isnosuch cliingasspecies- cliat isall nonsense.Science
does not talk about species....Itis a process we are inceresced in and
the Biblestory is not inconsistent ,vich rhat" (189).
Fourth, co che judge's question as co whedier life has a "conunon
source" of"one cell," Darrow answered, "\Veil, I an1 nor quire so clear,
but I chink it did. It all can1e fron1protop lasn1w
, hicli isa bearer ofl ite
and probably allcan1e fron1one cell ... " (189) .
Fili:h,Darrow ad1nitted hunians have reason "very niuch greater than
any ocher animal," bur never answered the judge's question as co ,vhere
ic canie fro1n ( I89).
Sixth, when asked about die evolutionists' view on inunorcalicy, he
repliedchat"Evolution, asa theory, is concerned wid1 dieorganis1n of
1nan. Che1nisrry does nor speak ofinunortalicy and hasn't anything co
do wich it" (189).

S T E\X1 A RT REFOCUSES THE ISSUE

Attorney General Stewart cried co gee che discussionback on crack.
He1nade several points.
First, he insisted chat che purpose of thelegislaturein passingchelaw
in question cook precedence over any disputable construction in chat
la,v(l90, 192,193).
Second, he noted diac there was nodiing co ,vhicl1expert ,vicnesses
could testify,except to whether evolutionwasconsiscenc with che Bible.
But rhe people of Tennessee had already decided on that issue in rhe
,vording of die la,v (191-192).
1J1ird, "it is the duty of diecourt co never place anabsurd construc-
rion upon an acc. And I sub1nic char d1econsrrucrion, as I understand
it, they insist upon would be absurd" (192).
 61
Fourth, it isalsoa ,natterofprecedent la\v rhac"In construing ascac-
uce che1neaning is co be decennined, not fro1n special,vords in a single
sentence or section but fro,n rhe ace taken as a whole . . . and viewing
thelegislationin the light of itsgeneral purpose" (193).
Fili:h, ""Il1ey say chis is a bactle between religion and science. Ifie is,
I \vane co serve notice now, in rhe na,ne ofrhegreat God, chat I am on
tl1esideof religion" (197). "Isayscientific investigation (about origins]
is nothing buca theoryand will never beanythingbut a theory"(198).
"I say, bar tl1e door, and not allo,vscience to enter" (197).
Sixtl1, n1ere should noc beany clash benveen science and religion.
. . . Ho\v did it occur? It occurred fro1n teaching chat infideliry, chat
agnosricis1n, rhac which breeds in the soul of a child, infidelity, athe-
isn1, and drives hi.01 fron1 che Bible chat his father and ,nomer raised
hi,n by, which . . . drives n1an's sole hope of happiness and of religion
and of freedon1 of tl1oughc, and ,vorsh ip, and Aln1ighry God, fron1
him" (197).
Seventh,"Yes, discard that theory of the Bible [about creation]-
duo,v it a,vay, and lee scientific developn1enr progress beyond n1an's
ori gin. And the next ming you kno,,,, chere will be a legal battlesraged
\vitl1in rhecorners of thisscare, char challengeseven perniiccinganyone
co believe chat Jesus Christ . . . was born of a virgin-challenge char,
and che next srep will be a battlesraged denying che right co reach chat
chere,vas a resurrecrion, until finally tl1ac precious book and its glori-
ous teaching upon which chis civilization has been built will be taken
fron1 us" (197- 198).

Sixth Da y (July I 7)

OPENING PRAYER

On the sixth day of che Scopes trial, Dr. Easnvood opened \vich a
prayer to"Our Father and our God," prayingfor"justice" in the courts
and "blessings" on tl1e courc, jury, counsel, and che press "in che na,ne
ofour Lord and Master Jesus Christ. Anien" (201).
 Creation and the CourtS

THE RULING OF THE}UDGE ABOUT EXPERT

TESTLMONY

n1econclusion of the judge's ruling on ,vhether co allow experc ces-

cin1ony ,vas asfollo,vs:

ln the linal analysis this courc, after a most earnest and careful consid-
eration, has reached theconclusion that under the provisions of the act
invohed in thiscase, it is made unlawful thereby to teach in the public
schools of thestateof Tennessee d,e theory that man descended from a
lower order of animals. If d1e court iscorrect in d1is, thend1e evidence
of experts would shed no light on the issues. Therefore, the court is
content to sustain the motion of the attorney general to exclude the
expert testimony (203).

THE ENSUING DISCUSSION

Alter thedefense insisted on getting theevolutionists'cestin1ony into

che record, Sre,vart cliarged chat, "le is a known face chat che defense
consider chi s a carnpaign of educarion co gee before che people d1eir
ideas of evolution and scientific principles" (205). Defense attorney
Malone denied d1is inunediar.ely.

DARROW'S ANGRY STATEMENT

Afi:er Bryan asked for and ,vas given rhe righc ro cross-exan1ine
rhe expert witnesses, Darrow shoe back: "\Ve ,vanr co sub111it ,vhar
,ve,vane to prove. Thar isall,ve wane co do. If d1ac ,viii not enlighten
the court cross-exa1ninatio n of Mr. Bryan ,vo1ild not en!ighren the
court" (206). He then added, "\Xlhac,ve are interested in, counsel
well kno,vs ,vhat rhe judg1nent and verdict in chis case ,viii be I
do not understand ,vhy ... a bare suggestion of anyching chac is per-
fecdy con1petenc on our pareshou ld be i111n1ediately ove r-ruled."ro
chis che judge retorted, "I hope you do not ,nean co reflect upon the
court?" Darro,v snapped: "\Veil, your honor has the right co hope"
( 206- 207).
 'll1e court agreed, ho,vever, for rhe purposesof appeal, co allow rhe
experc tesci1nony to goon rhe record.2-!1he quescion ,vaslefi:open asco
whether che testin1ony would be,vrirten or oral,and courc,vasdisn1issed
early, at 10:30 a.m., until Monday 1norning.

Sevent h Da y ( ]11/y zo)

OPENING PRAYER
A 1ninister prayed co "Ahnighry God, our Father in Heaven," and
gave chanks for "aU the kindly influences"on our lives and ackno,vl-
edged that '\ve have been stupid enough to n1atch our h111nan rn inds
with revelations of the infinite and eternal." He prayed for God's"guid-
ance and directing presence . . . in all things . . . ,ve ask for Christ's
sake. Ainen" (211).

DARROW CITED FORCONTEMPT OF COURT

1hejudge read a seccion fron1 che previous day's record and con-
cluded: "I feel chat furcher forbearance would cease to be a virtue, and
in an effort co procecc the good nau1e of 1ny state, and to protect the
dignity ofchecourt over which I preside, I a1n conscrained and in1peUed
to call upon rhesaid Darrow, co kno,v what he has to say why heshould
not be dealt with for conte1npt" (212).

LETTER FROM GOVERNOR PEAY

'l11e defense requesced d1at they be allo,ved co read a leccer fron1 the
governor in which heopined d1ac, "le will be seen chat chis bill [che la,v
that Scopes was accused of violating) does not require any particular
d1eory or interpretation of die Bible regarding n1an's creation co be
caught in che public schools." He furd1er offered his vie,v mac "The
,videst lacjcude ofincerprecarion ,vill re1nain as co the cin1e and1nanner
ofGod'sprocess in Hiscreacionofman"(213). Headded, "Afi:er careful
exruninarjon I can find nod1ingofconsequence in the books now being
24. n,e Stopesverd ict was appa led tQ the Te,messec Supreme Co ur t, where it w-as uphe.l<l
in I927.
 Creation and the Co urts

caught in our schools with ,vhid1 rhis bill,vill interfere in the slightest
rnanner" (2 14).
1l1e judge noted,"'TI1ac is che governor's opinion about ic;' bucadded,
"wid1all deference coGov. Peay- [ he) does nocbelong codie interpret-
ingbranch of thegovernnienr. His opinionofwhat diela,v n1eans... is
of no consequence ac all in the court, and could nor have any bearing,
and I exclude the scacerne nt" ( 214).

DEFENSE ATTEMPTS TO OFFER NEW TEXTBOOK

AS EVI D EN CE
ACLU accorney Hays offered as evidence a ne,v science cexrbook
char had been adopted tor che schools since the Scopestrial had begun.
Sections ,vere read where Danvin is praised for having co ntributed co
"a great parr of [die world's] 1nodern progress in biology" (215) and
where ic is explained ho,v sonie prin1aces "evolved (developed) along
special lines of d1eir o,vn." Bue che book added, "none of chern are co
be dioughc of as die source or origin of che hwnan species. le is ti.1cile,
d1ere fore, co look for die priniicive stock of che htunan species in any
existing anitnals" (215).2s

FURTHER DISCUSSION OVER TESTIMONY

Conrinued wrangling over the law ensued, wid1 defenseattorney
Hays charging that che law ,vas "un reasonable" and, therefore, un-
conscicucional. He insisted ch at chat was why they ,vanced co offer
evidence (216). Attorney General Sce,varc conrinued co insist d1at
che defense only wanted die evidence on che record for propaganda
purposes: "I scared chac che prin1ary purpose of che defense is co go
ahead wirh chis la,vsuit for rhe purpose of cond ucring an educational
ca1npaign and say co che publice [sic] through the press cheir idea of
their theo ry" (2 I8). 1l1e judge gave an hour fo r che de fense co st11n -
n1arizefor diecourt whac rheir witnesses wanted cosay before he,nade
2 5. ItwouId appear that this sro.teme nt wascarefi1llycrafted to supp<'->r t vo lution while at
r.hesame time app<'3ring co <fonyit.1 hrec thingsare no ce worrhy in this regarj(: ( l )'Ihcbook
speaks ,bout the c,..o lutionof primnes, (2) it does not dm )' d\e evolutionof 01.an but simply
i<ays man d id not evohc fromany "existing anirnals," and (3) it impl ies that scie.ntists arc .still
look ingfor"the source ororig.in of tit<hurnan specit ;
 65
his final decision on ,11hed 1er to allo,v their tescilnony in che record
(though noc for che jury, nor co decide che case, only for the record
for appealing the case).

SUMMARY OF R EV. \v'ALTER C. W H ITAK ER'S

TESTIMONY
Defense attorney Haysdescdbed \Valter C. \Vhicaker, an Episcopal
rector,asa"Christian and anevolutionist at thesatne tio1e"(223) . Hays
said \Vhiraker's resrilnony ,vould beas follows: "As one,vho for rhircy
years has preadied Jesus Chriseasdie Son ofGod ... I ani unable co see
any concradiccion berween evolution and Chrisrianicy." Healso ,vould
say, "a n1an can be a Chrisrian ,vid1our caking every ,vord of me Bible
literally" (223).

SUMMARY OF $HAILER MATHEWS'S TESTIMONY

$hailer Mache,vs, Dean of che University of Chicago Divinicy
Schoo l, ,vas quoced as saying, "a correct unde rstand ing of Genesis
shows chat its account of creacion isno1nore denied byevolution than
it is by me la,vs of lighc, eleccricicy, and gravitation. 1l1e Bible deals
with religion" (224). Further, "1l1ere are cwo accounts in Genesis of
thecreacion of1nan.111ey are not identical and at points differ,videly.
It ,vould be difficult co say whidl is the teaching of the Bible" (224).
Further, "so far froo1opposing d1e Genesis account of che creation of
n1an, che d1eory ofevolution inso1ne degree resen1bles it.Bue the book
ofGenesis isnocintended to ceach science, but to teach theactivity of
God in nature and d1espiritualvalueof n1an" (224). n1us,"The theory
ofevolution isan atteinpc co explain the process in detail.... Genesis
andevolution arecon1plen1entray co each ocher, Genesis einphasizing
rhe divine firsc cause and science die derails of the process through
which God works" (225). He noted thac "'This view chat evolution
is not contrary co Genesis is held by n1any conservative evangelical
meologians, such as Strong, Hall, Micon, Harris and Johnson. Mul-
lins also holds to dieistic evolution"(225). Od1er staten1ents were
read into die record.
66 Creation and the Courts

DARROW'S APOLOGY FOR CONTEMPT

After lunch, Clarence Darrow apologized co che judge, saying, "Of
course, your honor will ren1e1nber chat whatever took place was hurried,
one d1ing followed another and the truth is l did not know just how
ic looked uncil l read over che 1ninures as your honor did and when I
read d1en1over I \vas sorry d1ac I had said ic" (225). The judge replied
inpare,"Myfriend,sand Col. Darrow, rhe Man d1at I believecanie i.nco
rhe ,vorld ro save n1an fro1n sin, rhe Man chac died on d1e cross char
n1an mighc be redeen1ed,caughc chac it was godly co forgive....111e
Savior died on me cross pleading with God for me 111e11 who crucified
Hin1. I believe in char Chrise. I believe in rhese principles. I accepc Col.
DaHow's apology (226).

FURTHER TESTIMONY
Ascace1nenc ,vas taken fro1n Rabbi Rosen,vasser which includedthe
noracion chat rhe KingJarnes rranslarjon was inaccura.re, including"cre-
ate" (fron1che Hebre,v bara,which should becranslared "secin niorion")
(228). He concluded: "If rhe Hebrew Bible were properly rranslared
and understood, one ,vould noc find any conflicr ,vith rhe cheory of
evolucion whicll would prevent hin1 fro111accepcing borh" (229).
Dr. H. E. Murkecc ,vas alsocited as saying: "\1(/e would also be able
co prove char che Bible, properly i.nrerpreced, does noc conflicr ,vim
d1e cheory ofevolution ... " (229). Ocher cesrinionies ,vere raken on
chis san1e issue.

STATEMENT OF THE DEFENSE

111e defense added their own sratement: "Of course, the defense, as
la,vyers, rake no posicion on me crud1 of che scories of rhe Bible, buc
we wish co scace chac we should be able co prove fro,n learned Biblical
scholars char che Bible is both a literal and figuracivedocurnenc,char God
speaks by parables,allegories, son1eri1nes literally andson1ecimes spirit u-
ally" (230) . Ciring Psaln1 139 :15- 16 abour God fonning an e,nbryo
in che ,vo1nb, chey concluded: "Here d1ere is a discincc sracenienc chac
die hu1nan body ,vas creaced by die process ofevolution. Also Ron1an
[sic) VIII 22says: 'For we know char the ,vhole creation groaned1and
cravaileth in pain cogecher until now'" (230)."In ocher words,,ve shoukl
prove thac che Bible is subject co various incerprecacions depending
upon chelearningand understanding ofche individual, and chat,ifchis
is true, there is nothing necessarily inconsistent benveen one's 1u1de-r
sranding of the Bible and evolution." "They added, "TI1ey n1ay accept
che,n as legends or parables, and d1us not find d1e1n inconsistent wid1
anyscientific cheory" (231).Strangelyand ironically, d1edefense ended
dieir scace1nenc with a quotation fron1 2 Ti,nochy 4:3-4 (Goodspeed
translation), which declares, "Tiie tinie will conie when diey ,vill noc
lisren to ,vholeson1e instruction, but will overwhelni d1en1selves with
teachers co suic weir ,vhilns and tickle theirfancies, and diey will nun
fro1n listening to che truth and ,vander offali:er fiction" (231)!

OTHER SCIENTISTS OFFER STATEMENTS

Anduopologisc Fay-Cooper Coleargued chat"evidence abundantly
justifies"(235)evolution. Hecited vestigial (useless) organs,si.Inilaricies
ofanin1als, and hun1an-like ancestors of n1an co support evolution. He
referred co "Pilcdo,vn" ,nan, subsequently exposed as a fraud (237), as
wellas"Neanderchal,""Java,"and"Cro,nagnon."Heconcluded, "Fron1
cheabove icsee,nsconclusive diacicis i,npossible co teach and1ropology
or me prehistory of1nan ,vimoue teaching evolution" (237- 238).
\Vilbur A. Nelson,Tennessee scare geologis, trevie,ved che rock for-
n1ations without rnentioninga single "1nissing link," yetconcluded that
such infonnacion ,vould not have been possible"unless die teachingof
evolution had been pennitted" (239). Tiie only real evidence oflered
for evolution was d1ac "the relative ages ofdie rockscorrespond closely
co che degrees of coniplexity of organization sho,vn by che fossils in
d1ose rocks" (241).
One geologist, Kinley F. Mather of Harvard, went so far as co say,
'"l11ereare in truth no n1issing Links in die record ,vhich connects1nan
wiili ocher n1euibers ofdie order of pri1naces" (247 ). Headuiicced chac
"it ispossible toconsrruct a,nechanisitc,evolutionary hypothe siswhich
rules God our of die ,vorld," bur it is not necessary because a theistic
evolutionary n1odelhas boch (2 48).Heinsisced d1arscience and religion
cannot conflict because die latter deals wid1 die ulciniace causeand rhe
68 Creation and the Courts

forrner,vich iln1nedia1e causes. Hence, "Science has noceven aguess as

ro che original source or sources of inaner. . . . For science rhere is no
beginning and no ending; all acceprable cheories of earch origin are
theories of rejuvenation rad1er than ofcreation- fro1nnothing" (248).
Yee he ,vas convinced chat "knowing che ages of che rocks has led co
betcer knowledge of die Rock of Ages" (250).
Zoologist Maynard Metcalf contended chat "intelligent reaching of
biology or incelligenc approach coanybiological science is in1possible if
rheestablished faceofevolution isoniicced" (251).Headded,"Nor only
hasevolution occurred; it isoccurring today and occurringeven under
n1an's control" (253)."Evolution isa presentobservable phenon1enon
as,veil as an esrablished face of past occurring" (253).
Zoologist \'v'incerton C. Curtis of die University of Missouri ad-
n1irted rhar creation ofdi.fferenc types ,vas noc only a "possibility" bur
wasaccually held bysoniescienciscs: "One ofche pre-Darwinideas,vas
char eadi aninial, ,vhile created separately, was neverdieless fonned in
accordance ,virh a certain typechat die Creator had in mind,hence che
resemblance" (257). Indeed, rhis vie,vofa co1nn1on Creator vs.a coin-
111011 ancestor continued afi:er Darwin a1nong son1e scienrists (Louis
Agassiz of Harvard beingone) and isgrowing today. In spiceof chis,and
in spire of rhe adtnission (by Curtis, quoting fro1n a leccer wriccen ro
hini) chat "As to the nature of chis process of evolution, ,ve have111any
conjectures, but litcle positive knowledge," Cunisconcluded, again quot-
ingfroni rheleccer, "Lee us then proclain1 in precise and un1niscakable
language that our faith in evolution is unshaken" (259).
Horacio Hackett New,nan, zoologist ac die Universityof Chicago,
argued fro1n 1nicro- co 1nacroevolucion while also ackno,vledging che
difficulty of knowing che history of evolution ary developnienc: "For
che scudy of past evolutionary events we use che histor ical mediod so
successfuUy etnployed inarchaeology and ancient hiscory; forrhesrudy
of present evolution we n1ake use of rhe n1echods of direcr observation
and experin1enc"(264). By co ntrast,'\ve ad n1ic chat che evidences of
pasr evolution are indirecr and circu1nsranrial .. ." (264). Strangely, he
rhen proceeded co conipare evolution co graviry, clainiing char "1he
evidences upon whidi die law of gravity are [sic] b-ased are no less in-
direct than chose supporting che principle of evolution"(264).26 He
clain1ed there are 180 vestigial org-ans ,vhich are "evidence rhar n1an
has descended fron1 ancestors in ,vhicll these organs were fiinccional,"
including d1e "abbreviatedtail" at the end of che backbone (268). He
rejected cheold creationists' vie"' chat"species" area"fixedand definite
asse1nblage sucl1asone would expect it cobe ifspecifically created asan
inunucable rhing" (270). He called "special crearion" a "rival explana-
tion" co evolution(280).

BEFORE THE JURY IS CALLED BACK INTO THE

COURTROOM
Just before the jury ,vas called back into the courcroo1n, Oarro,v
protested cl1e presenceofasign near cl1e jury box which declared,"Read
Your Bible" (280) . Scare'saccorneyMcKenzie asked, "Why should ir be
renioved? It is their defense and stated before court, char d1ey do nor
deny rhe Bible, rhac rhey expecr rointroduce proofro n1ake it harn1oniz.e
\Vhy should we reu1ove me sign cauciouing people co read me \Xford
ofGod jusr rosatisfy rhe odiers in che case?" (281). Darro,v suggested
balancing it with a sign on reading "H unter's Biology" or "Read your
evolution(282).Thecourt re111oved rhe sign, lesr anyone beoffended,
and called for che jury.

THE DEFENSE ASKS FOR ROMAN CATHOLIC AND

JEWISH BIBLES AS EVIDENCE
n1edefense asked for Cacholic and Jewish Bibles as evidence char
there are differences in cl1e Bible, not just in incerprecacions of it."Jh e
judgeallowed for die Catholic Bible in English, bur said"Idon't believe
it is worth fiissing over. I don't mink there is any conflict in it" (283).
Stewart re1ninded che court cl1ar die"indiccn1enc,vas based on che
26. n 1is is hardlytl1e C3$e,since gravityisatheorywhosetruthcan beconmtntlyancldirectly
verifiedill che pre!>e tlt by me3:;aurit1g th e theoryo ver ag;iiJU t rhc obi:en 'able a11d r nrting laws
of natur<-. wh ere.ls rna<'.:.roevo lut ion cannot be so o1t.asu red. Itisa thc.ory abo ut past uno bserved
ev<:nt s o f o riginwhich arc not recurring in th<:p res<:nt and , h en ce, are n o m o reobservable than
a histo rical e vent or a rchaeo logical cvC'l'lt o f w hich w e h a \'e re1na
ins from the past.
70 Creation and the Courts

KingJa1nes Version of the Bible" (283),and d1at che Bible phrase in the
indicnnent was not in question (284).

THE DEFENSE CALLS BRYAN AS A WITNESS

[n a surprise,nove, che defense called \Villia,n Jennings Bryan as a
,vitness,and he,vas,villing coco1nply, though he,vas not actually sworn
inasa witness.lhe next nvency pagescoucainingBryan'scescin1onywere
not an official part ofdie trial and were struck &0111 rhe record the next
day (304). Nonetheless, diey contain fascinating exchanges chat ,vere
highly sensationalized in che n1edia. Bryan testified thathe believed the
Bible was the inspired \Vord of God and mac "everything in che Bible
should be accepted as it is given there; sonie of the Bible is given iUus-
rratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of cheearth'" (285). He believed
all the1niracles in the Bible including thacJonah wasliterally swallowed
bya great fish (285). Heeven ,vent so far asco say he ,vo11Jd believe the
Bible, if ic had said Jonah s,vallo,ved rhe ,vhale, though he qualified ir
bysaying,"the Bible doesn't makeasexcreme statementsasevolutionists
do"(285). Bryan confessed his belief thac the sun stood still acJoshua's
conunand, though he did not believe chis was opposed to rhe scientific
belief that rheearrh goes around rhesun. It wasa n1iracle chat was, vrir-
ten in "language that could be understood then" (286).
Although defense arrorneys arten1pred co srop rhe irrelevant pro-
ceedings, since Bryan was willing die judge allowed his testiniony to
continue. Bryan cliarged rhac die ACLU acrorneys "did noc con1e here
co cry diis case.l11ey canie co cry revealed religion. I ant here codefend
it, and they can ask111e any question diey please" (288).Bryan accepted
rhe hisroricicy of Noah's Rood (288-289), and che superiority of che
Christian religion (291- 292).He denied char die eard1 is only about
6,000 yearsold (298)and chat the "days"ofGenesiswere only 24hours
long(299).As towhether theeanh isyoungorold,Bryan said,"I donoc
d1ink ic ilnporranr whether we believe one or the ocher" (302). \Vhen
asked by Ste,varc what the purpose of die defense attorney's questions
,vas, Bryan rerorced: ""!he purpose iscocast ridicule oneverybody,vho
believes in dieBible,and I a.in perfectly,villingchar die,vorldshall ki10,v
cl1acdiesegenrle,nen have noorlier purpose rlian ridiculingevery Chris-
The Si:op,; T rial (, 92; ) 71

rian who believesin rhe Bible"(299). Headded,"I an) silnply crying co

protect the ,vord of God against thegreatest atheist or agnostic in the
United $races" (299). Bryan did not know where Cain got his,vife but
,vas concenc co believe it because che Bible said so (302). He believed
in a literal Ada1n and Eve and a licel'a.l fall (303).
Bryan's lase words ,vere,"1l1e only purpose Mr. Darro,v has is ro
slur at che Bible. . . . I ,vane d1e world co know rhac chis 1nan, ,vho does
not believe in a God, is crying co use a courc in rennessee ... ro slur ac
it, and ,vhile ir ,viii require cin1e, l an1,villing ro rake it." Darro,v's lase
words were: "l objecr ro your srace1nenc. l a111 exe1npting you on your
fool ideas chat no intelligent Christian on earth believes" (304). \Virh
rhac rhe court adjoun1ed for rhe day.

Eighth Day (July.2 I)

OPENING PRAYER
Dr. Can1per prayed, "O h God, our Heavenly Fad1er. . . . \Ve pray1l1y
blessing upon each one chat has a pare in d1is courr here today. . . . \l(Te
ask it in rhe na1neofJesus Christ. An1en" (305).

BRYAN'S TESTIMONY $TRUCK FROM THE RECORD

Ihe judge expressed regret rhac he had allo,ved Bryan's cescin1ony
because of"an over-zeal co be absolutely fair ro all parries" (305). He
struck it fro1n the record.

DARRO\X' ENTERS PLEA Of GUILTY

Darro,v claiined, ",ve have no ,virnesses ro offe r, no proof ro offer
on the issues rhac the courr haslaid down here. . . . l chink co save ri111e
we ,viii ask rhe court ro bring in rhe jury and inscrucr the jury to find
rhedefendant guilty" (306). Bryan pleaded ,vich che press co be just in
presenting his response co their report of his restin1ony the previous
day, insisting that they should also print "rhe religious attitude of die
people who con1e down here ro deprive the people of Tennessee of the
right co run their o,vn schools"(308).
72 Creation and the Courts

T H E ] IJRY fS BROUGHT IN AND CHARGED

' Die jury was then brought in and instructed asto the proper construc-
tion of the la\v: they ,vere to understand the statute as only forbidding
the reachingofevolurion and 1naking noassertion about what die Bible
reaches aboutcreation. Tiiejudgedeclared, "youare nocconcerned asro
,vhecher or not chis is a theory denying thescory of the divine creation
of nian as taughr, for die issuesas diey have been finally n1ade up in chis
case do not involve diac question" (310). He pointed out chat he had
previously ruled diac chesecond pan of chescarure 1ne relyexplainedd1e
first; itdid not1.nakeit necessary rhac rhe reacher also reach the biblical
vie,v on creation (whatever char niay be).
n ie judge reniinded die jury char die fine, if che defendant were
found guilty, n1usc be benveen $100 and $500. He defined r.he cern1
"beyond reasonable doubt": not beyond aU doubt, but beyond any
doubt chat "would prevent your n1ind restingeasy as co theguilr of rhe
defendant"{310).
Darro,v cold the jury thac"mere isnodispute about mefaces. Scopes
did not goon thestand, becausehecould not deny thesraternents niade
by [hisstudents]"(31I). Darrow added,"wecannot.evenexplain toyou
char we chink you should recurn a verdict of nocguilcy. \Xie do notsee
how you could. We do nocask it. \'v'e chink ,ve willsave our point and
cake it co che higher court .. : (31I).

BRYAN'S LAST SPEECH

WilliainJenningsBryai'is closing ren1arksare best sununarized in die

foUo,ving [WO excerpts: "Here has been fought out a Httle caseoflicde
consequence asacase, bur the,vorld is inreresred because ir raisesan issue,
and diac issue willso1ne day beserried right, ,vherher it isseeded onour
sideor theocherside" (316). Headded,"'01epeople will decennine d1is
issue.n1ey ,vill takesides upon chis issue....no111acrer,vhacour vie,vs
111aybe, we ought nor only desire, but pray, mac char which is righc will
prevail, whed1er it be our way or son1ebody else's" (3 I7).
The ScopesTrial (192;) 73
DARROW'S LAST SPEECH
In his su,nniary, ClarenceDarro,v said, "I chink ch is case ,viii be
renie,nbered because ic is che firsc case of chis sore since we scopped
trying people in A1nerica for ,vicchcrafc because here ,ve have done
our besr co runi back che ride char has soughc ro force icself upon
chis- upon chis rnodern world, of cesting every fact in science by a
religious dicruni" (317).

BENEDICTION
Dr.Jones closed in prayer, reciting 2 Corindiians 13:14: "Mayche
grace ofour LordJesusC hrist, theloveofGod and dieconiniu,uon and
fellowship of d1e Ho ly Chose abide widl you all. A,nen" (319).

'TI1eAppeal of the D ecision

Scopes was found guilry and ordered ro pay a fine, bur die fine was
appealed and overturned on a cechnicaliry. The judge had issued che
n1ini1nal fineof$ I00, but according co the law che jury should haveset
rheaniounr, nor rhe judge. Legally, dieend of mecasewaslikea rornado
ending ,vidi a whinipec. Of course, die issue lives on and perhaps will
never die chis side ofecernicy. The Scopes trial passed incohistory, buc
dielegendsurvive,sfueled bydieficcional1novielnherit theWi nt!, fro,n
which die 1nedia sho" ' clips,vhenever che issue resurfaces.

So me Implications of the Trial

Iniporranr i1nplicacions ,nay be drawn fron1 die Scopestrial for suc-
ceeding clashes in the courcs. Several ,viii be nored here, as rhey ,viii
bear on our furrher discussion.

I . Tbe Frarning ofthe Issue: ReligionAgainst Science

By rhe very ,vording of die la,v ar issue in che Scopes crial, che issue
becanie fra1ned fro1n irs inception as one of religion against science.
 74 Creation and the Co urts

'This unfortuDate shado,v has haunted every1J1ajor creation/evolution

trial sincecl1en,even cl1ough proponents of creation havestrenuously
acr.enipted to niake it a purely scientific issue by calling it "scientific
creation" or "incell igenc design" (see chapter 7). In the 1ninds of me
n1edia and, through rhen1, in the n1inds of the general public, the
issue is still religion vs. science. Overconiing chis n1ind-set has been
one of cl1e niajor challenges for cl1e creationist n1ovenienc. To dace,
chechallenge has nor been niec. An i1uporcanc accen1pc co do chis ,vas
squelched so as nor co be available foe cliecrucial Suprenie Court de-
cision in Edward, (1987).111is will be discussed in derail in chapters
3, 4, and 7.

2 . The Popularity of Science

Another i1nponanc factor in d1is debate has been die popularity

of science and the seizure of the "high ground" by rhe evolutionists.
11ie successes of science are voluniinous, and che practical effects of
chese successes are felt by everyone. AHacking science in d1e nanie
of religion has nor had great success in niodern cinies. Since die vase
, n ajoriry of scienrisrs, e n brace evolut io n, it is noc popular in educated
circles co attack evolution. Adding co the probleni, ,nose religious
leaders, including early fund:unental ists like A. A. Hodge, B. B. \Var-
field, Janies Orr, and even the Baptist theologian August.us Strong
havee1nbraced theistic evolution as a viable solution co the problen1.
Having ch is option ope,n nakes it n1ore d ifficult for those ,vho clain1
char "evolution isagainst God." Jvleanwhile, naturalistic evolucioniscs
have been successfulin exploiting the courts co their advantage against
the creation and inrelligenr design nioven1ents ,vhileat the san1e ri1ne
convincing d1ecourrs d1atcreation and intelligent design are no niore
dian acte1npcs by fundaniencalists co get d1eir religious vie,vs caught
in publicschool. Again, d1is n111sc be , bur never has been, successfully
overconie in a n1ajor court decision. A niajor hope co re,erse mis is
found in niy suppressed cesriniony (see chapter 4) and is spelled our
in cl1apter 7.
The ScopesTrial (192;) 75
3. TheA,nbiguity ofthe Tenn "Science"

Evolurion isconsidered science and iseven called a"face" byevolucion-

isrs. Creacion, of course, is noc rhoughc ofby che courrs afier Scopes as
sciencinc but as a biblical and religious cenec. Given these pre1nises in1-
plicit in the nrst n1ajorevolucion / c reationcourtcase, rhedeck isloaded
against creation, for its proponents acknowledge rhac it is sornething
taught in a religious book-the Bible-while evolution is abstracted
frorn any ofirs religious connotations and is portrayedaspwe"science."
Ho, veve,r rhere are c,vo difterenc kinds of science: origin science and
operacion science. Creation qualifies as a science under origin science
(see chapter 8).

4. TheA,nbiguity of the Tenn "Evolution"

Anod1er an1biguity in favor of rnacroevolucion is rhe failure coclearly

discingujsh beC\veen 1nicroevolcuion, ,vhich is an en1pirical science, and
n1acroevolution,which isbeingtaught asificcoo wereanen1piricalscience
when it is not (seechapter 8).1hisequivocation hasenabled evolution co
swvive thecourt rests oflegitin1acy ,vl1ile creation has not fared so ,veU.

S One-sided Use o/Freedo111 o/Speech

Another faccoc favoringevolucionovercreation in rhe public schools

is cheevolutionist.s'one -sideduseof"freedo111ofspeech"laws.Evolucion-
iscsin Scopesandlacerhavebeen ablecoconvincingly apply d1isfreedorn
toreachingilieir views,vhileson1eliow forgettingd1at d1ey should apply
ic equally co teaching creation. Afier aU, che sword of free speech has
cwoedges. lcapplies nor onlyco die proponent (e.g.,evolucioniscs) buc
also to his opponents (creacioniscs.)
Evolucioniscshave been successful in convincing the courrs that ic
is not che province of che courcs co n1ake laws "in the real1n of science
and in the realrn of religion" (55). Son1el10,v, the higher courts since
this tirne (that is, fron1 1968 to 2005) do not see chat they have rn ade
pronouncernencs in rl1ese very areas,and ineverycased1osepronotu1ce-
 Creation and the Co urtS

n1enst have favored one view over the ocher- just the opposite of the
fairnessfor which they had pleaded in Scopes!

15. Ernphasis onMinority Rights

Anorher issue creacionisrs have nor exploited ischar of1uinoriry righrs.

Evolucionisrs ,vere able co argue chis convincingly in rheir favor at che
Scopes crial. Buecreationists ,vere nor able co persuade d1ecourrs ofd1is
ac d1e 1YlcLeancase in Arkansas (1981-1982). Nor have subsequent
cases utilized d1is argu1nenc effecrively for reaching crearion alongside
evolurion. For if evolution could gain its righcs asa1ninoriry vie,v in d1e
scl1ools ,vhile d1e creacionisc 1najoricy was passing la,vs against it, d1en
why can'r crearioniscs do d1e sanie for dieir111inoricy view now?

The Conclusion of the Trial

John Scopes wasfound guiltyof violating theanti-evolutionlaw of the
staceofTennesseeand wasfined$100 by the judge.TI1e t rialadjourned,
the world went ho1ne, but it has not been che sauiesince.\Villia1n Jen-
nings Bryan died a shore ti1ne lacer, but the controversy lives on.
In die Scopes crial of 1925. the legal vicrory ,vas won bycreationists,
but the bigger and u1ucl11nore i1nporcant public relations victory had
been ,von by evolucioniscs- rhanks in large part to a biased 1nedia.
And even d1ough ic would be a ,vhole generation before the Supre1ne
Court in the 1968 Epperson case(seecl1apcer 2),vould strikedo,vn the
lase anci-evolucion law, nonetheles s, rhe theory of evolution, already
accepted by the incelleccual co1un1unity, continued to gain ground in
scl1ools and, through d1e1n, in che wider public arena. Ai1d it ,vas only
a niarcer of ci1ne before chis victory ,voi.tld work irs ,vay successfttlly
through the courrs (see chapters 3- 7).

Additional Reading
C o nkin, Paul M. W hen All the (;o,ls T,, mbl,tl: Darwinism, Scopes,anti American
lnteltect11als. Rowma n & Li,tlefid d , 1998.
The Scop-,Triol (191s) 77
Geisler,Norman, with A.F. Brooke IIand l\-(ark J.Keough 1heC,-ea/Qr in theCo1111-
1vom: Scopes11. l\-!ilford, ll-lic h.: 1'1ort ll-!cdia, 1982.
Geis ler, Norman, and Kerby Anderson. Origin Scienr.e: A Prupos11! for theCre11tion-
Evo/11Jio11 Cont1v'ile1-sy.G rand Rapids, ll-lich.: Baker, 1987.
Hitchcock.JamesT.heStepremeCo11rt11nd Religioni11Americ11n Life. Vol. I . Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.2004.
Hodge, C harles. "\'if hat Is Darwinism ?' In /hat I, Darwinism? A11d Other V,it-
ings 011 Scin u.e1111d Religion. Ed.ll-(ark A. Noll and David N. Livingrsone. Grand
Rapids, l\-(ich.: Baker,1994.
I. arson, Ed"""d J.S1111m1e1far the Gods. New York: Basic Books, 1997.
-- .1;-;nJ11nd Enor:1heAmerican Cont,wersyover Cr,11#on nndEuol11tion. New
York:Oxford University Press, 2003.
Moore.James R. 1bePost-DarwinianContrwersit$. New York:Cambridge University
Press,1979.
Robcrrs. Jon H. Dmwinis,-11 and the Divine in ATJJetir,i: Protestant !11telltc1t111Ls ,ind
Organic Evolutio,n1859- 1900.l\-(adiso n: University of \X/isco n s i n Press, 1988;
revised, Not re Dame. Ind.: Universit yof Notre Dame Press, 2001.
 r

The Epperson Supreme Court

Ruling (1968)

Background
Oneofd1e most i1nportant Suprerne Courccases about religiouslib-
erty is chacof Everson v. BoardofEducation ( 1947).1 111ecase involved
a challenge co a NewJersey la,v allowing for parents who were sending
d1eir children co private schools co be reimbursed by local aud1orities
for che cosc of bus fare. Iron ic-ally,even d1ough che la,v ,vas upheld as
constitutional,Justice Hugo Black, who wrot.e fo r die rn ajority,set in
n1ocion a tide of dlinkingd1ac would be felt do,vn to die present day.
Ja,nes Hitchcock explains,"Black ended his opinion by pronouncing,
'' Diefirst.arne ndn1enthaserecreda wall between church and state, that
,val! rnust be kept high and in1pregnable. \Xle could not approve the
slighcest breach. New Jersey has not breached ic here:111us Black re-
vived ["Diornas)Jefferson's rnet aphoralter an oblivion of sevent.y years,
I. Not co bec-c:mfusc<Iwirhthe Eppersonca.$.C t)f 1968) which is the.subjecc of chisc.hapcer.

79
80 C reat ion and the Co urts

a revivalthat had crucial conseque ncesfor the1noden1understanding

of the escablish1neoctlause."l
Hitchcock continues, "1he Everson case ,vas an inscance ,vhere rhe
specific issue- subsidized bus fares- wasa rather 111inor one, but the
case had i111plicationsfar beyond theissueitself.In winningasmall and
ce111poraryvicrocy,proponents of celigious schools lost the,var because
the caseg-ave che court d1e opporcunicy co sec forrh, for d1e first rin1e,
an w1dercsa.11ding ofdiefirst an1end111enc basedon die'wall'111etaphor,
an interpretation that virtually predete1mined an increasingly stringent
applicationofthe EstablishrnenC t lause"3 (e,uphasisadded).1l1is helped
secchescage for chefirst Supre,ne Courraction on thecreacion/evolurion
controversy. For the first ci,ne ch is court decision cook away thestates'
right to legislate their o,vn religious1nattersand placeda,val!ofsepara-
cion benveen che stateand religion.

The Arkansas Supreme Court Upholds

the Anti-evolutionLa,v
'!liecase known asEpperson v. Arkansas washeard by rhe U.S.Supre111e
Court on appeal fron1 die Supre1ne Courc of Arkansas. Ir ,vas argued
on October 16,1968, and wasdecided a ,nonch lacer on Nove,nber 12,
1968. Susan Epperson was an Arkansas public school teacher, hired
in 1965, who challenged the constirurionalicy of Arkansas' so-called
"anti-evolution" sr.acute. 1hac scacuce seated char it , vas unla,vfi,I for
a teacher in any scare-supported school to teach or to use a cexcbook
diac teaches'\har 111ankind ascended or descended froni a lo,ver order
ofaninials."4
n1eSr.are Chancery Court held that the la,v ,vas a violation of free
speech and, thus, contrary to the First and Fourceend1 An1endn1ents
of die US. Constitution. In ashort two-sentencedecision, the Arkan-
sas Supre,ne Court upheld che anti-evolution la,v, saying: "Upon the
2.James Hirchcoc-k. I b e S11p1t m e Co ,a-tand Rd igio11in Ameriom Lift, 2 \ols.{Prli'lc cto n,
N.J: Princeton Univer ity Pr s. 2004). 1:90 .
3. Ibid., 91.
4. Epper.<011v. S1t,teofArka11sas. 393 U.S.97 ( 19 68 ).
Th e.EppersonSupreme Co urt Ruling ( ,968)

principal issue, chat ofconstitutionality, the court holds chat Initiated

Measure No. l of I928. . . isa validexercise ofchestate's po,ver cospecify
diecurriculu1n in its publicschools."Ihecourc expresses no opinion on
d1e questio n whether rhe Act prohibits any explanation of che d1eory
of evolut ion or 1ne rely p rohibics reaching rhac the meory is true; the
answer not being necessary co a decision in the case, and the issue not
having been raised."S

111e U.S. Supren1eCourt Decision in Epperson (1 96 8)

' HieU.S. Sup rern e Co urt overturned the ArkansasSupre1ne Co urt

and ruled that thestatute"violates the Fourteenth A1nend1nent, ,vhich
e1nbraces die First A1nend1nent's p rohibition of srace la1vs respect ing
an esrablislun enc of religion." In die Court's words:

(a) TheCourtdoes notdecide whether chestatute is unconstitutionally

vague,since,whetheritisconstrued to prohibitexplaining theDarwinian
theory or teaching that it is true, the lawconAiccs with the Establis h-
mentClause. .. .

{b) n1e sole reason for che Arkansas law is char a particular religious
group considers che evolution theory to conAict with the account of
the originof111ansec fo rth in the Book of Genesis. . . .

{c) The First Amendment mandates govenunentalneutrality between

religion a nd religion,and between religion a nd nonrcligion....

{d)A Scares right co prescribe che public school curriculum does nor
includeche right to prohibit teachingascientific theory ordoctrine for
reasons that run counter to theprinciplesof the l'irst A111cnd111ent....

{c)11,e Arkansas law is not a manifestation of religious neutrality.

111e Courc went on co say,"1hisappealchallenges dieconscicucional-

ity of the 'anti-evolution' statute ,vhich me Staceof Arkansas ado p r.ed
s. Jb;, d
 Creation and the Co urts

in 1928co prohibit rhe teaching in its public schools and universities

of che d1eory chac ,nan evolved fro,n other species of life. 1l1e scacuce
was a produce of the upsurge of'fundarnencalist' religious fervor of rhe
cwencies."1l1ey believed rhat,"1l1e Arkansas scau1re ,vasan adaptation
ofchefainousrennessee '1nonkey law' which chacScace adopced in I925.
n1econsciturio nalicyof rherennesseela,v,vas upheld by che Tennessee
Supren1e Court in die celebrated Scopes case in I927."1l1is la,v n1ade
"it unla,vful for a teacher in any scace-supporced school or university
'to reach rhe theory or doctrine mac1nankind ascended or descended
fron1a lo,ver order of ani1nals; or 'co adope or use in any such insricu -
cion a textbook d1at teaches' mis rheory. Violation is a ,nisde,neanor
and subjects d1e violator co disn1issal fro,n his posicion."6

The Supreme Court Ruling

Follo,vingis che rexcof meEpperson decision, ornitting d1e foot notes.
Alier giving background inforu1acion in Part I, the Court scared:

II. Ar theourscr, it is urged upon usthat rhcchallenged sran,tc isvague

and uncertain and rhereforcwithinthecondemnation of the Due Process
Clause of rhe Founccnrh Amendment. The contention that the Ace is
vague and uncertain is supported by language in rhe brief opinion of
Arkansas'Supre111e Court.Thar court, perhaps reflecting rhedisco111fon
which the stature's quixotic prohibition necessarily engenders in rhe
modern mind, seated rhar it "expresses no opinion" as ro whether the
Act prohibits"explanation"of the theoryofevolutio11 or merely forbids
"teaching that the theory is true." Regardless of this uncertainty, the
court held that rhestatute isconstitutional.
Oo the other hand, counsel for the State, in oral argument in this
Court,candidlystared rhat, despite theState Supreme Courtsequivo-
cation, Arkansas would interpret the statute "to mean that ro make a
srudent aware of rhe theory... just toteach that there wassuch a theory"
would begrounds for d ismissal and for prosecution under thestature;
and hesaid "that the Supreme Court of Arkansas' opinion should be
6. Epperson v. S1a1eef Ark,w.,11,, 39 3 U.S. 97 (1968).
'ThcEppenb1S1upreme Court Rul.ing ( ,968)

interpreted in that manner." Hesaid:"If Mrs. Epperson would tell her

students that'Here is Darwin's theory, t.hat manascended or descended
fron1a lower formof being; then I thinkshe would be t111der thisstatute
liablefor prosecution." In any event, we do not restour decision upo n
the asserted vagueness of thestatute. On either interpretation of its
language, Arkansas' statute cannot stand. It is of no moment whether
the law is deemedto prohibit mentionof Darwin's theory,or co forbid
any orallof theinfinite varietiesofco111municarionembraced within the
tcnn "teaching." Under either incerprccation, thelaw must be stricken
becauseof its conflict with the constitutional prohibitionofState laws
respectingan establishment of religion or prohibiting thefreeexercise
thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body
of knowledge a panicnlarscgn1cnt whichit proscribesfor thesole reason
that it isdee111cd to conflict with a particular religiousdoctrine; that is,
with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular
religious group.

III. The antecedents of today'sdecision are manyand unmistakable.They

arc rooted in the foundation soil of our Nation.They arc fundamental
to freedom.
Govern1nent in our de111ocracy,stateandnational, muse be neurral in
matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostLlc
to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid,
foster, or promote one religion or religious theoryagainst another or
even against the militant opposite. n1eFirst Amendment mandates
governmental neutrality be tween religion and religion, and between
religion and nonrcligion.
As early as 18 72, chis Court said:"The law knows no heresy,and is
committed to thesupport of no dogma, the establishmentof no sect."
l#ttson v.jones....This has been the interpretation of the great First
Amendment which thisCourt hasapplied in the n1anyandsubdc prob-
lems which the ferment of our national life has presented for decision
within theAmendment'sbroad conunand.
Judicial interposition in the operation of the public sd1ool system
of the Nation raises problems requiring care a nd restraint. Onr courcs,
however, have not fuiled to apply the First Amendment'smandate in
our educational system where essential to safeguard the funda,nental
values of freedom of speech and inq uiry and of belief. By and large,
 Creation and the Courts

public education in our Nation iscommitted to thecontrol ofscacc and

local authorities. Courts do not and cannot intervene in chc resolution
of conAiccs which arise in chc daily operation of school systems and
which do not directlyand sharply implicate basic constitucionaJ values.
On theocher hand, "che vigilant proceccion ofconscitucional freedoms
is nowhere more vical chan in che communicy of American schools"
Shelton u.Tucker. . . (1960). As chisCourtsaid in Keyish;an u. Boardof
Regents,chc First Amendment "docs not coleracc laws chat case a pallof
orthodoxy over the classroom" ... (1967).
The earliest t.tscs in thisCourt on thesubjectof the impactofconsci-
cucionalguarancees upon theclassroom were decided before theCourc
expressly applied che specific prohibitions of che First Amendment co
the Scares. Bue as early as 1923, the Court did not hesitate coconde1nn
under che Due ProcessClause "arbitrary" restrictions upon chcfreedom
of teachers co reach and ofstudentS colearn. In chat year, che Court, in
an opinion byJustice McRcynolds, held unconscicucionalan Aceofc.he
Scace ofNebraska making it a crime co teach anysubject in anylanguage
ocher chan English co pupils who had noc passed che eighch grade. The
Stace's purpose in enacting thelawwasco promote civic cohesiveness by
encouragingchelearningof English and tocombat che" banefuleffect"of
permitting foreigners co rearand educate theirchildren in thelang11agc
of the parents' native land."!he Court recognized these purposes, and
it acknowledged the Stace's power co prescribe che school curriculum,
bur it held that chese were not adequate cosupport che restriction upon
cheliberty of teacher and pupil.The challcngedscacuce, it held, uncon-
stitutionally ince,fered with the right of the individual, guaranteed by
the Due Process Clause, co engage in any of the common occupations
of lifeand coacquire useful knowledge. Meyer u. Nebraska ... (1923).
Secalso Bartels u. Iowa . . . (1923)....
There is and can be no doubt chac che Firsc Amendment does not
permit cheScace co require chat ceachingand learningmnsc be tailored co
cheprinciples or prohibitions ofany religious sector dogma. In Eue,1011
u. Board of Edur.,ttio11, chis Court, in upholding a state law to provide
free busservice toschool children, includingchose accending parochial
schools, said: "Neither [a scare nor che federal government) can pass
laws which aidone religion,aid all religions, or preferone religion over
another" ... (1947).
Th,c l:,ppentlll Supreme Court Ruli ng ( ,968) 85
At the followingTenn of Co urt,in Mr.Cotlu,n v. BoardofEducation
... (1948), theCourt held that lliinois could not release pupils &om class
to a ttendclasses of instruction in theschool buildings in the religion of
their choice.This,itsaid, would involve theState in using rax-supporced
propertyfor religious p urposes, therebybreaching the"wall of separa-
tio n"which,according toJefferson, the f irstAn1endn1ent wasintended
toerectbetweenchurchandscare....SeealsoEngel v. Vitale. . . (1962);
Abington Schoo/Districtv.Sche,npp . . . ( 1963) . While studyof religions
andof the Bible fron1a literaryandhistoric viewpoint, presented objec-
tively as part of a secular program ofeducation, need not collide with
the first Ainendments prohibition, theStare may not adopt programs
or practicesin itspublicschools or colleges which "aid or oppose"any
religion. . . . This prohibition isabsolute. It forbids alike the preference
of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed
antagonistic toa particulardogma. As Mr.JusticeClarkstared in ]oseph
B111 tyn, Inc.v.Wi lson,"thestarehas nolegitimate interestin protecting
any or all religions from views distasteful to them ... " (1952). The test
wass tat.cdas follows in AbingtQn SrhQolDi,trict v. Sche,npp ... " \Vhac
are the purposeand the primaryeffect of theenactment? If eitheris the
advancement or inhibition of religion then che enactment exceeds che
scope oflegislative power ascircumscribedby theConstitution:
"D1cseprecedents inevitably determine the result in che present case.
The Stace's undoubted right co prescribe che curriculumfor its public
schools docs not carry with it the right to prohibit,on pain ofcriminal
penalty,the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that pro-
hibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Aincnd,ncnt. le is
much toolate to argue that theSeate may i1nposeupon the teachersinits
schoolsany condit ions chat it choose,showever restrictive theymay be
of constitutional guarantees. Keyishian v. .BQ1u-d of Regents . . . ( 1967).
In the present case, there can be nodoubt chat Arkansas hassought
to prevent its teachersfrom discussing the theory of evolution because
it iscontrary to the beliefofsome that the Book ofGenesismust be the
exclusivesourceof doctrine as to che o riginof man. Nosuggestion has
been madethat Arkansas'law may bejustified byconsiderationsofstare
policyother than che religiousviews ofsome of its citizens. lt is clear
that funda1nentlaistsectarian conviction wasand is che law's reason for
existence. Its ant.cccdcntT , ennessee's "monkey law: candidlyscat.cd its
purpose:co make it unlawful "to teachany theory that denies thescory
86 C reation and the Co urts

of the Dhine Creation of man as taught in the Bible,and to teach instead

that man has descended from a lower order of animals." Perhaps the
sensational publicity attendant upon the Scopes trial induced Arkansas
to adopt less exp licit language. It eliminated Tennessee\; reference to "the
story of the DivineC,eacio n of man"as taught in the Bible, but there is
no doubt that the motiv-.uio n for t h e law was the same: co suppress the
teach ingof a theory which, it was thought,"denied" the divine c reatio n
of man.
Arkansas' law cannot be defended as a n act of relig ious neutrality.
Arkansas did not seek to excise from the curricula of its schools and
univers it ies a lldiscussio n of che origin of man. n1elaw's effort wascon-
fined to an attempt to blot out a particular theory because of its sup-
posedco nflict with the Biblical account, literally read. Plainly, cl1e law is
contrary to the mandateof the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth,
Amendinent co t he Constitution.
111ejudgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is Reversed.7

An Evalua tio n of th e Epperson D ecision

Several observations are in order regarding the Epperson Decision.

1hey will behelpful in nioving reward our final conclusions (in chapters
8 and 9).
Firsc, befo re rhe fiunous Everson case ( I947) the srares srill had die
righcco legislatetheir own reHgious,narters. For the First Arnend,nenc
of d1e Consricurion ,nandared only d1ac "C,on gress"(i.e., die federal
governn1enc) could nor "esrablish religion."Indeed, five of the thir-
teen colonies rhar ratified rhe Firsr A1nendnient had rheir own scare
religions. None of rhe1n were required co disestablish their religions.
Ho,vever, ,vid1Eve1:<on ( 1947) rhe highcourt reversed diis.1hen, using
Everson as a preceden t, Eppe1:w12 ( 1968) declared chat "che [Arkansas]
scacure violacesche Fourceend1 Aniendnient, which e1nbracesrhe Firsr
Aniendrne nr'sprohibition ofscace laws respecting an escablishrne ncof
reHgion." Thisgave ne,v po,vers co d1efederalgoverrunent coincerfere in
ascace's afiairs as it applies co religiousliberties.n1us,a scace can use ics
7. Ibid.
The J":,pp t:Yi011Supreme Court Ruling(196S)

constitutional religious freedo,ns cooverturn scat.elaws chat they dee,n

have interfered ,vith these rights. This po,ver ,vas used in Epperson and
in diecreation decisions after Epperson. Ir is obvious in diese decisions
rhac d1is power is borh 1nisdirecced and overextended. Strangely, che
Court ,nade no acce,npc to define religion, yec it pronounced rhac the
la,v forbiddingevolution ,vas n1orivaced by religion.
Second, die Epperson coiuc n1isused rhe religious neucraliry cesc.11ie
way it applied thiscesc,alo1osc anything even indirecdyconnected with
a religion can be ruled unconsticutional.By logical exrension d1is,vould
include most ,noral principles and all good la,vs which by their very
nature religious people are n1ocivaced co pass. For what good person
would not be n1oved by his religious beliefs co protect the innocent
against d1eli:, abuse, or rnurder? So, by rhesarne kind ofarguinenc used
in Eppe1:,on virtually allgood la,vs providing protection against cri1ne
could be ruled unconstirucional.
111ird, co clairn diac "die sole reason tor die Arkansas lawis diat a
particular religiousgroupconsiders cheevolucion theory coconflict with
theaccount of theorigin of,nan setforth in the Book ofGenesis" isflatly
contrary co what che la,v scares and would dernand diac rhe Supre,ne
Court divine the intention of che la,vn1akers,rather than exa,nine the
la,v d1ey n1ade. Sin1ilar argun1encs could be n1ade against ocher la,vs,
if dielegislators, whed1er Buddhist, Muslini, or Hindu, vored for la,vs
that happened co be in accord ,virh their holy books.
fourm, oneof die reasons for mis n1isdirecred decision is d1e vener-
able and niisused principle of precedent (staredec fris, "co sc-and by die
decisions").' nie influence of die Scopes trial (1925) in Eppe1:,on is bodi
evident and ad,niHed. Even diough die Arkansas anti-evolutionlaw is
shorter and lessobjectionab ledian d1e Tennessee Scopes la,v was, having
non1encion ofany religiousbook or beliefs, nonetheless it issun1marily
dis1nissed by Epperson on die sa1ne grou nds. Clearly,che Court is not
looking ac che face of die Ace, or at its social and educatjonal benefits.
Radier, it is acce,npcing co divine evil intent on die pare of chose who
,vroce che la,v.
Fifth, as ,vesee in diis case and,vill see in ensuing cases, chealleged
"fundaniencalisc" religious niorivacion is read inrodiisArkansas legisla-
88 Creation and the Co urts

tion as well. "Hie Coiut fails to distinguish between religious111otives,

,vhich are not in chen1selves bad and are behind mosr good laws, and
religious intent in rhe la,v itself (seechapter 6)'. !h e reiscerrai11lynothing
,vrong ,vich cax-payingcitizens nor ,vanring public schools supported
by then1 co teach theories of origins to their students conrrary to their
beliefs. And foracourt to rulecontrary co che beliefsofcitizensand the
laws rhey enact is a classic case of"taxation without representation."
Sixth, if one rnakes it a rnatter of religious freedon1 not to oppose
evolution, then ,vhy is it nor also a 111acrer of establishing religion co
favor a vie,v (e.g., evolution) rhat is in accord ,vith n1ost nontheistic
religions? Does nor the high courc in effect establish onesecof religions
( nond1eisric ones) in its atten1pt to avoid favoring anod1er, naruely,
d1eisric religions?n1is certainly is nor a neutral srance on religion on
the part of the Court.
Seventh, one can sensea disdain for funda,nentalist religions in the
thrust and tenor of the decision. 'll1e very tero1"fundai11enraliso1" char
the Courc used has bad connotations. And, is nor "fundanienralisni"
a religion procecced by che Conscicution? \Xfhy sho uld d1e courcs be
hostile cofunda1uenra1lnis?8 Indeed, in theirzealous opposition to fi.1n-
da1uentalisn1 d1e courrs have helped establish ai1 opposing religion of
secularisrn, which Abington (1963) forbids.
Eighm, rhe use of die Watson v. jones (1872) decree by me Court,
that: ""lhe la,v kno,vs oo heresy, and is connnitted ro the support of
no dogrna, theesrablish,nenr of no sect" is rocally niisplaced. How can
forbidding,vhat d1eopposition callsa purely scientificm eory (naruely,
evol ution) bea religious heresy? Ifanyd1ing, the reverse can beargued:
by insisting chat evolution, whid1 iscontrary to die religious beliefs of
rnany,cannot be forbidden, has not the Court esr.abHshed a religion?
Ifie is religious co oppose evolution, ,vhy is ir not religious co affinn it?
Can die Court really be neutral in nJing co favor beliefs char favor one
religion buc noc anomer?
Ninth,one has co be judiciallyand hiscorically blind co1nandace d1ac
e volution- a theory rhat clearly opposes crearion- cai1be taught and
8. David Limbaugh dt'X'mh ents the bias o f the <:o u rts aga .inst <:Oll$<.!rvari,..e C h ristiansin his
hook Peneaaion(NewYork: Perennial, 2004).
The ./:,,p"p1:r,011S upre.me Court Ruling ( 1968)

yet clai,n that tliis has no i,nplications for our lite as a nation, ,vhen
our founding docu,nent. itself affinned that "all ,nen are creat.ed" by
a "Creator." In effect, d1e h igh court has ruled d1at The Declarativn
efIndependence is unconstitutional, and that opposing views, such as
evolution, are constitudonal 111ey have stood the Constitution on its
head. No ,vonder they cannot read it right side up! Were the fowid-
ingfathers co kno,v about such constit utional twisting, they ,vould be
shocked beyond belief.

Swnmary
Much of thefaulty reasoning in Eppe1:ion will reappear insucceeding
coun decisions (see chapters 3, 4, 7). n111s,by the 1nisapplicationsof
legal precedent (stare deci.sis) rhe courts continue ro con1pound cheir
errors,exclude Firsr funendn1enr righrsfor tax-payingcreacionisrs, and
help establish opposing religious beliefs.Jusc ho,v to rectify iliese bad
courc decisions is rhe subject of rhe final chapters (8and 9).
 The McLean Trial (1982)

he Scopes crial had cnrned rhe cide of public opinion in favor

of ceaching evolution in public schools, and che Epperson case,
cicingtheseparation ofchurch and state, proh ibited Stai:es frorn
nrn.ndaring char evolurion could not be caughr in public schools. As a
resulr, Arkansas passed a la,v (Ace 590) stating char ifeid1er evolurion
or creation were taughr, rhen a balancedpresentation should begiven
of rhe opposing vie\v. 111e ensuing trial, McLean v. Arkansas Board of
Education, becan1e kno\vn as"Scopes II."

Introduction: History of Act 590

111ehi storyof rl1e Arkansas creation-evolutionJ\cc590 isasfollo\,S:

(1) In 1977 Paul Elhvanger, a Rornan C atholic layn1anfrorn Sourh
Carolina, fornied "C itizens for Fairnessin Education," a group char
incroduced bills relating co die creacion-evolucionconcroversy in nu-
n1erous state legislatures. (2) Using a n1odel bill prepared by \VendeU
Bird, staff attorney for the lnstiture for Creation Research, Ellwanger
drafted Ace 590. (3) On February 24, 1981, SenacorJarnes L. Holsced
91
 Creation and the Co urt$

introduced it as Bill 482 in rhe Arkansas State Senate, where it ,vas

read for rhe firsr and second cin1e. (4) On March 3, 1981, rhe Senate
Judiciary Conuniccee reconunended chac Bill 482 receive a "do pass.
(5) On n,1arch 12, 1981, che bill , vas read for che third and final ti1ne
and passed by a voce of22 co 2. (6) On March 12 rhe bill ,vas read for
the first tinie in che Arkansas Scare House. (7) On March 13 the bill
,vas read tor rhe second rune. (8) On March 13 rhe House Education
Conimiccee held a brief hearing on die bill. (9) On March 17 die bill
,vas read for a rhird and final ti1ne in rhe House of Representatives. le
passed bya voce of69 co 18.( IO) On March I9,198I,Governor Frank
\'(/hire signed rhe bill into la,v. (11) On May 27, 198I, the Arnerican
CivilLibercies Union filed suit challenging rheconstitucionalicy ofAce
590.(12) On Decernber7- 17, I981,rhe t.rialwas held in FederalJudge
\Villia1n Overron's court, Little Rock, Arkansa.s(13) On January 5,
1982,Judge Overron ruled die bill ,vas an unconstitutional violacion
of che First Arne ndnienc{I4) On February 4, 1982, one day before
die deadlme for appeal co die8th CircuitCourc ofAppeals (St. Louis),
rhe anorney general, Steve Clark,announced char rhe scare would not
appeal die ruling.

The Contents of Act s90 ( r981)

1J1e Arkansas la,v ac issue iii "Scopes II" reads as follo,vs:

An act to require balanced treatn1ent ofcreation-scienceandevolution-

sciencein public schools; to protect academic freedom by providing
student choice; to ensure freedom of religious exercise; co guarantee
freedom of belief and speech; to prevent establishment of religion; to
prohibit religious instruction concerning origins; tobar discrimination
on die basis of creationist or evolutionistbelief; to provide definitions
and clarifications; todeclare thelegislative purpose and legislativefind-
ingsoffact; toprovide for severabilityof provisions; to provide for repeal
of contrary laws; a nd toset forth an effectivedate.
Be ir enacted by rhe Gene!".ti Assembly of rhe Srnte of Arkansas:
The 1\1, L a11 Trial (1982)
93
SECTION I. Requirement fur BalancedTreatment. Public schools
within thisStateshall give balanced treatment to creation-scienceand
to evolutio,i-science. Balanced t reatment to these two ,nodels shall be
giveninclassroom lectures takenasa wholeforeach course, in textbook
materials taken asa whole for each course, in library materialstakenas
a whole for the sciences and taken asa whole for the humanities, and in
ocher educational programs in public schools, to che excenc chat such
lectures, textbooks, library materials, or ed ucational programs deal in
any way with thesubject of the origin of man, life, the earth, or the
universe.
SECTION 2. Prohibitio n ag-ainst Religious Instruction. Treatment of
eithercvolution-scienceorcreacion-sciencsehall belimitedtoscientific
evidencesforeach model and inferences from t.hosescientificevidences,
and muse noc include any religiousinstruction or references to religious
writings.
SECTION 3. Requirement for Nondiscrimination. Public schools
within this State,or their personnel, shall not discriminate, by reduc-
inga grade ofa sn,dcnt or bysingling out and making public criticism,
ag-ainst any st udent who demonstrates a sarisfacco ry understa11dingof
both evoluiton-scienceandcreation-scienceand whoaccepts or rejects
either ,nodcl in whole or pare.
SECTION 4. Defin itions. As used in thisAct:
(a) "C reation-science"meansthe scientific evidences for creation and
inferences fro,n thosescienti6ccvidences.Creation-scienceincludes the
scientific evidencesand related inferenceschat indicate: (I) Sudden cre-
ation of the universe, energy,andlifefroni nothing;(2) The insufficiency
of mutationand natural selection in bringingabout developmentofall
livingkinds from asingleorganism; (3) Changesonlywichin fixedli1n its
of originally createdkindsof plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry
for man a nd apes; (5) Explanation ofche earch'sgeology by catastroph-
ism,including theoccurrence ofa worldwide flood;and(6) A relatively
recent inception of the earth and living kinds.
( b)"Evolution-science",ncans thescientific evidencesfor evolution and
inferences from thosescientific evidences. Evolution-scienciencludes the
sciencific evidencesand relatedinferences that indicate: (I) Emergence by
naturalistic processes of theuniversefrom disordered matterandemer-
genceof life from non.life; (2)Thesufficiency of111utationand nan,ral
selection inbringingabouc thedevelopment of present livingkindsfrom
94 Creation and the Co urts

simple eal'licl' kinds; (3) Emergence by mutation and natural selection

of present livingkinds fromsiniplc earlier kinds; (4) Emergence of man
fron1a co,nmon ancestorwithapes;(5) Explanation of theearth'sgeology
and theevolutionarysequence by uniformitarianism;and (6) An incep-
tion several billion years agoof the earch andsomewhat laterof life.
(c)"Public schools" means publicseconda,-y and elementaryschools.
SECTION 5.Clarifications.ThisAct docs not require orpermit instruc-
tion in anyreligious doctrine or materials.This Actdocs nor requireany
instruction in thesubject oforigins, but si1nply requires instruction in
both scientific models (of evolution-science and creation-science) if
publicschools choose to reach either.lhis Act does not requireeach
individual textbook or library book rogive balancedtl'cannenr ro the
modelsofevolution-sciencaendcreation-science;it docs not require any
school books robediscarded. Tiiis Actdocs not require each individual
classroom lecturein a coursetogivesuch balanced t rcaunent,butsi1uply
requiresthe lectures as a whole rogive balanced rreanncnt; it permits
somelectures copresent evolution-scienceandotherlecturesto present
. .
cre.anon sc1ence.
SECTION 6. LegislativeDeclarationof Pu,-poseT . his Lcgislatul'eenacts
this Act for publicschools with the purpose of protecting academic
freedom for studenrs' differing values and beliefs; ensuring neutrality
towardstudcnrs' diverse religious convictions;ensuring freedom of re-
ligiousexercise for students and their parents;guaranteeing freedom of
beliefandspeech forsrudencs; prevencing escablishmentof'Iheologically
Liberal, Humanise, Nonchcisr, or Acheiscreligions;prevcncingdiscrimi-
narion against students on chc basisof thcil'pe1-sonalbeliefsconcerning
creation and evolution; and assistingsrudcnrs in their search for truth.
This Legislature docs not have the purpose of causing instruction in
religious concepts or makingan establishmentof religion.
SECTION 7. LegislativeFindingsof Fact. This Legislature finds that:
(a) TI1esubjeccof theorigin of cheuniverse,carrh,lifc,andman istreaced
within many publicsclioolcourses, such as biology,lifescience, anthro-
pology,sociology,and often also in physics, chemistry, world history,
philosophy, and social st udies.
(b) Only evolution-science is presentedto studentsin virtually all of
chose courses that discuss thesubjectoforigin.sPublicschoolsgenerally
censor creation-scienceand evidence concrnry co evolucion.
Th c 1'1t L<all Trial (1981) 95
(c) Evolution-scienceis not an unquestionablefact of science, because
evolution cannot be experimentally observed, fi1Uy verified, or logi-
cally falsified, and becauseevolution-scienceis not accepted by so1ne
scientists.
(d) Evolutio n-scienceis contrary to the religiousconvictions or moral
valueso r philosophicalbeliefsof manystudents and parcncs, including
individualsof many d ifforent religious faithsand with diverse moral
values and philosophical beliefs.
(c) Public school presentation of o nly evolution-sciencewithout any
alternative model of originsabridgesthe United StatesConstitution's
protectionsoffreedon1of religiousexercise and offreedom of belief and
speech for stude nts and parents,becauseit underm ines their religious
con,ictions and moral or philosophical values, compels their uncon-
scionable professions of belief,and hindersreligioust rainingand moral
training byparents.
(f) Public school presentation of only evolution-sciencefurthermo re
abridgesthe Constitutio n'sp rohibition against establishn1ent of reli-
gion, becauseit produces hostility co ward many' Theistic religionsand
brings preference to111cological Liberalism, Hu manism, Nonchciscic
religions, and Atheism, in that these religious faiths generally includea
religious belief in evolution.
(g) ) Publicschool instruction in only evolution-sciencealso violates
the principel of academic freedom, because it denies students a choice
betweenscientificmodelsand instead indoctrinatesthem in
evolution- sciencealone.
(h) Presentationofonly one mode.Irath er than altcrnacivesciencific mod-
elsoforiginsis nocrequiredbyany compellinginterest of theSeate, and
exemptionofsuchstudentsfrom a courseor classpresentingonly evolu-
tion-science docs not provide an adequate remedy becauseof teacher
influenceandstuden t pressureco remain in that course or class.
( i) Attendanceof chosestudents whoareat publicschoolsiscompelled
by law, and school taxes from their parentsand other citizens are man-
dated bylaw.
( j) C reation-science is an alternative scientific model of origins and
can be presented from a strictlyscientificstandpoint without any re-
ligious doctrine just as evolution-scienccean, becausethereare scien-
tists who conclude chat scientific da ta best support creation-science
 Creatio n and the Co urts

and because scientific evidences and inferenceshave been presented for

creation-science.
(k) Public school presenration of bothevolution-science and creation-
sciencewould not violate the Constitution's proh ibition against es-
tablishment of religion, because it would involvepresentation of the
scientific evidences a nd related inferences for each model rather than
any religious instruction.
(1) Most citizens, whatever their religious beliefs about origins, favor
balanced treatment in publicschools ofalternative scientific models of
origins for better guiding students in their scarcl1 for knowledge, and
they favo,a neutral app roach towardsubjeccsaffectingthereligious and
1no ral and philosophiclaconvictionsofstudents.
SECTION 8. Shore Tide.' TI1is Act shall be known as che "Balanced
'Tieatment for Creation-Science and Evoluiton-ScienceAcc."
SECTION 9. Sevcrabilityof Provision.sIf any provision of this Ace is
held invalid, that invalid ityshall nor affect otherprovisionschat can be
applied in the absence of the invalidatedprovisions, and the provisio ns
of chis Ace arc declared co be severable.
SECT!ON I0.Repeal ofConn-aryLaws. AllScacelawsor paresofScace
laws in conflict with this Act arc herebyrepealed.
SECTION II. Effective Date.The requirements of the Act shall be n1et
byand may be met before the beginning of che next school year if chat
is more than six months from thedate of enactment, or ocherwise one
year after che beginningof the next school year, and in all subsequent
scl1ool years.
Approv,ed
Frank \Xfhite (Governor) 3-19-81'

TheJudge's Decision Against the Creation-EvolutionAct

Even rhough ir appeared co bean en1inendy fair la,v wirh clear social
andeducationalbenefics and aversion co teach ing religion, the Arkansas
law was ruled unconsritutional. Because ofirshistoric irnpo rrance,the
con1plete conrenrs of rhe judge's decision follo,vs:

1. Act 590of I981. Ge.n<..-al Acts, 73rd GeneralA'-'<mbly.St>tcof Arkansas.

'Thc J\1t Lean Trial (1981) 97
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Introduction
On March 19, 1981, the Go"ernorof Arkansas signed into law Act
590 of 1981,entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science
and Evolution-SciencA e ct." n1eAct is codi6c d as Ark.Stat.Ann.80-
1663,er seq., (1981Supp). Its essential mandate is stated in its first
sentence:"Public schools within thisstaceshall givebalanced treannenc
to creation-science and to e"olution-science." On May 27, 1981, this
suitwas filedchallenging dieconstitutional validityof Act 590on three
distinct grounds.
First, it is contended that Act 590constitutesan establishment of
rcligion prohibitedby theFirstAtnendn1ent ro theConstitution,which
is madeapplicable to theStatesby the FourreenchAmend1nent.Second,
the plaintiffsargue the Act violates a rig ht to academic freedom which
cheysay isguaranteedcostudentsand teachers by the FreeSpeech Clause
of the First An1endment. Third, plaintiffsallege the Act isimpennissibly
vague and dierebyviolates the Due Process C lauseof die Founeendi
Ame1l(lment.
The individual plaintiffs includethe resident Arkansas Bishopsofthe
Unitedl\1echodist, Episcopal, Ro1nan Catholic,andAfricanMethodist
Episcop al Churches.theprincipal official of the Presbyterian Churches
inArkansas,ocher Uniced l\,(ethodist,Southern Baptist,and Presbyterian
clergy,aswell as severalpersons who sueas parents and next friends of
minor children attendingArkansas public schools. One plaintiff is a
highschool biologyteacher. Allarealso Arkansas taxpayers.Alnongthe
organizat ional plaintiffs arc the American Jewish Congress, chc Union
of Ain erican HebrewCongregations,cheA1nericanJewish C onunitcee,
theArkansasEducationAssociation, the NationalAssociation ofBiology
Teachersand the National Coalitionfor Public Educationand Religious
Liberty.all of which s ue on behalf of members living in Atkansas.
"Ilic defendants include the Arkansas Board of Gducation and its
memberst,he Director of the Department of Education,and theSrnre
'Textbooksand lnscructio nal MaterialsSelecting Com,nitcee. The Pulaski
County Special School District and irs Directors and Superintendent
were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs at the pretrial conference
held October l, 1981.
 Creation and the C(lurts

The trial commenced December 7, 1981, and continued through

December 17,1981.This J.1cmorandum Opinion constitutestheCourt's
findings of fuct and conclusions of law. Further orders and judg111eots
will be in conformicywith chis opinion.

I.
There is no controversy over the legal standards under which the
Establishment Clause portionof thiscase must be judgcd.ll1eSupre,ne
Court hason a number ofoccasions expounded on the meaningof the
clause, and the pronouncements are clear. Olten the issue hasarisen in
the context of public education, as it has here. In Everson 11. Board of
Education ... ( l947), JusticeBlack stated:

The "csrablishrnent of religion" clause of che First A1ncndment

means atleast chis: Neithera Stacenor the FederalGovernn 1entt.u1
set upa church. Neithercan pass laws whichaid one religion, aid all
religions, or preferone religion overanother. Neithercan force nor
influence a person to gotoor to remain away fromcl1urch against
his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
Noperson can be punished forentertaining or professing religious
beliefs or disbeliefs, forchurch anendanccor non-attendance. No
tax,large orsmall,can be levied to support any religious activities
or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form
they may adopt to tcacl1 or practice religion. Neither a state nor
the Federal Government can,openlyorsecredy,participate in the
affairs ofany religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In
the wordsofJefferson, the clause ... wasintended to erecta wall
of separation between church and Stace."

The Establishment Clause thus enshrines two central values: vol-

untarism and pluralism. And it is in the area of the publicschoosl that
thesevalues must beguarded most vigilanrl)'-

Designed to serve as perhaps the most powerful agency for pro-

moting cohesion amonga heterogeneous democratic people, the
public school muse keepscrupulouslyfree fro,n encanglement in
thestrife ofsects.n, e preservation of rheconununity from divisive
con Aices,ofGovernment from irreconcilablepressures byreligious
The1\1, L a11 Trial (1982) 99
groups, of religion from censorship and coercion however subtly
exercised, requires strict confinement of rheStare ro instruction
orher rhan religious, leaving ro rhc individual'schurcha11d home.
indoctrination in rhe faith of his choice. (McCollu,n v. Board of
Education . . . [1948],[() pinionofl' rankfurcer,J.,joined byJack-
son, Burton and Rudedge.J.J.J).

n,e specific formulation of the establishment prohibition has been

refinedover rhc years,bu ritsmeaninghas nor variedfrom theprinciples
articulated byJusticeBlack in Eve, 011. In Abington School District v.
Schempp . . . ( 1963),Jusr ice C larks raced rhac"co wichsrand rhestrictures
of the Establishment Clause there muse be asecular legisaltive purpose
and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion." The
Court found ir quireclear that the First Alncndmentdoesnot permita
stare co require thedaily readingofrhc Bible in publicschools, for"surely
the place of the Bible asan instrument of religion cannot begainsaid."
... Similarly, in Engel v. Vitale . . . (1962), the Court held that the First
An1cndmcnrprohibited the New York Boardof Regents from requiring
thedailyrecitation ofa certain prayer in rheschools.\'ifithcharacteristic
succinctness,Justice Blackwrote,"Under[theFirst)Aniendtnenr's pro
hibition against governmentalestablishment of religion, as reinforced
by the provisionsof the Fourtecndi Amendment,government in this
country, be it state or federal, is without power co prescribe by law a ny
particularform of prayer which is co be used asan official prayerin car-
rying on any program of governmenrally sponsored religious activity."
Black also identified the objective at which the Establishment Clause
,vas aimed:"Its first and most inunediatcpurposerested on the belief
that a union ofgovernment and religion tends to destroygovernment
and co degradereligion."
i'vlost recently,theSupremeCourt has held that theclause prohibits
astatefrom requiringrhcposting of theTen Co mmand mentsin public
schoolclassrooms forthesame reasons that officially imposed daily Bible
readingis prohibited.Stonev. Grah,1111 . . . ( I980)."ll1eopinion inScone
relies on the most recentformulationof the EstablishmentClause test,
that of Len1011 v. K urtzman... (1971):

First, thestature must haveasecular legislative purpose;second,its

principal o r primaryeffect must beone that neitheradvances nor
100 C reatio n and the C(lurts

inhibitS religion.. . finally,thestatute must not foster"anexcessive

governme nt entanglement wit.h religion." Stone v. Cr11h,1ttt. . . .

It is under this three-pan test that theevidencein thiscase must be

judged. f ailureon any of these grounds is fatal to the enactment.

II.
The religiousmovement known as Fundamentalism began in nine-
teenth century A1ncrica as partofevangelical Protestantis m's response to
socialchanges,new religious thought andDarwinism. Fundan1en!"alists
viewed thesedevclop1nents as attackson the Bibleand as responsible
fora decline in trad itional values.
]l ie various manifestations of l'undamentalism have had a number
of commo n characceriscics, but a central premisewas always a literal
interpretationof theBible and a beliefin theinerrancyoftheScriptures.
FollowingWorld \Va,rl therewas againa pcrccivcd declinein traditional
morality,and l' undamentalis1n focused on evolution as responsiblefor
thedecline.Oneaspectof theirefforts,particularlyin theSouth,,vasthe
promotion of scatuccs prohibiting the teachingof evolution in public
scl1ools. In Arkansas, chis resulted in the adoptionof Initiated Ace l of
1929.
Between the l920sand early 1960s, anti-evolutionarysentiment had
a subde but pervasiveinAuence on the teaching of biology in public
schools. Generally, textbooks avoided the topic of evolution and did
not mention the nameof Darwin. Following the launcl1of theSputnik
sacelliccby the Soviet Union in1957, theNational Science f oundation
funded several programsdesigned to modernize the teachingof sci-
encein the nation'sschools. The Biological Sciences C urriculu,n Study
(BSCS),a nonprofitorg-anizacion,wasamongchosercccivinggrancs for
curriculum study and revision. \Xlorkingwith scientistsand teachers,
BSCS developed a seriesof biologytexts which, althoughemphasizing
differentaspeccs of biology,incorporated the theoryof evolution as a
major theme. The success of the BSCS effort is shown by the fact that
fifty percent of Americanschoolchildrencurrently use BSCS boo ks
directly and the curriculum is incorporatedindirectly in virtually all
biologytexts. (Testimo ny of lv!ayer;Nclkin, Pg l )
l n the early I960s. there ,vas again a resurgence of concern among
Funda1nentalists about thelossof traditionalvalues and afear ofgrowing
The1'1t, l. a11Trial (1981) IOI

secularisminsociety.The Fundamentalist movement became moreactive

and hassteadilygrown in numbers and political influence.'!here is an
emphasis an1ong current Fundamentalists on the literal interpretation
of the Bible and the Book of Genesis as the sole source of knowledge
about origins.
The term "scientific creationism" first gained currency around 1965
following publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961 by \Xlhircomb and
wlorris.There is undoubtedly some connection betweentheappearance
of the BSCS rexrs emphasizingevolutionary thought and efforts by
Fundamcnralisrs ro attack the theory. (Mayer)
In the 1960s and early 1970s, several Fundamentalist organizaio t ns
were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was sup
ported byscientific data. n1eterms "creation science" and "scientific
creationism"have been adoptedby theseFundamentalistsasdescriptive
of their study of creation and the orig insof man. Perhaps the leading
creationist organization is the lnstitur.e for Creation Research (! C R),
which is affiliated with the ChristianHeritage Co llege and supported
by the Scott Memorial Baptist Church in San Diego, California.lhe
!CR,through theCreation-LifePnblishingCompany,istheleading pub-
lisherofcreationscience material. O thercreationscienceorganiiations
include the Creation ScienceResearch Center {CSRC) of San Diego
and the BibleScience Association of Minneapolis, Minnesota. In l 963.
the Creation Research Society(C RS) was formed from a schism in the
American Scientific Affiliation (ASA).It is an organization of literal
Fundamentalists who have the equivalent ofa master's degree in so me
recognized a reaofscience. A purpose of theorganiztaion is"to reach all
people with the vital messageof the scientific and historic trutl1 about
creation."Nclkin,TheScience1exrbook Controversies and thePolitics
of Equal Time,66.Similarlyt,heCSRC was formed in I970 from a split
in the CRS. Its aim has been "to reach the 63 million child renof the
UnitedStates with rhescientific reachingof Biblicalcreationism."'
le is true, as defendants argue, t.hac courts shouldlook to legisla
tive
statementsofastatute'spurpose in EstablishmentClausecases andaccord
such pronounccmenrs great deference. Sec, e.g., Con;mittee far Public
Education & Reugious Liberty u. Nyquist . . . ( 1973) and McGowan u.

2. A stttion daborntingthe judge's view,:of the rdigious fno tiv.nion of th.Ok'. in favor of
creation science follows here. Jtand the footnotes of the ruling have been oinitte.:Ifor lack of
spac<."
102 Creation and the Courts

M,1ryland . . . (196 1). Defendants also correctly state the principle that
remarks by chesponsor or author <)fa bill arc not considered control-
ling in analyzinglegislative intent. Sec, e.g.,U nited States v.En1mons . . .
(1973) and Chrysler Corp.v. Brown ... (1979).
Courts are not bound, however, by legislativeStatements of purpose
or legislativedisclaimers.Stone v. Graham . . . (1980), Abington School
Dist. v. Sche,npp . . . ( 1963). In determining die legislative purpose of
a statute, courts mayconsider evidence of the historical context of the
Act, Epperson v. Arkansas . . . ( 1968); the specific sequence of events
leading up to passage of the Act; departures from normal procedural
sequences; substantive departures fro111the normal, //ill.ageofAr/;ngton
Heightsv. Metropolitan Ho,uingCo,p. . . . (1977);andcontemporaneous
statements of the legislative sponsor, Fed. Energy Adrr,in. v.Algonquin
SNG, Inc. . . (1976).
The unusual circumstances surrounding the passage of Act 590, as
well asd1esu bstantivelawof the First A,nendmcnt, warrant an inquiry
into thestated legislative purposes. The author ofdie Acthad publicly
proclaimed the sectarian purpose of the proposal.n,c1\rkansas res-i
dents whosought legislative sponsorship of the billdid so for a purely
sectarian purpose.These circumstances alone may not be particularly
persuasive, but when considered with the publiclyannounced n1orives
of thelegislative sponsor made conte1nporancouslywiththelegislative
process; the lack of any legsi lativeinvestigation, debate, or consulta-
tion with any educato,s or scientists; the unprecedented intrusion in
school curriculu m; a nd official history of the State of Arkansas on
the subject, it is obvious that the statement of purposes has little, if
any, support in fact.111e State failed to produce any evidence which
would warrant an inference or conclusion that at any point in the
process anyone considered thelegitin1ate educational value of the Act.
It wassimply and purelyan eflort to introduce the biblicalversion of
creation into the publicschool curricula. The only inference which
can be drawn fron1 these circumstances isthat the Actwas passed with
the specific purpose by the General Assembly of advancing religion.
The Act therefore fails the first prong of the three-pronged test, that
of secular legislative purpose, as articulated in Lenton v. Kurtzn,,,n,
s11pra, and Stone v. Graham, supra.
The 1\1,rL a11 Trial (1982) 103

III.
If thedefendants arecorrectand theCourt islimited to an examina-
tion of the languageof the Act, theevidence isoverwhelming that both
the purposeand effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the
publicschools.
Section 4 of the Act provides:
Definitions,as used in this Act:

(a)"Creation-science",neans thescientificevidences forcreation

and inferences from those scientific evidence.sCreation-science
includesrhe scienrific evidences and relared inferences rhar indi-
cate: ( I) Sudden creation of the universee, nergy, and life fro1n
nothing; (2) ll1e insufficiency of mutation and natural selecrion
in bringing about development of all livingkinds from a single
organism; (3) Changesonly within fixed Iimies of originally cre-
ated kinds of planrs and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man
and apes;(5) Explanarionof rheearth'sgeologybycarasrrophism,
including theoccurrence ofa worldwide Aood;and (6) A relatively
recent inception of the earrh and living kinds.

( b) "Evolu tion-sciencem " eans thescientific evidencesforevolution

and inferences from those scientific evidence.sEvolution-science
includesthescientificevdi encesandrelatedinferences that indicate:
(I) Emergence by naturalisticprocesses of rhe w1iverse fro,n disor-
dered matterandemergencoeflife from nonlife;(2) Thesufficiency
of mutation and narur-.tl selection in bringingabout development
of presentlivingkindsfronisi,nplc earlierkinds; (3) Emergenceby
mutationand naruralselecrionof presentliving kind froms imple
earlier ki11ds; ( 4) Enicrgcnccof man fro,n a common ancestor with
apes; (5) Explanationof the earth's geology and the evolutionary
sequence byunifonnirarianism;and (6) An inceprionseveral billion
yearsagoof the earth and somewhat lateroflifc.

(c) "Public schools" meanspublic secondary and clemcnta,y

schools.

The evidence establishes that rhe definition of "crearion science"

conrained in 4(a) hasas its unmentioned reference the first 11 chapters
104 Cn..-arion and rhe Courts

of the Book of Genesis. Amongthe many creation epics in human his-

tory, theaccount ofsudden creation from nothing, or r.rcatioe.-.:nihilo,
and subsequent destruction of the world by Rood is unique to Genesis.
The concepts of 4(a) are the literal l' undamentalistsv' iew of Genesis.
Section 4(a) is unquestionablya statement of religion, wich rheexcep
rionof 4(a)(2)which is a negative thrustaimedac what checreationists
understand co be the theoryofevolution.
Both theconcepts and wordingofSection 4(a)conveyan inescapbale
religiosity. Section 4(a)(I) describes "sudden creation of die universe,
energyand life from nothing." Every theologain who testified,including
defense witnesses, expressed the opin ion that thestate1nent referred to
asupernatural c reationwhich was performed byGod.
Defendants argue chat: ( I) the fact that 4(a) conveys ideas similar
to the litcrnl interpretation of Genesis docs not make it conclusively a
statement of religion; (2) that reference to a creation from nothing is
not necessarily a religious concept since the Act onlysuggescs a creator
who has power, intelligence, and a sense of design and nor necessarily
rheattributes oflove,co,npassion,and justice; and (3)charsimply teach-
ingabout the concept of a creator is not a religious exercise unless the
studentis required to make a commitment to the concept ofa creator.
"ll1e evidence fully answers these arguments. Theideasof 4(a)(I) arc
not merely similat totheliteral interpretationofGenesis;theyareidenti-
cal and parallel to noother storyof creation.
The argument that creation from nothingin 4(a)(l) docs not involve
asupernatural deity has noevidentiary or rationalsupport.' lo thecon-
trary,"creationout of nothing" isa concept uniqueto \Xlestern religions.
ln traditional \X1esten1 religious thought, theconception ofa creator of
the world is a conception of God. Indeed, creation of the world "out
of nothing" ist.heultimate religious statement because God is theonly
actor. As Dr. Langdon Gilkey noted, the Act refers to one who has the
power to bringallof the universe intoexistence from nothing. The only
"one" who has this power is God.
n,cleading creationist writers, Morris and Gish, acknowledgethat
the idea of creation described in 4(a)(I) is the concept of creation by
God and make no pretense to the contrary. The idea ofsuddencreation
from nothing, or creatio ex nihilo, is an inherently religious concept.
(Vawter,Gilkey, Geisler, Ayala, Blount, Hicks.)
Th c1\ ft,L n11 T rial (1981) 105

n,eargument advancedbydefendants' witness.Dr. Norman Geisler,

that reaching the existence of God is nor religious unless the reaching
seeks a commitment, is contrary co common undersr-anding and con-
t radicts seed ed caselaw. Sto11e v. Gr11h11m . . . ( 1980 ); Abi11gto11 School
D istrict v. Schentpp . . . (1963 ).
The facts that creationscience isinspired by the bookofGenesisand
thatSection4(a) isconsistent witha literal interprer-ationofGenesisleave
nodoubt thata majoreffectof theAct is theadvancement of part icular
religious beliefs. The legal impact of this conclusion will be discussed
further at theconclusion of theCourt's evaluatio nof thescientific merit
of creation science.

IV.(A)
The approach to tead1ing"creation science"and"evolution science"
found in Ace 590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by
the Institute for Creation Rescard1 and is takenalmostverbatim from
!C Rwritings. It is anextensionof f undamentalists' view that one must
either accept the Iiteral interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the
godlesssystem of evolution.
The two model approach of che creatio nists is simply a concrived
dualism which has no scientific faccual basisor lcgicimace educacional
purpose. It assumes only cwo explanations for the origins of life and
exiscenceofman, planes.and a nimals:ic waseither chc workofa creacor
or ic was noc. Application of these two models, accordingco creation-
ists, and thedefendants, dictatesthat all scientific evidence which fails
to s upport the theoryof evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in
support of creationismand is, d1ercforc,creationscience "evidence" in
support of Section 4(a).

IV.(B)
The emphasis on origins as an aspecc of the theoryof evolution is
peculiar to creationist literature. Although thesubject of origins ofl ifc
is within the province of biology. the scientific co mmun ity docs noc
considerorigins oflifea part ofevolutionary theo ry. Thetheoryofevo-
lution assumes theexistenceoflifc and is directed to an explanation of
howlifeevolved.Evolution docsnot presuppose theabsenceofa creator
or God and the plain inferenceconveyed bySection 4 iserroneous.
106 C r"-"arionand the Courts

As a sta tement of the theory of evolution, Section 4(b) is sim-

ply a hodgepodge of limited assertions, many of which are factually
inaccurate.
Forexample,although 4(b)(2) asserts,asa tenetofevolutionary the-
ory,"sufficiency of mutation and natural selectio nin bringingabout the
development of presentlivingkinds from simple earlier kinds; Ors.Ayala
and Gould both stated that biologisrs know that these two processes do
not account for allsignificantevolutionary change.They testifiedtosuch
phenomena as recombination, the founder effect, geneticdrifi: and the
theor)'of punctuated equilibl'ium, which are believed toplay important
evolu tionary roles.Section 4(b)omits an)' reference to these.ivloreover,
4(b) utilizes the term "kinds" which aU scientists said is not a word of
science and has no fixed meaning. Additionally, the Act presents both
evolutionand creationscienceas"package deals."Thus, evidence critical
to some aspect of what the creationisrs define as evoluiton is taken as
support for a theory which includes a worldwide flood and a relatively
youngearth.

IV.(C)
In addition to the fallacious pedagogy of the two-model approach,
Section 4(a)lackslegitimate educational valuebecause"creation-csience"
as defined in that section is simply not science.Several witnesses sug-
gestedddinitionsof science. A descriptive definition wassaid to be that
science is what is"accepted by chescientific community" and is "what
scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a
freesociety, knowledge docs not require the imprimatur of legislation
in order to become science.
More precisely, the essential characteristicsofsciencearc:

(I) ) It isguidedby natural law;

(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
(3) It is testable against theempiricalworld;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e.,a renot necessarily the final
word; and
(S) It is falsifiable.(Ruseand ocherscience witnesses.)

Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails co rnccc these es-

sential characteristics. First, thesection revolves around 4(a)(I) which
The 1\1t,l. a11 Trial (1981) 107

assertS asudden creation "from nothing." Such a concept isnot science

because it depends uponasupernamral intervention which is notguided
by natural law. It is not explanatoryby reference to natural law, is not
testable and is not falsifiable.
If theunifying idea ofsupernaturalcreation by God is removde from
Section 4, the remaining parts of the section explain nothingand arc
meaninglessassertions.
Section 4(a)(2),relatingto the"insufficiencyofmurationand natural
selection in bringingaboutdevelopment ofall living kinds from asingle
organism;' isan incon1plete negativegeneralizationdirected at thetheory
of evolution.
Section 4(a)(3) which describes"changes onlywithinfixedlim itsof
originally created kinds of plants and animals" fails to conform to t.he
essential characteristicsofscience for several reasons. First, there is no
scientific definition of"kinds" and none of the witnesses was able to
point to any scientific authority which recognized the term or knew
how many "kinds"existed. One defense witness suggested there may
be I00to I0,000 different "kinds." Anotherbelieves there were "about
10,000,give or take a few thousand." Second, the assertion appears to
be an effort to establish outer limits ofchanges within specie.s'!here is
noscientific explanationfor theseJimitswhich isguided by natural law
and the limitations, whateverthey arc, cannot be explainedby natural
law.
' In c statement in 4(a)(4) of"separatc ancestry of man and apes" is
a bald assertion. It explains nothing and refersto noscientific fact or
theory.
Section 4(a)(S) refers to"explanation of theearths geology by cata-
strophism, including theoccurrence ofa worldwideRoo d."Thisassertion
completely fails as science. "lh c Act is referring to the Noachian flood
described in the Book of Genesis. The creationisr writersconcedethat
11n.r kind of Genesis Flood depends upon supernatural intervention.
A worldwd i e flood as an explanation of the world's geology is not the
product of natural law, nor can its occurrence be explainde by natural
law.
Section 4(a)(6) equallyfails to meet thestandardsofscience. "Rela-
tivelyrecent inception" has no scientific meaning. It c-.1n only be given
meaning in reference to creationist writings which place the age at be-
tween 6,000and 20,000 years because of thegenealogy of the Old 'Tes-
108 Creation and rhc Cou rrs

tament. . . . Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law;

not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative.
Creation science, as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow
che canons ofdealing with scientific theory,it also fails co fie che more
general descriptionsof"what scientists c.hink"and "what scientists do."
The scientific co mmun ity consiscs of ind ividuals and groups, nation-
ally and incernacionally, who work independently in such variedfields
as biology,paleontology, geology and astronomy. --n1eirwork is pub-
lished and subject to reviewand testingby theirpeers.111e journals for
publication are bot h numerousand varied. l hcreis, however, not one
recognized scientific journal which has publishedan article espousing
checreationscience cheorydescribedinSection 4(a).So,neof theState's
witnessessuggested that chesciencificcom municywas"d osed-minded"
on thesubjectofcreationism a nd cl1at explainedcl1e lackofacceptance
of chc creationscience arguments. Yee no witness produced a scientific
article for whicli publicationhad been refused. Perhapssome members
of thescientific communityarc resistant to new ideas. It is,however,
inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in
all the varied fields ofscience could or would so cffoctivclv censor new
. 1 ,,

scientific thought.
The creationistshave d ifficulty maintaining amo ng their ranks con-
sistencyin the clain1chat creationismisscience. n1e authorof Act 590,
Ellwanger,sa id chat neitherevolution nor creationism wasscience. He
thinks botharc religious. Duane Gish recently responded to an article
in Di,covercritical ofcreationismbyseating: "Stephen Jay Gould states
that creationists claim creation is a scientific clleory. '111is is a false ac-
cusation. Creationists haverepeatedly stated that neither creation nor
evolution isascientifictheory (and each isequally religiou)s": Gishletter
to editor of DisroverJ,ul y, 1981,App. 30to Plaintiffs' Pretrial Brief.
The methodology employedby creationists isanotherfactor which
is indicat ivethat their work is nor science. A scientific theory must be
tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in lightoffacts
that are inconsistentwith, or falsify, the theory.A theorychat is by its
own terms dogmatic, absolutistand never subject co revision is not a
scientific theory.
The creationists'1nethodsdo not rake data,weigh it against theoppos-
ingscientificdata, and thereafter reach theconclusionsseatedinSection
4{a). Instead, they cakeche literalwordingof the Book of Genesis a nd
The 1\1t,L a11Trial (1981) 109

attempt to find scientific support for it.n1c methodis best explained

in the language of !\'!Orrisin his book (Px 31) Studies in the Bible and
Science at page I I4:

... iris ... quire impossiblerodetermine anyrhing abourCreation

throughastudyofpresent processes,because present processes are
not creative in characte.rIf man wished to know anything about
Creation(the timeofCreation, thedurationofCreation,theorder
of Creation, the methods of Creation,or anything else) his sole
source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was
there when it happened. \Xei werenot there....Therefor,ewe arc
completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us,and this
information is in His written \Xlo rd.n1is is our textbook on the
science ofCreation!

TheCreation Research Societyempklysthesame unscientificapproach

to rheissueofcreationism. ltsapplicantsfor me,nbcrship mustsubscribe
to the beliefthat the Book of Genesis is "historically and scientifically
true in all of theoriginal autographs." The Court would never criticize
or discredit any pe,son's testimony based on hisor herreligious beliefs.
\Xlhile anybody is free to approach a scientificinquiry in any fashion
they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology used as
scientific, if theystart with a conclusionand refuse to change it regadr-
less of theevidence developed d uring the course of the investigation.

IV.{D)
In efforts to establish"evidence" insupport ()f creation science, the
defcndantS relied upon thesame falsepremise asthe two-modelapproach
contained in Section 4, i.e., all evidence which criticized evolutionary
theory wasproof insupport ofcreation science. Forc.xan1lpc, thedcfcn-
dants esr-ablished that the n1athemaitcal probability ofa chancechentical
combination resulting in life from non-life is so remo te that such an
occurrence is almost beyond imaginaiton. Those mathematical facts,
the defendants a rgue,are scientific evidences chat life was the product
of a creator.\X/hilc the statistical figures may be impressive evidence
against the theoryof chancechemical combinationsasan explanaio tn
of origins, it requiresa leap of faith to interpretthose figures so as to
support a complex doctr ine which includes a sudden creation from
110 Creation and the Co urts

norhing, a woddwide flood,separate ancesrry of 111an and apes, and a

youngcanh.
n,edefendantS'argument would be,norcpersuasive, if.in fact, there
were only cwo theoriesor ideasabour che o rigins of life and che world.
That thereare a number of theories was acknowledged by theState's
witnesses, Dr. \Vickramasinghe and Dr. Geisler. Dr. \Xl ickra111asinghe
testified at length insupport of a theorychar lifeon earth was"seeded"
by comets which delivered genetic material and perhapsorganisms to
theeanh'ssurface from interstellardust far outside rhesolarsysrem. 'll1e
"seeding" rheoryfurrher hypothesizeschar rhecarrh remains under rhe
conrinuing influence ofgenetic material from space which continues
coaffocr life. While Wickrnmasinghe's theory about the origins of life
on earth has not received generalaccepta nce within thescientificcom-
1nunity,he has,arleast, usedscientific n1erhodlo ogyco producea theory
of originswhich meets rheessentialcharacrerisricsofscience.
. . . Perhaps[Dr.\Xlickramasinghewascalled asa witness) becausehe
was generally criticalof the rheoryof evolution and thescientificcom-
munity,a tacticconsisccnrwithrhcsrracegyof thedefense. Unforcunarcly
for thedefense,hede1noncsratedchat thesimplisticapproac hof therwo
model analysis of the originsof life is false. Furthermore, he corrobo-
rated the plaintif!s' witnesses by concludingchar "no rational scientist"
would believe che earth'sgeology could be explained by referenceto a
worldwide flood or chat the earth was less than one million years old.
"Die p1oof insupport ofcreationscienceconsistedalmost entirelyof
eflorrs todiscredit the theoryof evolutionthrougha rehashofdataand
theories whid1 have beenbeforethe scientific communityfor decades.
The argunientsassertedbycreationists arcnot based upon newscientific
evidence or laboratorydata which has been ignored by the scientific
community.
Robert Gentry'sdiscov1e)' of radioactive polonium halos in granite
and coalilied woods is, perhaps, the most recent scientific work which
the creationists useas argument for a "relatively recent inception" of
the earth and a "worldwideflo od."The existenceof polonium halos in
graniteand coalilied wood isthought to beinconsisrent with radiomet-
ric dating methods based upon constant radioactive decay rates. Mr.
Gentry'sfindings were publishedaJ,nosc tenyears agoand havebeen the
subjecrofsome discussion in thescientific co nununity.111cdiscoveries
have not, however,led co the formulation of anyscientific hypothesis
The Af<,L a11 Trial (1982) 111

or theory which wouldexplaina relatively recent inceptionof theearth

or a worldwide Aood. Gentry'sdiscovery has been treated as a minor
n1ystery whichwill eventually be explained. It may deserve further in-
vestigation, bur the NationalScienceFoundation has nor deemed it co
be ofsufficient import tosupport further funding.
n1e testimony of Marianne \Xl'ilson was persuasive evidencethat
creatio n science is nor science. wls. Wilson is in charge of rhe science
curricuhm1for PulaskiCo untySpecial School District, thelargestschool
district in theStateof Arkansas. Prior to the passage of Act 590, Larry
Fisher,a sciencereacher in the District, using materials from the!CR,
convinced the School Board chat it should voluntarily adopt creation
scienceas part of its science c urriculum. The Districe Superintendent
assigned Ms. Wilson the jobof producinga creation science curriculum
guide. Ms. Wilson's testimony about the project was parricularly con-
vincingbecausesheobviouslyapproachedtheassignment with an open
mind and no preconceived notions about thesubject.She had not heard
ofcreationscience until abouta year ago and did not knowits meaning
beforeshe began research.
Ms. Wilson worked with a committee ofscience teachersappointed
from the District. '!hey reviewed practicallyallof thecreationist litera-
ture. lvls. Wilson and t.hecommittee me,nbersreached the unanimous
conclusion thatcreationism isnotscience;it is religion.Theyso reported
to rheBoard.The Board ignored the recommendationand insistedchar
a curriculum guidebe prepared.
In researching the subject, i\,fs. \V ilson so ught chc assistance of
Mr. Fisher who initiated the Board action and asked professors in
the sciencedepartments of the Universit)' of Arkansas at Little Rock
and the University of Cent ral Arkansas for reference material and
assistance, and attended a workshop conducted at Central Baptist
College by Dr. Richard Blissof the ICR sraft: Ace 590 became law
during the course of her work so she used Section 4(a) as a format
for her curriculum guide.
wls. \X' ilson found all available creacionisrs' materials unacceptable
because theywere permeated with religious references and reliance upo n
religious beliefs.
leiseasy co understand whyi\-1s. \XTilsonandocher educatorsfind che
creationists' textbook ,narcriaJ and ccaching g uides unacceptable. The
materials missrare chetheoryofevolution in rhesan1efashion asSection
112 Creation and the Courts

4(b) <>fthe Act, with emphasis on the alternative mut ually exclusive
nature of creationism and evoluito n. Students are constantly encou-r
aged to compare and make a d1oice betweenthe two mod els,and the
material is n<>t presented in an accuratemanner.
A typical example isOrigins (Px76) by RichardB. Bliss, Director of
C urriculum l) evelopmenrof the!CR. The presentation begins wirh a
chart describing"preconceived ideasab<>urorigins"whidi suggesrs that
some people believe that evolution is atheistic. Concepts of evolution,
such as"adaptiveradiation;areerroneouslypresenred.Ar page11, figure
1.6,of the text,a chart purports to illustratethis "very important" part
of the evolution model. nie chart conveys the ideachat such diverse
mammals as a whale, bear, bat, and monkey all evolved from a shrew
through the processofadaptive radiation.Suchasuggestionis,ofcourse,
a totallyerroneous and misleadingapplicationof the theory.Even more
objecitonable,especially when viewed in lightof rhe emphasis on ask-
ing the student to elect oneof the models, is the chart presentationat
page 17, figure 1.6. 11iacdiart purportsco illustrate the evolutionisrs'
belief that manevolvde from bacteriato fish co reptile to mammals and,
thereafter,into man. 11ie illust ration indicates,however,that the mam-
mal from which man evolvedwas a rat.
Biology, A Search far Order in Complexity is a high schoolbiology
text typical of creationists' materials. The follow ing quotations arc
illustrative:

Flowersand roots do not havea mind to have purpose of their

own; therefore,this planning must havebeen done for them by
the Creator. (at page 12)

The exquisite beauty of colo r and shape in flowers exceedsrhe

skill of poet,artist,and king. Jesussaid(fromMatthew's gospel),
'Consider theliliesin [sic] thefield, how theygrow; rhey coil not,
neither do theyspin. . . .' (Px129 at page 363)

1he"public school edition"texts written byc reationistssimplyomit

Biblical referencesbut thecontent and n1essageremain the same. For
example: Evolutio11- 1h e FossilsSa_r iVo!contains the following:
'Inc1\1<Lta11 Trial (1981) 113
Creation. By creation we mean che bringing into being by a
supernatural Creator of che basic kinds of plants and animals by
the process of sudden. or fiat, creation.

We do not know how che Creator created, what processes He

used.far He used processes which are not now oper,iting anywhere
in th e 11,,tural universe. ]11is is why we refer co creation as Special
Creation. \Xiecannotdiscover byscientific investigation anything
about chc creative proces.scs used by che C reator. (page40)

Gish's book also portrays che large majority ofcvolucioniscs as"1na-

terialistic atheists or agnostics."
Scientific Crcatio11km (PublicSchool Edition) by Morris, isanother
ccxr reviewed b)'Jv!s. \ Xfilson'scommittee and rejected as unacceptable.
n1e followingquotes illustrate the purpose and theme of the text:

Foreword
Parents and youch leaders coday, and even many scienciscs and
educators, have becomeconcerned about cheprevalence andinAu-
encc ofevolutionary philosophy in modern curriculum. Noconly
is thissystem inimical co orchodox Ch ristianityandJudaism, hue
also,as many arc convinced, co a healthysociety and truescience
as well.{at page iii)

The rationalist of course finds chc concept ofspecial crc,acion in-

sufferably naive, even 'incredible: Such a judg,nenc, however, is
warranted only if one caccgorically dismisses the existence of an
omnipotent God. (at page 17)

Without usingcreationist literature, ?vis. \Xfilson was unable to locate

one genuinely scientific article or work which supported Section 4(a).
In o rder co comply with chc mandate of che Board she used such ma-
terials as an article from Readers Digest about "atomic clocks" which
inferentially suggested chat theearth was less than 4 billion yearsold.
She was unable to locate any substantive reaching material for some
parts of Section 4 such as che worldwide Aood. The curriculum guide
which she prepared caruiot be caught and has no educational value as
science. The defendants did not produce any text o r writing in response
114 Creation and the Co urts

to this evidence which they claimed was usable in the public school
classroom.
Theconclusion that creationscience has no scientific merit or edu-
cational valueas science has legal significance in light of rhc Court's
previous conclusion that creation sciencehas,as one major effect, rhe
advancement of religion. Thesecond part of the duce-pronged test for
establishment reachesonly thosestatuteshaving as their pri111ary c ffect
the advancement of religion.Secondary effects which advance religion
are nor constitutionallyfatal. Sincecreato i nscienceis nor science, the
conclusion is inescapable d1at die only real effect of Act 590 is rhc ad-
vancementof religion.The Ace therefore fails borh rhe first andsecond
portionsof the test in Lemon v. K11rt-:u11a11 ( 1 97 1 ).

IV.(E)
Act 590 mandates " balanced treatme nt for creation scienceand
evolution science.TheAct prohibitsinstruction in any religiousdoctrine
or references to religious writings. TheAct isself-contradictoryandcom-
pliance isimpossibleunless the publicschoolselect toforegosignificant
portions of subjects such as biology,world history,geology,zoology,
botany,psychology,anthropology,sociology,philosophy,physics, and
chen1istyr.Presently,theconceptsofevolutionary theoryasdescribed in
4(b) permeate the public [school]textbooks. n,cre is no way teachers
can reachtheGenesisaccount ofcreation in a secular1nanner.
The StateDcparrmenr of Education, throughits textbookselection
committee. school boardsand school ad1ninistrarorswill be required
to consrnndy monitor marerialsto avoid usi11g religiousreferences. n,e
school boards, administratorsand teacllcrsfacean irnpossibletask.How
is rhe tead1erto respond to questions about a creationsuddenly andout
of nothing ? How will a teacher explain t.hcoccurrence of a worldwide
flood? How will a tcacl1erexpalin the concept of a rclarivcly recent age
of meearth?' Jhc answer is o bvious because the onlysource of this in-
formatio n is ultimately containedin rhe Book of Genesis.
Refcrcoccs to the pervasive natureof religious concepcs in creation
science texcsa mply demonstrate whyState entanglienenr with religion
is inevitable under Act 590. lnvolve1nenr of the Seate inscreeningtexts
for impennissiblc religious referenceswill requireStareofficials to make
delicate religious judgmencs.n1c needto monitor classrooin discussion
in order co uphold the Ace's prohibition against relig iousinst ruction
Th.c J\1t,l. a11 Trial (1981) 115
will necessarily involve adniinistratorsin q uestionsconcerning rd igion.
These continuing involvements ofState officialsin q uest ionsand issuesof
religion createanexcessive and prohibited enc-anglement with religion.
Brandon v. Board of Edualtion ... (2nd Cir.1980).

V.
These conclusions arcdisposicive of the case and there is no need co
reach legal conclusionswith respect tothe remaining issues.Theplaintiffs
raise twoother issues questioning rhe constitutionalityof the Act and,
insofar as the factual findings relevant to these issues are not covered in
the preceding discussion, theCourt will address these issues. Addition-
aUy, th e defendants raisedtwoother issues which warrant discussion.

V.(A)
First, plainriff teachers argue rhc Act is unconstit utionally vague
to che extent that they cannot comply with its mandace of "balanced"
treatment without jeopardizing cheiremployment. Theargument centers
around thelack ofa precise definition in theAct fortheword " balanced."
Severn! witnesses expressed o pin ionsthat the word hassuch meanings
as equal time,equal weight,or equallegitimacy.Although the Act could
have been more explicit," balanced" isa wordsubject toordinary under-
scanding. The proof is not convincingthat a teacher usinga reasonably
acceptable understanding ofche wordand makinga good faitheffort to
comply with the Ace will be in jeopardy of tennination. Other portions
of the Act are arguably vague; such as che " relativelyrecent" inception
of rhc earth and life. ')he evidence establishes,however, that relarively
recent means from 6,000 co 20,000 years, as commonly understood in
creationscience literature. The meaningof thisphrase, likeSection 4(a)
generally, is, for purposesof che Establishment Clause,all too clear.

V.(B)
The plaintiffs' o ther argument revolvesaround che alleged infringe-
ment by the defendants upon the academic freedom of ce-,1chers and
students. It iscontended this unprecedented intrusion in thel,1rriculmn
by the Seate prohibitS teachersfrom teaching what they believeshould
be taught or requiresthem to reach that which they do not believeis
prope.rTheevide nce reflects chat traditionally theSeate Deparcmcncof
116 C reatio n and the C(lurts

Education,localschool boardsand administla' tionofficialsexerciselittle,

if any,influence upon thesubject matter taught by classroom teachers.
"Teachershave been givenfreedom ro teach and emphasize thoseportions
ofsubjectstheindividual teacherconsdiered important.The li1nitsro this
discretion havegenerally beendel'ived from the appl'oval of textbooks
by theState Department and preparation of curriculum guidesby the
school districts.
Several witnesses testified that academic freedom for the teacher
means, in s ubsraoce,that rhe individual reacher should be permitt ed
unlimiteddiscretionsubjectonly co the boundsof professional ethics.
The Cou n is not prepare(d] to adopt such a broad viewof academic
freedom in the public sd1ools.
In any event, if Act 590 is implemented,many teachers will be re-
quired to reachrn aterialinsupport ofcre,-itionsciencewhich theydo not
consider academicallyso und. Many teachers will simpl yforegoteach-
ingsubjects which might trigger the "balanced treatment"aspects of
Act 590even though they think thesubjeetsare important roa proper
presentationofa course.
Implementation of Act 590 will have serious and untoward conse-
quencesforstudents,particularly thoseplanningtoattend college. Evoul-
tion is thecon1erstoneof modern biology,and many courses in public
schoolscontainsubjectmatterrelatingco such varied topicsas theageof
the earth,geology,and relationshipsamong living things.Any student
who is depr ived of instruction as to the prevailing scienti6c thought
on these copies will be denied a significant pare ofscience education.
Such a deprivat ion through the high schoollevel would undoubtedly
havean i1nparcupon diequalityofeducationin dieState'scollegesa nd
universities, especially including the pre-professional and professional
progra,ns in thehealthscience.s

V.(C)
Thedefendants arguein their briefthat evolution is, in effect, a reli-
gion,and that by teachinga religion which iscontrary to some students'
religious views, theStare is infringing upon the student'sfree exercise
rights under the First Amendment.Mr. Ellwangcr'slegislativefindings,
which were adopted as a findingof fact by the ArkansasLegislature in
Act 590, provides:
The J\k Lean Trial (1981) 117
Evolution-science iscontrary to the religious convictions or rnora l
values or philosophical beliefs of man)' stu dents and parents, in-
cluding individualsof many different religious faiths and with
diverse moral and philosophical beliefs. Act 590,7(d).

The defendants argue that the teaching of evolution alonepresents

both a free exercise problemand an esr-dblishmentproblemwhich can
onlybe redressed by giving balanced treatmentco creation science, which
is admittedly consistentwithsome religious beliefs. n1is argument ap-
pears co have itsgenesis in astudent note written by Mr. \'ifcnde U Bird,
"Freedomof Religion andScience Inscruction in Public Schools" (1978).
n1eargument has no legal merit.
If creationscience is, in fact, science and not religion, as the defen-
darlts claim, it isdifficult cosec how theteachingofsuchascience could
"neutralize"the religiousnatureof evolution.
Assumingfor che purposes ofargument, howeve,rchat evolution is a
religion or religious tenet,the remedy is costop the teaching ofevolu-
tion; not establishanother religion in opposition to it. Yet it is dearly
establishedin thecase law,and perhaps also in common sense,that evo-
lution is not a religion and chat teachingevolution does not violate the
Escablishn1entClause,Eppe,-so11 v. A ,-kans,is,supra,1Villough y v. Stever
... (May 18, 1973); . . . cert.denied . . . (1975); Wright v. Houstonlndep.
School Dist. . . (1978); . . . cert. denied ... (1974).

V.(O)
Thedefendants presented Or.Larry Parker,a specialistin devising cur-
riculafor publicschools. He testified that the publicschool'scurriculun1
should reAcct thesubjectsthe publicwanes taughtinschools.Thewitness
said that polls indicated a significant majority of the American public
thought creationscience should be taught if evolution was taught. '!he
point of this testimony was never placedin a legal context. Nodoubt a
sizeable majorityof Americansbelievein che concept of a Creator or,
at lease, arc not opposed to the concept and sec nothing wrong with
teaching school children about the idea.
n1e applicationandcontent of Hrst A.rncndmcnt principles arc not
determined by publicopinion pollsor by a majority vote. \Xfhethcr die
proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority or die minority isquite
irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no
118 Creation and the Co uru

matter how largeor small, may use the organs ofgovernment, of which
the public schools arc the most conspicuousand i11Auential, to foist its
religious beliefs on others.
n,e Court closes this opinion with a thougln expressed eloquently
by the greatJustice Frankfurter:

\Ve renew ourconviction that"we havestake[d) theveryexistence

ofourcouncryon the faith thaccomplcteseparation between the
stateand religion is best for thestate and best for religion." Eve11on
v. Boa,d ofEduc11tion, 330 U.S. at 59. If nowhereelse,in the relation
between Church and State, "good fences rnake good neighbors"
... 1\1cC0Llun, v. Board ofEducation... (I948).

An injunctionwill beentered permanently proh ibitil1genforcmeent

of A.ct 590.

le is soordered thisJan uar)' S, 1982.

(signed) \Xlilliam Overton
UNITED STAfES DISTRICTJ UDGE'

Implications of the Arkansas Case

Several aspects of the trial and the judge's decision require con1JJ1ent.
I shall linlit n1y observations to only those aspects ,vhich in vie,v of
potential historicsignificance and public reaction seern rnost worchy
of inclusion.niese will include die n1edia, die bill, d1e crial attorneys,
the judge, and the ruling.

Co111111ents onthe Media Coverage"

Repon.ers s,varrned into rhe Lierle Rock counroorn fro111 all over
die world. Exciternenc was high, especially for die first fe,v days."This
enthusiasni ofi:en faded as the long, highly technical tesciniony concin-
3.1\1 r.u a11 v . A r k111u n.<Boardif tl11car im 1,529 ESupp. 1255(E.D.Ark. 1982).
4. Secappendices Iand 2 forrnorc:o o th e me.d.ia CO'\Crag.eof th.is trial.
Th c1\1tl <a11Trial (1982) 119

ued. By the lasr fe,vdays of the trial there , vere plenty of ernpcy seats
in the courcroorn.
Since I have no access co records of television and radio coverage,
and since thesedid not varysignificandy fi:0111 the printed rnedia, I will
base rny co1nn1enrslargely on the printed record. In a single ,vord, rhe
rn edia reporting ,vas largely slanted. le ,vas pitched co die "religion vs.
science" rhenie even before rhe trial began.
Nosooner had rhe bill been signed inr.o law (March I9, 1981) than
the /l rkansasGazette headlined a story (March 22, 198 1) "'Creacion-
science' Bill Prornpted byReligious Beliefss, Sponsor Says." 111e sponsor,
Senator Hoisted, isquoted in bold print under his picture as saying,"I
can'c separate che bill frorn rhac belief in a Creacor." He is furrher cited
assaying, "The bill probablydoesfavor the viewpointofreligiousfi,ntla-
rnentalists." 'Il1earticle then narrnces Holsced's " born again"conversion
and his agreernent ,vidi die Moral Majority, even though he ,vas not a
1ne111bec of char organization.
Even ,vhen che article lacer gr udgingly adniitted thac Hoisted af-
firnied chac d1e bill ,vasagainst establishing religion, che / /rk ansasGa-
zette quickly added: "Bue he could noc e:qilain ,vhy the bill does not
state diat theintent alw isto pre,vtnt the establishn1ent ofconservative or
fi,ndarnentalist religion.;."
Si rnilar slanted reporcingpersisced duringand after che r.rial,despite
rhe Associated Press's reponingan NBC poll (Nove1nber 18, 1981) a
nionch before d1e trial showing rhac "three of four Ainericans say d1ey
believe rhac boch chesciencific cheory ofevolutionand the Biblical theory
ofcreation should be caught in public schools... ."6
As d1e crial began, diesa1ne "religion vs. science" 1norifconcinued.
Scientific evidence for creation was usually referred co in quotation
,narks. For exarn ple , die Dallas Tin1es H erald (Decernber 9, I98 1)
headline read "Scienrisrs Ridicule 'Evidence' of Creacioniscs." The
Arkansas Gazette (Deceniber 11, 1981) headed itsarticles "Creation-
S. All cmpha.$iS i1'I thek quo tes is added.
6. Eventhis poll u d theslanted words"bibli'<.al"'vtt:-us iencific'' ro describetheviews,
rather than ackno wled ging that many Americans bd ie-vc that creatio nism has a leg:itifnatc
scicnriJic basis.
 12.0 Creation and the Court$

isni Is Bound to Religion, Educators Say in 4th Day of Trial," and

"Creacionis1n Can't Be Divorced fro111 Religion, Educators Say in
Act 590 Trial."
\Vhen the defense witnesses cook rhescand che press invariably sen-
sationalized the irrelevant. n1e judge correctly noted in his ruling chat
"the co1u-t \V01ild never criticize or discredit any person's cesci1nony
based on his or her religious beliefs."l Jn fortunacely,however, the n1osdy
undiscerning public does noc always grnnr d1is sanie co1ucesy, and rhe
press kiiov,s it. ln effect, rhey count on it.
Typical of the reporting \vas The A1ilwaukee]ournal (Deceniber
12, 1981) headline: "Trial zeros in onfuntlarnentalist Christian be-
liefs." The Arkansas Dernocratgave d1isfro n t-page headline to die first
creation scienrisrs called co restify: "Clark co Call 7 Avowed Bible
Believers."This despire die face diar no witness so described hiniself.
111e witnesses were asked irrelevant questions (over the objections
of defense attorneys) about their religious beliefs. n, e papers a!1nost
unaniniously described rhese \Vitnesses by pejorative renns such as
"biblical liceralisr." "The follo,ving is a sununary of ,vhac happened
in chis regard.
11ie defense arrorneys proresred on several occasions rhe ACLU
references co the religious beliefs of crearionisrs and defense
, vitnesses.
Firsr, it ,vas doneduring die prerrial depositions (preliniinary srare-
1nenc of tesrin1ony). Forexarnple, here isan excerpt fro1n d1e deposition
of one witness:

lV! r. Campbell: Forthe record, Iobject to these questions on theoccul,t

as to their relevance.
i\1r.Siano [ACLU attorney]: Your objection is noted.

Second, rhedefense attorneys n1ade th issa,neobjection co the judge

during a pretrial discovery conference on November 16, 198 l, but the
judge overruled ir.
Third, at lease twice during the trial defense attorney David \V iJ-
lian1s objected co using die personal rdigious beliefs of creationists in
Thc1\1,<i<a11 Trial (1981) 121

testilnony. He cited federal rule ofevidence 610.7 n1e judge overniled

his objection.
Fourth, \Villian1S asked for a continued objection co be recorded for
the rest of the trial instead of bringing it up each ti rne, and chis objec-
tion ,vas noted in the official courc record. In view of d1ese factors, die
defense acrorneys did nor bring ir up again lacer,vhen ACLU lawyers
raised die issues of rhe occulc, de111011s, and UFOs, which I had 111en-
cioned briefly in111y pretrial deposition.
Despite daysofscientific testirno nybycre-<1tion scientists, die Arkansas
Dernocrat (December 15, 1981) described d1ac tescilnony in headlines
as"Salvacionisc Vie,v ofHunian Origins." Tin1e niag-azineheaded rheir
article "Darwin vs. die Bible" and put creation science in quotation
rnarks, suggesting rhat it is111erely an alleged science. \Vhen zoologist
Harold Coffin gave abundant scientific evidence for die creationisrs'
view, theDallas Tinies Hera/J (Decernber 16, 1981) reported: "Zoolo-
gist Bases Belief ofO riginso n Bible."'"Hie Arkansas Gaz ette (Decern be r
16, 1981) headed dieir article on die scientific tesrirnony: "Religious
Di'l'nensions of 'CreationScience:. . ."
Other bias ,vas evident. 1heWall Street journal article (December
28, 1981) clairned creation science was not really a science. When ,ve
responded inaletter co rl1eedito r(January 14, 1982) with evidence cothe
contrary (seechaprer8), d1eyheaded thesection containing thelercer,vith
anindirectretort:"\Xlorld's BeginningSrirs No EndofCrearive n1eoriz-
i11g."'Il1is again alerts the reader co be,vare of theopinions expressed.
One of me n1ost scientific and factual testitnonies for creationisn1
,vas chacof Donald Chiccick. Despite his111nvillingness coassenc co rl1e
contents of a Bibb: Science A ssociation newsletter written by sorneone
else, die ArkansasDernocrat (Decet11ber 16, 1981),in rhelead paragraph
about hirn,scared: "Bueone \Vitness confirn1ed he wasa n1e1nber of rl1e
Bible Science Association, ,vhicl1,vas putting 'Christ and theBibleand
thepowerofthe Holy Spiritback intoscienceasoneof die ,nosepo\verful
rnechodsof witnessingin diecliurcli today'." 'Iliis was aflagrant caseof
7.1 hisrule:mtc tha. t e videnceof rhc beliefs oropinionso f a.wirnes o il cnaner:sof rd iglo1l
is not adm issible for the purpose of showing that by rea so n o f the ir nature the witness's n e(l.
ibil.iry is impail'td O r' enhanced.
122 Creation and the Court s

guilt by associatio n. Nun1erous n1ore exarnples of such bias are given

below (in appendices I and 2).
Inseveral ocher waysdie rnedia generallyand effectively distorted d1e
issue of the Arkansas trials, (I) lhey failed to stress rhesolid credentials
of thescientists whowerewitnesses for chedefens.,eevenchough both the
courtand the ACLU recognized chern allas"experrs." (2) They neglected
to report me anti-creation biasof me ACLU ,vitnesses, mough 1nany
of rhese ,vere active in organizations ,virh an anti-crearion.ist agenda.
(3) The n1edia usuallyfailed co report that n1any pro-evolution witnesses
agreed that scientific evidence for creacionis,n should be caught in die
schools.(4) The niedia oniitred rnenrion of rhe religiousorphilosophical
beliefsof dieevolutioniscs; n1osr ,vereeirherliberal, agnosric, atheisric,
or Marxisr.
1l1e reason for the rnedia bias was stated ,veil by Robert Lichter,
Stanley Rodunan, and Linda Lichter in d1eir 1986 book 'Ihe Media
Elite.Tiieir surveys revealed:

A distinctive characteristicof the mediaelite isitssecularoutlook. Exactly

halfeschew any religious affiliation.1\nod1er 14percentareJewish, and
almostone in four (23 percent) was raised in aJewish household. Only
one in five identify as Protestant, and one in eight as Catholic. Very
few are regular churchgoers. O nly8 percent go co church orsynagogue
weekly, ,tnd 86 percent seldom or never attend religious services. . .. A
majority see themselves asliberals. Fifty-four percent place themselves
co theleft of center, compared to only 17 percent whochoose the right
sideof thespectrum.9

8. This cxaggerat:io11:md literary einbd lish.-ncl'lt led so m cOJ'le,h lf wayaround the world
to \\Titc the 141rt(/Ji ngton PoSI s3ying: "'Dear Sir: nl< rn:1in <l-aily nc wsp :1per in this part of rhc
world, ' The \Xiest Ausrr 11iao: basedat the cit)'of Perth, ill.duded a report on Dc<einber 15
by your reporter Mr. PhilipJ. Hilts0 11 the court case il'l A rlm1H l$ c,,o cerningthe tc.-.ich ingof
cr t ion science in public school.s. A copyof the report, which is cnd osod,at tributes to the
op<oingcreationist wirne$$ 'a s-pocracula r co urtroom fireworks di.splay... : Most of the report
reads fuirlyobjecti\'ely.but ooe loob in vaiJ) for thealleged 'spt.-cr:,cular'co urcroom fireworks
d.isplay. \Vas it p<.":rhaps the func)' of Mr. H ilu It seems so. faidently,he isper onally opposed
to crcatioo-scicnce.\Vhik he is q uire free to hold thac view. why does he use his supposedly
Factual report co d.iscrcd it theope1\i ngwitnes,,s
9. S. Robert Lichter, Sronlcy Rothrnan, 3nd LindaS. Lichter, 11,e J\f edi il Eliu (k l thesda,
Md.: Adkr & A,Uer. 1986, ) 22. 28.
The.J\k L<nn T ri al (1982) I 23

Ablarante.xasnple ofchis biasisfound in the Che,nistry andEngineer-

ing News{January 18, 1982), ,vhich so distorted the cestirnony of an
agnosticevolutionist who testified for tl1e Arkansas creation-evolution
act tl1ac he wroce rhis in a Jeerer co meeditor:

Sir:
Rudy M. Baum in his article on "Science confronts creationist as-
sault" (C&E1VJ,an. 18, page 12) characterizesrny testimony in the Ar
kansas trial as consisting "ofselfservingdiatribes." He needs toconsult
his dictiona,-y. \Vhat I spoke in defense of was "openness of inquiry"
and "fair-play for mino rity opinion in regard co co ntroversial issues."
Considering that l arn agnosticand an evolutionist- both included in
my testimonybut neglected by the media generally- the"self-serving"
factor isobscure at best.
Apparentlyanyspoken response in open court above that ofa Caspar
Milquetoast qualifies as a d iatribe.unless.ofcourse.one represents the
camp ofentrenched opinion.Asa "newsanalyse" Baumqualifies for rhe
"PaulGoebbels" award,whichisgranted only to thoseshowingexperitse
in (I) belittlement,(2) innuendo, (3) prejudice,and (4) reportingour
of context....
\Y/. Sco t ?v!orrow
Associate Professor of Chemistry
\Vofford College, Spartanburg,S.C.10

"ll1ere islittle doubt tl1ar the unquestionablyslanted, biased, andeven

incorrect n1edia coverage before,during,and after die trial hasgiven die
An1erican public a discoreed picture of ,vhac actually occurred ac tl1is
historic event. I hope chis book will help correct chissicuarion.

An Evaluation ofthe Arkansas Law

My positive conunents on Ace 590,verest11nn1ed up inan article for

Christianity Today (seeappendix 3),which I willsu111n1arize here.First,
10. \V/.Scot Morrow, letter to the editor, Clu mis1ry ,11ul E,1g in tt!r i 11g Neru,, lv(:uch29,
1982.
124 Creation and the Co urts

I coounented on so1ne 1nisconceptions about the Act and then I gave

a racionale for why I supporced ic.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ACT 590

111ere were niany1nisconcepcions aboucAce 590, nioscofwhich were
due co 1nedia distortion of the issue and ignorance of the faces. le ,vas
generally 1nisconceivedchat:

I) The Ace mandaces ceaching che biblical accounc of creacion. {It

actually forbids that.)
2) leisopposed toteachingevolutio.n(It actually mandates teaching
evolutionalongsidecreation.)
3) le refers co God or religious concepts. (There is no reference to
God and it forbids teaching religion.)
4) It forces teachers whoareopposed to creation co teach it anyway.
(Ac tually,cheteacher doesn't have co teach anychingabout origins and/
or they can have someone else teach the leccures they do not want to
teach.)
5) leisa"fun damentalist"Act.(Acrnally,che"fundamenatlists"of the
1920s werecategorically opposed to ceachingevolution and in favor of
teachingonly theGenesis account ofcreaiton [sec chapter I above]. TI1is
Ace isconcrary co both of these stands of che I920s"fundamental iscs.")
Further. chc promoter of che Act was a Roman Cacholic layman. Paul
Ellwanger, not a Protestant "fundamentalist."

R AT I O NA L FOR SUPPORTING TH ACT

Firsc, I argued, as did che ACLU ar die I925 Scopes trial, that ic is
"bigotry" for public schools ro teach only one cheory of origins. In
their own,vords,"For God'ssakeleedied1ildren havecheir 1ni ndskept
open- closeno doorsco d1eir know ledge; shut no door fron1 d1e1n. . . .
Lee then1have both. Lee d1en1 both be caugh r."11 And ific was bigocry
co teach only one vie,v when only creation was being taughc, then why
is ic nor scill bigocry when only evolucion is being caught?

11. Du dley Field Ma.lone. t]UOted in \'v'illiam Hille\ry ar)d O ren \V. Met1,ger, ed .. The
1'Vor/d f i\10$t h,mous C1.mrtT rill/: 1'i:1- 1mtl'iet Evd1ditm C,,u (Cincfonati:National Book Corn
pany. I92S). 187.
The 1,\1 L m n T ria l (1982) IlS

Second, I insisted tl1ar in che interest of openness co the scientific

endeavor the "loyal opposition" should be pen11icced their "day in
courr." In face, niany courc decisions,vould have been preniature (and
even wrong) had they not waited co hear both sides of the issue.111e
value of the adversarial sys,cen should be obvious co anyone in die
legal profession.
Third, ceachingsciencificcreacionis1n is no n1ore nor no less reaching
religion than is teaching evolution fron1 a scientific perspective. Boch
are consistent ,vidi certain religious,vorldvie,vs, bur neither is die es-
sence of their respective religion. Eicher could be used co in1ply certain
religious co nclusions, but neither should be excluded siniply because
it has been so used (or 1n isused).
Fourth, scientific progress depends on allo,ving the presentation of
alternative theories. Copernicus's view chat che eardi revolvesaround
die sun ,vas o nce a niinority view. So ,vas Einstein's theory of relativ
icy; yet ,vichour this theory niudi of niodern physics ,vottld not have
been possible.
In shore, che Ace ,vas dear (even the judge agreed), fair (in d1ar it
pe rni irced both sides of the controversy to be caught), and not uncon-
stirucional on its face.

SOME D I F FI C U LT I ES W I T H THE \XIORD I N G OF

THE ACT

Even though crearionisni is science and not religion, it would seeni

chat Act 590 could have avoided any appearance of being religious if it
had done the follo,ving: First, instead of speaking of "crearion our of
nodiing" it cottld have used rhe ,vords "die sudden appearance of the
tuiiverse" or of life.
Second, it could have avoided si1nilaricy ,vich Genesis I bysubstitut-
ingfor rhe ,vord"kinds" oflifo a less objeccionable and 1nore scientific
tenn sucl1 as "to n ns" or "rypes." ("Species" could not be used, since
creationists do not believe in the fixity of the taxono n1ical category
called "species.")
111ird, die inclusion of poinrs 5 and 6 (catasrrophisni and young
eard1) ,vas an unnecessary red flag tor those opposed co die Acc. As
12.6 Creation and the Co urts

n1anycrear.ion scientists haveobserved,a"long tilne" isnot really help-

ful co che evolutionist view,buc icdoes not hurt the creacionisc's view.
Dropping colored paper frorn an airplane at 10,000 foec is less likely
co spell your na1ne on your roof than dropping it froni 5,000 (where
ic hasless tirne co fall). Regardless ofho\V niuch dn1e isallo\ved, how-
ever, intelligent interventio n into these rand on1lyniovingelerne nrsis
needed in order co direct chern and "infonn" chen1 exactly what tliey
are co spell ouc.
ln view of the actual irrelevance of long cinie periods co the basic
argunients tor creation, it is ill-advised to ,vave unnecessary red flags
in front ofevolucioniscs. \Vhy provide tlie1n ,vidi one 1nore excuse co
proclaitn rhe creacioniscs' view religious (since n1any believeonly rhe
Bible teaches a young eard1)? Afi:er all, if creacion isrn is caught, dien
diere ,vill bea1nple opporcuniry co present chescientific evidence tor a
young earth even if ic is noc spelled our in detail.
Fourm, che ArkansasAct unnecessarily gives rhe irnpress ion rhac
one niusr clioose benveen one of nvo con1plece "packaged" positions,
each conr.aining six poincs. recl1nically, d1e Ace does noc say mis. It
siniply concrascs six niajor areas of disagreenienc co ,vhich eid1er an
"evolur.ion" or a "creation" interpretive 1nodel 1nay be applied. le thus
leaves che door open for one co choose sorne explanat ions frorn o ne
side and sonie froni d1e o d1er. However, die ,vay the C\vo vie,vs are
separared does 1nake ic possible chac sonie 1nay read die Ace as detail-
ingcwo n1ucually exclusivepackages where one n1usc choose all of one
or all of che od1er.
Fifi:h, me Ace could have been i1nproved by rnenrioning meiscic re-
ligions arnong diose it opposes being established. By failing co rnake
sucliallowance, me Aceleaves icselfopen rodiecharge diac ic niay F.ivor
d1eiscic religions despire die face mac ir explicitly scares irs opposition
co establishingany religion.
In brief;Ace590could have been i111proved. Indeed, subsequent aces
{such as Edwards, 1982) have been better. Nonetheless, Ace 590 \vas
fair and, in 1ny opinion, it was nor wiconscicurional.
 127

C'o111111ents on the Ti ia l Attorneys

ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENSE

n1e press gave n1uch attention t.o che cha rgesby certain groups
rhat the attorney general, Steve Clark, and his staff (attorneys David
\1({Ulia1ns, Rick Ca111p bell, and Callis Childs; and Assistants Ti111
H un1phires, Cindy English, and \'</. \'YI. "Dub" Elrod) did noc do a
good job ofdefending die la,v. This conclusion is based on several al-
legations n1ade byattorney \Vendell R. Bird.12' ll1eallegations of poor
defense centered 1nainly around clie following sicuacions reported by
die niedia (seeappendix 6). It ,vas alleged: (1) chat Clark had refused
expert legal help fro1n rhearrorneys \Vendell Bird andJohn \Vhirehead;
(2) chat Clark's defense was noc adequately prepared; (3) mac Clark
was not dedicated to defending the law, having (allegedly) sold out
co rhe ACLU as evidenced by agili of$25 co rhe ACLU a few weeks
before the trial.
As far as ,ve can cell, all of chese allegations are talse. Before,ve can
draw in1plicacions, let usdiscern me facesof the n1atter. (1) First, Clark
did not curn down all legal help fron1the ICR. What he turned down
was d1eir anorney's request co becl1e "cotuisels of record; which nieans
official trialatto rneys.(2)Second, Steve Clark did nocgive me ACLU a
gili:of$25 asalleged. \Vhac hedid do wasgive nvo freelunchesfor r11e
purpose ofa raffie. (3) n 1en1ain attorneys for diedefense (and theones
whosigned medefense brief) were Dave \Villian1s and Rick Can1pbell,
both of,vhoni are evangelical Christians.
leisn1y i1npression, based on firsthandobservations ofcheenti retrial
and direct conun1u1icacion ,vim die accorneys before, durin g, and ali:er
rhe trial that: (I) "ll1ey executed their duties well. 'l11is ,vas the unani-
111ously expressed opinion ofall medefense wia1esses ac cliecrial,and of
DuaneGish, who,vas r11ere as an observer. (2) nieaccorney general was
penecratingin hiscross-exaininingofchose ACLU witnesses hehandled.
12. See apf'<'ndix 7 of NormanL Geisk r ";th A.F. Brooke 11and MarkJ. Keough, The
Creator in tht Counroom: *5,cope.( / /'"( Milford, Mich.: Mott ]v(c d ia. 19 82 ) for a stateme,u
of the Creation Science. Legal Dc:fensc r:und ( \V nddJ Bir<l, LegalCounsel) o n che allege<l
mishand.li1l g o f the case by the state'sattorney.
128 Creation and the Courts

(3) 'lbere ,vas no question in our n)inds about the dedication of the
defense attorneys, though they,vere far oum111nbered by the ACLU

THE ACLU ATTORNEYS

'Theleadattorney for the ACLU was Robert M.Cearley.J r.(ofCear-
ley,Gitchel, Mitchell, and Bryant, PA., Little Rock, Arkansas). IJ11111edi-
acely followingdie trial, nvelve ACLU attorneys posed for dieArkansas
Dernocrat (Deceniber 18, 1981).nie plaintiffs' briefliscs die following
(nine) nan1es: Roberc Cearley, Philip Kaplan (of Kaplan, Bre,ver, and
Bill1eilner, P.A., Lierle Rock), Bruce Ennis,Jr.andJack Novick (ofACLU
Foundation, N.Y.), and Peggy L. Kerr, Gary E. Cr.twford, and Mark E.
Herlichy (listed as"ofcounsel"). In addition, acknowledg,nent isgiven
to twolegalstudents (ofFordha,n University School ofLa,v), Katluyn
Keneally and Kathryn S.Reimann. n1eniedia reporr.ed that rhere were
a toral of seventeen, and one source reported as1nany as nventy-r., vo
ACLU lawyers and assiscants who,vorked on thecase. Conipared ,vith
four defense attorneys and cheir three legal assistants, rhe ACLU out-
nun1bered the state by about diree co one.
Furd1ennore, it appears obvious diat wirh chis larger staff (twenry
in all) than die defense (about six), the attorneys of the ACLU had a
definite legal advantage. And judging fron1 the voltunes of books and
exhibits presenred at the trial, it,vasclear diat die ACLU legalstaffhad
done dieir ho,nework.
Anorher interestingfearureofdie ACLU acrorneys was rheir obvious
d1eacrical abUicy.niey understood playing co die press (by bringing up
irrelevanr but sensational ,natters, like UFOs), and appealing to die
court (by frequently n1entioning the religious background and associa-
rions of diose in favor of die creacion..evolurion Ace). Probably niosc
observers (whatever side they were on) ,vould agree that rhe ACLU
si1nply presented a 1nore persuasive case than rhe ar.to rneygeneral. In
order to do this, ho,vever, the ACLU arrorneys had co twist, disrorc,
and even ,nisrepresentthe faces. For exa,nple, mey carefully concealed
rhe unfalsifiable nature of rhe general rheory of evolucion; rhey hid
die sciencific supporc for che creationisr vie,vpoint.1hey also success-
fully painted supporters ofcreacionisni as Procescanc"fundainencalisr,s"
Th c1\1tl ., a11Trial (1982) 129

though 1nany ,vereagnostics, Buddhists, Ron1an Catholics, evangelical

Protestants, and ocher beliefs.
In so,ne cases, the ACLU llacly 1nisrepresenr.ed the faces. For ex-
au1ple, they represented one ,vitness as reaching a "science" class ac
Dallas Se1ninary, despite his clear disavo,val of cl1is in his deposition,
where he said,"This is a theology course." And by presenting the class
in religifnis ancl1ropology as cl1ough ic ,vere scientific anthropology,
che ACLU could n1ake his five religious views abour o rigins look as
if ic conrradicred rhe position of Ace 590, which lists nvo scientific
positions on each poinc of origins (see plainciffs' brief). ll1e ti1ll cexc
reads like chis:

Q "And all of che references rhere in citis anthropology course are

co the Bible in chat seccion?"
A. "ll tac'scorrecc."

Q "And there are no- in chat section chere are no scientific scare-
ntenrs,vhacsoever ?"
A. "ll1ac's correct. ll1is is a rheology course."

1ltere is no question dtac me ACLU lawyers ,vere ,veil crai.ned ac

rwiscingand discorcingcite faces,a ralenc chedefense did norexercise. In
short, the ACLU la,vyerscontinued rhe "religion vs.science" scenario
che1nedia had already presented, and die judge bought ic.

Co1nrnents ontheJudge

Son1e have i1nplied thatJudge Overton accepted che ACLU"story"

because he was part of rheir plor. I don't thiuk chat ,vas the case. He
did, however, give dear evidence of being biased against creacionis1n.
Co nsiderthe follov,ing:
I)nte judge,vasa cl1eologicallyliberal Methodist whodid not believe
in creationis1n as defined by Ace 590.
2) He,vas citeson ofan evolutionary biology teacher, ,vhoatrended
every session of the crial, who sac behind 111e ac cite trial, and whon1I
130 Creation and the Co urts

sa,v express her disdain at che creationist cause fron1 cin1e co cin1eat
the trial.
3) His theologically liberal Methodist bishop was the first wia1ess
against teachingcreacionisn1. So,ne felr diat misfact alone should have
disqualified the judge. One person wrote a leccer co the editor of the
Arkansas Dernocrat (Decen1ber 15, 1981) saying:

In thecreationscience trial, there isa question of neutraltiyon the part

ofJudge Overton. \\:rhcn the 1'1cthodist bishop of Arkansas testified
for the ACLU, how could the judge not be in.Auenced. After all, he isa
1'1ethodistandsurely must respect the head Methodist of thestate. You
can be well assuredthat if theJudge were a "fundamentalist Christian"
the ACLU would cry and scream "partiality."

4)' fhe judge n1anifested biasagainst creacionis1n byseveral outbursts

ofpersonal opinion duringchecrial. Once, he chided a highschool sci-
ence reacher.'Ihe court record readsas follows:

\Xl'itness [To\\a1leyj: "why narrow your possibilities toonlyone when- "

Theconn [the jndge, interrnpting]:"\'<Tell,because it'snotSundayschool.
You're trying co teach about scieoce."13

5) Hedenied a n1orion by me defense which would haveelin1inated

irrelevant religious opinions being included in the record (and thus
being reported by the press).
6) Before the trial the judge said he would rule fro,n me bench (as
though his n1ind ,vere n1ade up), but he lacer reversed cou rse when he
,vas criticized by witnesses and citizens as being biased.
7) Despite nearly a week of resriniony frorn nurnerous Ph.D.'s in
science (so,ne of,vho,n ,vere evolutionists) insisting chat creacionisn1
is as scientific asevolution and isnot based on rhe Bible, the judgesrill
referred co scientific creationisni as"the biblical view ofcreation." His
I3.Mcu ,m v.Ark11m11slloardofEd1w 11io11, S29 ESupp. I 25S ( E.D.Ark.1982). Seochap-
ter4 foranother c:xnmplc of rnch 3n obvious public displayofhias.
I4.Seeappendix I.
 I 3I

basic n1ind-sec had never been changed: evolution is to be.learned in the

public school, and creation is what you learned in Sunday school.
8) The judge's decision revealsanabsolutiscic naturalistic bias,aswiU
be clearlyseen in che followingdiscussion on the tuling.
9) Scot Morro,v,an evolurionist who wasa witnessfor reaching cre-
arion along wirh evolution, \vas interrupted and verbally chastised by
the judge. He later said he thought the judge ,vas closed-niindeds.'

C ornrnentson theJudge's Ruling

It ,vas rheal,nosr unanin1ous opinion of cl1ose present on bocl1sides
ali:er the crial chac the judge ,vould rule for the plainriffs. No one ,vas
greatlysurprised, cl1en,on.January 5,1982, whenJudge Overton struck
do,vn Ace 590 and ruled ir an unconscicutional violation of cl1e First
Arne ndrne nt. \'Qe \viii divide our conunents on cliis ruling into several
sections: factual, logical, legal, and religious.

THE FACTVAL ERRORS

1l1ere are a nu,nber of factual errors worcl1y of note in die ruling.
Firs,t the judge is clearly wrong in saying rhe terrn "scientific creacion-
isrn" did nor gain currency tuicil around 1965,afi:er me publication of
1he Genesis Flood in 1961. In fact, die terrn did not conie intoco1nn1on
use tillarotuid I974, follo,vingme publicadon of Henry Morris'sbook
Scientific Creationi.<rn.
Second, cl1ejudge iswronginassercing rl1at Paul Ellwanger was"nio -
tivaced by. . .m
[ e] desirecosee che Biblical versionofcreacion caught in
die publicschools." Ellwanger desired chata scient!fic version ofcreation
be taught in me schools.
niird, me judge is niiscaken in believing maccreation and Rood sro-
ries are tuiique to Genesis. TI1ey are found in rn anyancient cultures,
includ ing Babyloniaii and Swnerian.
Fourch, me creationisr'sconcept of a "recent earth" is noc based on
cl1e genealogy of die Old Testament but on dieir scientific argtunents
for a young earch.
IS.Ciled in Geiskr,Cru torin tbe Counroom.13 3.
 I 32. Creation and the Courts

Fifth, it is not true chat no witness gaveevidence of refusal co publish

creacioniscs' arcicles. Roberc Genay gave a,nple evidence of chis in his
cestiniony.
Sixth, the judge ,vrongly affinns chat Mr. Elhvanger believes "boch
evolution and creation are religion." Ellwanger believes boch arescien-
rific views.
Seventh, die ruling incorrecdyaffinnsrhacdieitnprobabilicyargu111ent
is used by creationists co supporc "a ,vorld,vide flood . . . and a young
eard1."It was used on ly co sho,v die need forpositing adesignerof life.
Eighch, diejudge1nisrepresencs111y cestiniony about fundanienr.aliscs'
beliefs in "Five Fundamentals." In face, I cesrified rhac rhere were c,,,o
overlapping secs of five, which niade six" Funda,nencals."6'
Ninrh, he incorrectly asserts char die scientific conununicydoes not
consider die origin of life as pare of die overall d1eory of evolution.
Spontaneous generation oflifeis ofi:en discussed byevolurioniscs as an
explanation ofho,v life began in rhe priineval "soup."
Tend1,diejudge falselyasserrs diacadefensewitness tescified diac tl1ere
,vere1nore man c,vo basicsciencific positionson origin.s111e ,vicnessaf-
firmed rhac rhere,vere onlyc,vosciencificviews on thevariouspoints ofori-
gin (eirher lifeand lite fon11sbeg-Jn bycliance or rheybeg-Jn bya creator),
but that rhere are rnany religious ways to conceive of rhis"creator."
111ese are only sonie of the niore obvious 1nisat kes.111e ruling as a
whole badly distorts n1anystaceniencscrucial cothecase.Closeexaniina-
16. lht> judgewrongly asr.aud (i1 footnote 4 of his ruling) thac: " Dr. Geisler tcstiticd to
the widely held .,.iewthat therearefive bd icf,.characte ristic of all Funda mentalist mo,.ern<.':n ts ,
i tl add i.tio o, of co urse.to t.he incrr lncyof Script ure:(I) bcld
i in the vU'gio bi.rth of C hrist.
(2) bdicfin thedeityof C hrist,(3) bd ief in che suhs-cirucionalam1t<'mcnt ofChrist, (4) beliefin
the se.condcorni ngof Christ,and (S) belief in the physical resurrectionof a11departed souls."
\Vh:u l actuaUy had said io the deposition testimony was: "And those C$Sential docttine.s
were.: ( I) the virgin birdtof Christ.dtatjcsuswasvirgin born;(2) thedeiryofChrist.thatJesus
w:is God; (3) the atonement of C hrist, tl1at C hrist diedQn the cro ss for rhe sins of the world;
(4) ,he bodily re<urroction. d,acJesus bo<l;Jy ro: from ch< grave; (5)and ,he inspiration of
the Biblt:, that the Bible is the word of God. (6) Now. some added a 6th one, but chesc were
the fivefundamentals.l lte 6th one tlmt theya(Med is that J('jusisgoing to return to thisearth
someday. th<:Sc.co nd ComingofChrist".
1he judge rnadc r,vo mistake . He co nfused the bodily rc urrection of Christ with the
b(.)dily r<."Su.rrect i()n ofall belie...-ers. And he didn't addcorrcrrly,since the "'five" he noted plus
rhe inspiration of Scripture equals si:cfu ndamcoca.k as I had s..1.id.
The 1\1t L<a11 T ria l (1982) 133

tion ,vo11ld indicate d1ac the ruling isbased on the pretrial n1ind-set of
the judge,since hesometimescites the,vitnesses' ideasfro1n their precrial
depositions rather than fron1 the n1ore dearly d1ought out scace1nencs
d1ey lacer gave in court cesci1nony. In face die judge's opinion seenis co
be based largely on che ACLU brief.

THE LOGICAL FALLACIES

11ie ruling is a field day for fallacy hunters. First of all, che heart of
d1elegal opinion isthegeneric fallacy.1his fallacy argues char since che
sourceofcreacionisn1isa religious book (Genesis) d1en creationis1n n1usc
be religious. But ashad been pointed out in testilnony fron1both sides
(Ruse for evolution and others for creation), the source of a scientific
dieory has nodiing co dowid1icsstatusasscience. Nooneever rejected
rheKekule1nod elofdie benzene1no lec uleor Tesla'salcernacingcurrent
n1otor because theyca1ne fi-0111 visions, orSocrates' viewssin1ply because
he credits che oracle of Delphi ashis inspiration for d1ose vie,vs.
1l1esourceofascientific idea isqu ite irrelevan.t; it is justifiabilityd1ac
coun ts. Ifone is to thro,v a,vay ascientific viewpoint because itsinspira-
tion co1nes fro111d1eJu deo-Chriscian Bible, d1en 1nuch ofeady1nodern
science should be discarded since Bacon, Kelvin, Ne,vcon, and ochers
adn1icced cheicsource was me biblical vie,vofcreation.1his isa ,videly
held understanding even by non-creationis ts,fron1Alfred N.\v'hicehead
to Ian Barbotu. Furchennore, ifa scientific view is ruled illegal because
itssource is die Bible, then n1ucl1of Near Eastern arcl1aeology should
be likewise prohibited because die source and inspiration for niuch of
ic can1e fron1 rhe Bible. Bue despite the face chat d1is was all carefi1lly
poineed out co the judge in precise tescilnony, he still ruled chat the bill
was religious because itssource\Vas Genesi.s
Second, die fallacy ofrnisirnplication isevident.The judgescared and
i1nplied chat 1nany would dra,v religious i1nplicationsfro1n teachings
abouc creation. Bueche s:une also applies coevolution. For if crearion-
isn1 sho uld be rejected because it is consistent with me beliefs of "fi1n-
dan1enraliscs" (mough it ,vas never one of rhe seated "funda1nenrals"),
rhen evolution should also be rejected because ir is one of d1e scared
beliefs of religious h u1nanists (indeed, it is one of dieir fiu1daniencal
134 Creation and the CourtS

beliefs). Furrherniore, niany scientists haveelevated evolution itself into

a"god" or cheequ ivalent. Lacer in life, forexan1ple, Danvin referred co
"rny deity 'Nan1ral Selection'" as replacingrl1efunction of rhe Deity in
creacing che species.17 Ernsc Haeckel deified die process of evolucion,
as did Alfred \'(faJlace.18Julian Huxley refers to his religion as die "re-
ligion of evolutionary hu1nanis1n."19Now, so far as we kno\v, d1ere are
no infonned crearioniscs who haveever1nade creacionis1n into agod or
religion (though ic is a parr ofme religiousbeliefs ofn1any). In view of
chis,onecould argue diacdiere isagreater danger of die theoryofevolu-
cion beconiing a religion dian of creacionisn1 beco1ning a religion.
n1ird, one notices the fallacy ofemphMizingtheaccidental.The classic
exan1ple of chis logic is me 1nan \Vho beca1ne incoxicared \vherher he
drank \vineand water, whiskey and water,or gin and\Yater. He reasoned
that the water was thecause ofhisintoxication, since it \vas rhecon1n1on
elenienc in the duee scenarios. Judge Overton has said in essence diac
since all fundarnentalisrshavecreacionisrn as parcof their religious belief
dien ic niust be dieessence of cheir religious belief. This does not logi-
cally follo,v. For ,vhac is only accidencal to asysce1n (even ific is al,vays
present) is not necessarily die essence of that systen1. And creationisn1
has never been declared the essence of any funda1nentalisc religion. In
face, not. all funda111en caliscs believe in creacionisn1 as defined in Ace
590 . Mose historians ackno,vledge d1at one of the characceriscics of
niuch of1nodern fundaruenc-alisni is die beliefindispensacionalisn.1The
1nost ,videspread version of diis was largely influenced by me Scofield
Bible. Yee this reference Bible accepts rheGap1lieory, chac diere1nay be
long geologic-al ages in the alleged "gap" becween rhefirst t,vo verses of
Genesis, which isin conflict \Vith points 5 and 6 in Act 590'sdefinition
ofcreationis1n. Furd1ennore, some of dieearliest fundarnentaliscs \vho
17. . C harles Darwin. i1l a lcttcr ro Asa Gray.June S, l 86 1 ( in Francis D arwi1l , e d .. 1hel ift
,md [,e11m of Cha rles Danui11, 2 vols. (New York, llasic Book,, 19 59 ], 2'1 65).
J8. Wallace sa,id "naturalsd cccio n is upremc,. and opetates like a "'m ind"' th at etn "regu
lateall the force:$atworkinJivingorganisms"(see"\V-.illace.Alfred; in PaulEch\"3.r,ds - , 1be
E11cydop,di11of l'l >i/oJQpl,y,8 ,ol,.(NewYork,Macmillanand TI,c l're.:Press,1967),8,276).
19. Julian Huxley, & ligio11 Vit/110" Revda1io11 ( N e w York, Harper. 1957). 203ff.
ThciW<.i<nJ/ Trial (1982 ) 135
,vroce in che famous book called The Funda,nentals20 (such asJan1es
Orr,B. B. \'\/arfield, and G.F. \Vrighc)were willing co accept n1odified
evolutionary positions. So ifcreationism (asdefined in Acr 590) is not
even universally held an1ongfunda,nencalisrs- cosay nothingofessen-
rjal r.o fw1da1nencalisn1- then d1e judge erred in rejectingcreationis1n
on the grounds it,vas essentially religious.
Fourth, the judge's ruling co1nn1its the fallacy of overlooking the es-
sential'. [he essence of religionisworship orconnnit111ent coan ulcin1ace
(whed1er God, aperson,oranidea). Religion isnot sin1ply acknowledg-
ing that there isa first cause co che universe.This is no1norea religious
ace chan recognizingd1ar son1e person,vould1nake agoodspouse n1akes
one 1narried. le takes commitment co n1ake religion (or n1arriage). If
approaching an objecr in a purely scientific ,vay represencs religion,
then the srudy of Christ fro1n the evidence of history is auco1.natically
teaching "religion." 'll1e judge has failed co account for oneof the n1osc
funda1nencal distinctions of d1e courts in cl1is 1narcer: rhe reaching of
religion is,vrong in publicschool, bur not cl1e reachingabout religion.
Inlike n1anner, che reaching abour an object ofa religion (e.g., che Cre-
ator) is nor die essence of char religion. Rather, ir is presenting so1ne
alleged teachings of d1e Creator. In shorr, belief d1ac God exists does
nor auco1nacicallyconstitute a religious belief (Ariscodebelieved diac
God existed but did not worship hi1n.) le is belief in God (cruse, co1n-
1nicn1enc) chat is religiou.s
Fift h, since d1e judge failed co111ake d1e above essential distinction,
a reductio ad absurdurn follows. n1eabsurd consequenceof che judge's
position chatacreator cannot beitnplied asan explanationofd1eorigin
oflite is that even Danvin'sOrigin o/Species cannot be c-.u1ghc in public
schools, since che lase lines of that book refer co the creator of die first
tonn (or fonns) of life.21
20. R. A. Torre}', e.d . 1be h md.111un111/s (Los A1lgd e s.: Bible liHtitute of Los Angdes,
1917).
21. Darwin'sactual d osingwords were 3$ foUo ws: fhercis grandeur i1l this viewof life,
with its sever.11power >s ha.vi11.g beeoo rigi1t1..llybreathed by the C f'('atOr-i 1uo a few fo,ms or
into one and that, whilst this plane.t has go ne cycling on accord ing to the fixl lawof gravit)',
frorn so simple a beg-i1)llingC"Jl(ile,.;.$ fonns most bc...tu r.ifuJ a1ld most wolldetfulhave botn . :\nd
 Creation and the Courts

Sixth, che fallacy of equivocation is co1nmitted concerning che word

"science." Srriccly defined, science has co<lo with things chat areobserv-
able, repeatable, and falsifiable. On this view neither thegeneral theory
ofinacroevolucion nor creacion isscience, since origin evencs were noc
observed and have not been repeated. In che broad sense oforigin sci-
ence char reconscrucrs pasc unobserved evenrsche way a forensic sciencisr
would, borh n1acroevolutionand creation arescientific. Thejudge failed
co recognize this point.
Seventh, the judge's ruling also conrains cases of special pleading.
Suppose we accept the widely held belief reAecced by che judge chat
creacionexnihilo (ouc of nothing) isunique cocertainJu<leo - Chriscian
views. Even so, it isspecial pleadingto 111ake chis"an inherently religious
concept" any ,nore r.lian ,naking creation ex deo (our of God), as in
pantheistic sysce1ns, or creation ex 1nateria (out of preexisting scuff),
as in dualistic syscen1s, inherently religious concepcs. \X'hy single out
only one of the three basic vie,vs of origins-the one represenced by
"creation-science"in rhe Acr-an<linake icalone"inherently religious"?
ls this not a dear bias against one vie,voforigins?
Eighth, Judge Overton violates chelawofthe excluded n1iddle, which
deniands that therecan beonly cwo viewswhen oneisrhe logicalopposite
of die or.l1e r. Boch witnesses and defense attorneysinsisted chat on any
given point of origin cl1e beginning was eicher (a) caused by natural
forces or (b) caused by son1e supernatural force. Despite chis logicaUy
obvious disrincrion, Overron insisted char rhere could be 1nore than
c,vo cheories about origins. He ignored the obvious fuct thac chings
either began by chance orelse by design- afact chareven evolutionists
acknowledge (seeappendix 6).
Ninth, mere are non sequiturs (mings r.l1at <lo not folio"' logically)
in the ruling. For exa1nple, the judge insists char Section 4ofAce 590 is
wrong because"evolution does nor presuppose cheabsence ofacrearoror
God... ." By cl1isJudgeOvercon apparently 111eans diac Acr 590 wrongly
assuiues chac evolutioniluplies acl1eis111.T11isofcourse is noccrue,since
r.lieisticevolution isalogical possibility. What Section 4 implies is cliac,
ar e be ing e vok ed" (71u O rigin ofSpctieJ, in tn'>d uction by \V/. R. 1"h o mpson[ reprint, London:
Dent. 1967). 463).
 137
according co evolution, there is no direct involve1nenc ofany supre1ne
being in rhe origin of die various forms of life. le does not i1nply d1ac
allevolurioniscs believe diere is no God ac all or iliac one could not be
indirectly involved in the evolutionary process.
Tendi, rhere ispetitio principii{begging diequestion). The judge de-
finesanydiscussion ofaCreator asan"inescapably religious djscussion."
He rhen easily concludes chat such adiscussion istu1conscriucional. He
says rhe sanie of "crearion our of norhing." Bue ,vhen rhese conceprs
are prejudged robe religious and chis conclusion is chen used as che
basis fordererniining wherher diey area religious violation of rhe First
Alnendnienr, che judge has used his conclusion as his preniise. This is
chelogical fallacy of begging che question.

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Judge O vercon's ruling also raises son1e serious legal questions.nie
debate turnson nvodifferent incerprecacionsofwhac rhe First Ainend-
1ne nc1neans.One vie,v is diat it entails a ,vall of separation beC\veen
cl1urch and state.1liis view is clearly reAecred in the judge's ruling, as
is evidenced by h is dosing quotation about "good fences 1nake good
neighbors," his ruling out anysupernacuraliscic incerprer.acion ofscien-
tificdata, and his conclusion mar any reference co or iniplicacion of a
"creation" isaucon1acically religious.
' Die ocher inrerprecacion is diac die First A1nendnienc intended no
'\vall ofseparation" benveenchurch and scare buc wasdesigned coguar-
antee "religious neucralicy" on die pare of rhescace ro,vard religion by
opposing che"escablishn1enr"ofany one religionover ochers.This vie,v is
reflected inarticles by \VendellBirdand.John \Vhicehead, whocogedier
defended die Louisiana creation/evolution case chat we will look ac in
cliapcer 5.121l 1eessence of rheir argwnenc isdiacdie First Aniendnienc
is noc tor coniplecely separating church and sc-ace buc is against estab-
lishing or favoringany one religion above ochers by the aid ofdie srace.
22. . Sec\X1<:ndcllR. Bird,"h eed1:unof ReligionandScience L1struction in
PublicSch()ols; Yale Law jom,111l8713 (January 1978): 515- 570 ; idem, "l'r:dom from
Esmblisluncnt and Unnn.1c 1Jjcy in Public School Instruction :and RdiglonSchool
Regulario1'l;' 1-/arw,rdjounMl
of l mv anti P11bl.ci Policy (June 1979): 143-154;John \YI. W'hir<head, 7,1, Sr.p,m11io 11 l /111sio11
( Milford. Mich.: Mou M a.1982).
138 Creation and the Co urts

'The First A1nendrnenc reads: "Cqngress shall rnake n<1 Law respecting an
establishment ofreligion, qr prohibiting the freeexetcise thereef.' And in
che f.unous Everson case (1947), Supre,ne Courc Juscice Black sraced
chat chis n1eans"neither ascare nor rhe Federal Governn1enc can sec up
a church." And neither can it "pass la,vs which aid one religion ... or
prefer one religion over another."
Now if che First An1end1nenr is really an anrj-esrablishn1encclause,
as ic says, and nor a cornplece separation clause, as it does noc say, chen
the basisfor the judge's rulingis,vrong.One thingseen1Scercain: if the
Consricucion 111eanc coseparate God andgover11111enc,rhen The!Jeclara-
tion ofindependence isunconsricucio,nal for itspeaks of d1e"unalienable
rights" granced coall hu1nans by die "Creacor." A11dsince pronouncing
The Declaratiqn of Independence unconscicucional is absurd on its face,
,ve are leli:,vich che only reasonable conclusion: mac che Conscicucion
does nocseparace God fron1governn1enc or from governn1enr-sponsored
publicsd1ools.
Bue lee ussuppose for diesakeofarg11n1enc d1acche First Arnendrnenc
could be understood as a separation clause (and noc an an ri-esrablish-
n1encclause). Even on chis interpretationJudge Overcon's decision is
contrary co the First Arnendrnenc, since it allo,vs o nly a naturalistic
evolutionary view co becaught, which vie,v favors rhe beliefsof religious
hurnaniscs. In face die judge's decision nor only favors die religion of
hun1anisn1but favorsitexclusively. For the ruling allowsonly noncheistic
evolucionisric and nacuraliscic vie,vs, ,vhich accord precisely ,vid1 the
vie,vsof religious hu,naniscs, co be caughc.
In brief,ifone takesan"anri-escablishn1ent"interprecation of the First
An1endn1en,cthen theAlkansascreacion-evolucion aceisconscicucional,
since it does not establish any one view or religion over anod1er buc
mandates c.eachingborh views. And ifone cakes a "wall of sepa rarion"
vie,v (asOverton apparendy does), then his ruling isa violation of che
Firsc Alnendn1ent, since ic noc only allo,vs buc favors nond1eisric reli-
gions over theistic ones. In either case, d,e ruling see,ns co violate che
Consricucjon, nor uphold it.
Judge Overton rejecced d1isanci-escablish111en c incerprecarion, say-
ingd1at "theargun1ent has no legal rnerit." Hedisn1issively referred to
Thc1\1,<i<a11 Tria l ( 1 98 2) 139
Bird's scholarly article in the Yale law Review2l as"a student note." lt
is difficult for non-lawyersto enter chis battle on tl1e n1eaning of tl1e
Constitution. Ir see,ns rhar tnuch of the current legal"reading" of the
Constitution is conrrary co a conunonsense interpretation. Certainly
experience sho,vs rhat che vast n1ajoricy of people expect readers co
understand by rheir ,vords ,vhac they n1eant by chen1, not ,vhac the
reader, vo1.tld like then1 r.o 1nean. Now, fro,n ,vhat ,vecan d iscernfron1
rhesc-ace,nencs of che fran1ers of che Consrirution, and its1u1derscood
,neaning by conte111poraries and in1111ediate successors, rheanti-esrab-
lishn1encinterprerarion ofche FirstAn1endn1encseen1srobe checorrecc
one. If rhis isso, Judge Overcon's decision is based on a 1nisincerpreca-
tion of che C onstit ution.
For rhose who defend the interp retat io n of the First An1endn1ent
n1ore in tennsofwhac it111e ansco11S today rather than,vhat thefran1ers
,neanr by ir, l ask the following question: Do these interpreters ,vanr
their words to be interpreted by succeeding generations according co
what they n1eant by tl1e1n or according co what che fi.1cure readers ,viii
decide tl1ey n1ean co them? If these interpreters expect us to accept
their meaning (and not read ours intoit), then should tl1ey notgive d1e
original fran1ers ofche First An1end1nent d1esan1e courcesy?

TH RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS
Judge Overton ruled that Act 590 ,vould establish the religion of
"fi.1ndan1enarlis1n"in publicschools and,vas thereby unconstitutional.
Bue in ruling rhe ,vay he did rhe judge has in effect established the
religion o f "secular hun1anisrn" in die public schools. Judge Overton
accon1lpished the opposite of ,vhac he thought he ,vas doing. For in
crying co avoid giving,vhat he calJed "fundan1entalisc"beliefsone voice
(an1011g two voices), hegave "huma nists"theonly voice.

T \X' O OVERLOOKED FACTORS

n1ereare nvosignificant factors co keep in ,nind wh id, Judge O ver-
t.on apparently overlooked. First, in a balanced-treaunent,two-n1odel
23. Sec ootc 22.above.
140 Creation and the Co urts

approach (such as Act 590 provided for), there is no way one can
reasonablyargue chaconlyone view is being favored.1he Ace niandaces
teaching both vie,vs (if either is taught). So if Overron's reasoning is
right, rhen rhe Ace is also w1conscicutional because ic mandates teach-
ingevolution (which isconsistent ,vich a hu1nanisric religious sysce111).
Bue the judge clearly ackno,vledged (via his citingofdie Epperson case,
1968)chat ceaching evolucion isnot reaching religion. Ifche Aceequ ally
n1andaces ceachingboch (ifeither), dien ic is unreasonable co reject die
Acr because ic allegedly favors one of twoequally rnandaced views.
Second, chereisnowayAct 590could establish one viewoveranother,
since it doesn't n1andace ceacbingeicher. le isonly an"if,then"law.le says
d1acifoneviev,iscaught - andic need noc be- dien dieopposing view
n1ust also be caught. Ho,vcan ala,v n1aodacing the teaching of nothing
beestablishing anything?
Ofcourse, ic isargued chac wid1such an Ace111any teachers, votildope
not co ceacli eidier view and ,votild d1ereby rob che student of a valid
educationalexperience.Bueche possibilicyof 111issing"avalid educational
experience is neidier unconscicucional nor tu1con1nion (chere issiniply
far coo 01uch kno,vledge to teach everything) .

THE ESTABLISHl>fENT OF A HUl>fANISTIC RELI CIO,V

Grantingas I do rhegood intentions ofJudge Overcon, his decision
has in effect done exactly d1e opposite of whar he desired. The judge
,vished touphold che First A111endn1enc byavoidingche"escablislunenc"
of religion in Arkansas publicschools. TI1is is a noble task for which be
was crained and cook die oacli of office. Unforcunacely, d1e judge has
acconiplished cl1e reverse of his seated desires. For by crying co avoid
favoring the religion of"funda1nentalis1n"he has in effect "established"
die religion of"hu111anis1n."
Lee us oudioe che reasoning for cliisconclusion:

I. Humanism has been defined as a religion by the U.S. Supreme

Court.
2. Nontheism,evolution,naturalism, and relativismare thecentral beliefa
of religioushumanists.
The 1\1tl ., a11 Tria l ( 19 8 2) 141

3. Ovcnon's decision ineffectexclusively favors the teachingof theabove

beliefs.
4. Bue whatever in effect favors the central beliefsof one religion over
another isa violation of the First A.mc11d01ent.
5. Therefore,Overron's decision in effect is a violation of the f irst
1\mcndrncnc.

Now lee us e.xau1ine eac h of these preu1ises:

Hun1anim1is a1eligion. H1unaniso1 isa"religion" byit.so,vn acclailn
and bylegal recognition'. D1si isevidenced by thefollowing facts: ( 1) The
Hun1anist Manifesto I (1933) declares:"coestablish such a religion [of
hun1anis111] isa major necessityofche present."'The words "religion" or
"religious"occur son1eC\vent y-ninecilnesin chesix-pageManifesto. (2)
"ll1eHun1anist J'v!anifesto II (1973) continues coexpound the belief that
hu1nanis111 is a religion, using the ,vords "religion"or "religious"so,ne
nineteen tin1es. lc proclain1s that"Fai,th con101ensurate wich advancing
knowledge, isalsonecessarY:' 24(3)An influential journal isdedicated co
these beliefs; it is called che Religious Hun1anist. (4) Many proponents
of hu1nanis1n have ,vritcen books and articles describing their hun1an-
isticbeliefsasa religion.Julian Huxley called his beliefs " the religionof
evolutionaryh un1ani1sn."s2 Konstantin Kolenda'sbook on hu,naniscic
religion is entitled ReligionWithout God (Pro1ned1eus,1976).
Not. only do humanises recog nize hu1nanisn1as a religion (o r as re-
ligio us),but che Supren1e Court has also recognized die tenn "secular
hun1anisni" as describinga religion.' The pro cess of mis recognition
can1eabout gradually when ,nany agnostics and ad1eists clain1ed First
A.n1end1nentprotection for their beliefsagainst discrin1ination in jobs
or in cl1e n1ilicary.n1eSupreme Court ruled (in the Everson case, 1947)
that "neither a Seate nor the Federal Governn1enc can consticucionally
force a person co professa belief or disbelief in any religion. Neither
can (ic) co nstitutionally passlaws or impose require,nencs which aid
24. Paul Kunz. ed., Humani.if i\1 ,mifa.<to s I and II {Buffalo, N.Y:. Promcthcu,. 1973). 13.
"Hufnai'tist Manifei,co I.,.firstappeam:J i1l' /he A'ttu HummHst 6 / 3 { May/June 193 3).'"Humansit
Manif<'"st<> (I" firstappeared in 11u: Hu1111mist 33 / S(Septernber/ Oc-tober I9 73) .
2S.Sec Huxley.Rdigion lVithout &vtlati,on 2031[
 Creation and the Co urts

all religions asagainst non-believers."26 Also, the Court ruled (Torca,,o,

1961) that chose \vho do noc believe in God can scill have a conscien-
tious objector status on religious grounds (i.e., on the grounds of the
Firsc An1end1nenc). n1e record of the Torcaso casespecifies son1e non-
cheiscic religions, saying, "An1ongreligions in this country \Vhich do
nor teach what \VOltld generally be considered a belief in theexistence
of God are Buddhis1n, Taois111, Ethical Culcure, Secular Hun1anisn1,
and ochers."27
So not only do hun1ansirs clain1 there is such a religion as sec11lar
hun1anis111, bur the Supre1ne Court has officially noted this religion
by na1ne.
Nontheisrn, evolutionimi, and natt,ralisrn are thecentralbelief efhu-
manisrn.n1ere are four central beliefsof religious hun1anis1n: (1) non-
theisn1, (2) evolution, (3) naturalis111, and (4) relativisn1 (of hun1an
values).1 hesebeliefsareconfessed in }v/.anifestos I and II and chroughouc
the writingsof u1ost hun1ansics.
ivl.anifesto I begins,

\'vc therefore affirm the following:

First: Religioushumanists regard the universe as self-existing a nd not
created [no n-theism].
Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nat ure [natural-
ism) and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process
[evolution].'8

'Thirdly, the Humanist Manifesto denies any supernatural explana-

tions (see points 3,4,5, 6, and l l ).29 1 heHurnanisM
t anifestoII (1973)
reaflinns thesesa111e three beliefs(see" Preface"and"Religion,"sections
1 and 2).30
n1e Secula1Hurnanist Declaration (1980) again reaffirn1s cheseexact
beliefs in points 4, 6, 8, and 9. Under the lase poinr they say, "1l1ere
26 . Eumon v. & ,ird of&lut ,llionof Ewing,330 US. I (1947).
27. 1orC1 .<ov. 11-i,rl:im, 36 7 U.S.488 ( 1961).
28. Kurtz,.e d.. Hum1111ist J\11mtfaJ10.< I andJI, 8.
29. Ibid., 8-9.
30. lbid.. 13- 17.
Thc1\1<l.<nJJ Trial (1982 ) 143
n,ay be son1e significant differences arnong scientists concerning che
n1echanics ofevolucion; yet che evolution of che species is supported
so snongly by the weight of evidence that ic is difficult co rejecc it." le
concludes, "Secularhu1nanis1n placestrust in htunan intelligence rather
than in divine guidance."31 Again, secular hun1anisn1 ackno,vledges no
need for God, a nacuralistjc explanation for everything, and a belief in
evolution. So far as we can detennine, all secular htunanisrs hold these
three essential beliefs which fonn thecoreofthe religion ofhurnanis1n.
Indeed, if one appealed ro God, the supernatural, and/or creation, he
would bydefinition beexcluded asasecular hwnanist; he,vould inface
be sorne kind of cheisc.
In addition co chese three beliefs- nonrheis111,evolution, and naru-
ralisni- secular hurnanisni believes in the relativity of hurnan values.
Manifesto I (point 5) reads: "H1unanis111 asserts chat the narure of the
tmiverse depict ed by n1odern science ,nakes unacceptable anysupernatu-
ral orcosniic guarantee ofhtunan values."32If chis is so, then Manifesto
II correcrly noces, "Eth ics is aucononious and siruacional, needing no
theological or ideological sanction" (point 3).33 In shore, if God is not
needed for cheorigin oflife, then godliness islikewise not needed as the
basisfor living life.Each person n1uscdecidehisor her ownvalues.'Thus,
thefirst dueecentral beliefsofsecular hun1anis1n i1nply thefourd1. And
these four are core beliefs of the religion ofsecular hwnanis,n.
Overton's ruling.favors religioushur11anists'belieft Of d1efour central
pren1ises ofsecular hu1nanis1n,JudgeOverton direcdy ruled tha.c three
of chen1 (and, by iniplication, the fottrch as well) are d1e only religious
beliefs d1ac can be caughc in Arkansas science classes. For he ruled chac
reaching any non-naturalisticor non-evolutionarytheory ,vould be
unconscicurional. He ruled chac even d1e in1plicacion of a "creacor" or
supernacural cause isa violation of the First An1endn1enc. In diejudge's
o,vn ,vords, scientific creacionisni "is noc science because ic depends
upon supernatural intervention whicli is nocguided by nacural la,v."le
31. 11'I.!.Sa ulA, l-111111,m i ;s Da/ 111w io 11 ( Buffalo, N.Y.: Promethe-u , 1980), 2 1, 24.The book's
cov et describes ical:havi ,, gbec,, draftedby Paul KurrzaJ)d endor sed by 58 promiJ\encscholars
and writers.
3 2. Ibid., 8.
33. Ibid.. 17.
144 Creation and the Co urts

cannot be science, die judge added, because "icis noc explanato ry by

reference co nacural la,v. . . ." In fac,t d1e judge poncilicaced, "there is
no sciencific explanacion tor diese luuics [ofcreaced kinds ofaniluals]
which is guided by natural la,v and rhe lin1icacions, whatever diey are,
cannot be explained by natural la,v" (e1nphasis added). And as for rhe
creationist contention forseparate origins for apeand hunian, mejudge
ruled mac this"explainsnothingand refersco noscienci6c faceor theory"
(eniphasisadded). Inaddition, chejudgesaid,"rheconcepts and wording
convey an inescapable religiosity" (eniphasis added). Indeed, he called
d1e scientific claini for "creation of d1e ,vorld" che ulciluacereligious
scaren1enc because "God is the only actor." And "concepts concerning
... a supre1ne beingof soo1esore are 1nanifesdy religious" (see cl1apter
8, passiln).
Favoring(Jne religion violatestheFirstA rnendrnen t. 1l1e FirscAn1end-
n1enc ofdie Uniced Scares Conscicucion says nothingabout chesepara-
tion of cllurch and scare. It does, ho,vever, forbid me "esrablish1nenc"
of a religion by me federal govenunent. lt reads: "Congress shall n1ake
no la,v respecting an escablish1nenc of religion, or prohibiting me free
exercise d iereof.. . ." Lacer, in the Everson case (1947), Supre1ne Court
JusticeBlackscared diac diis1neans"ne idierastate nor die Federal Gov
enunenc can sec up a cliurcli." And neid1er can ic"pass laws whicli aid
one religion . . . or prefer one religion over anomer." Ihus any judicial
decision ,vhicll so aids one religion over anomer is a clear violation of
rhe Firsc A1nend1nenr.
So,ne ,nay not considerhwnanisni a religion. Bur even here rhe Su
pre1ne Court has ruled (Abington, 1963)rhar"dieStare ,nay notestab-
lish a 'religion of Secularisrn' in die sense of affinnatively oppo sing or
sho,vinghosciliry co religion" and rhereby "preferring d1ose who believe
in no religion over chose who do believe."34 Furcher, in die Reed case
(1965), a disu icccourt si1nilarly ruled mat for govern1nenc "coespouse
a particular philosophy of secularisn1o, r secularisn1 in genearl"3> may
bea violation of che First An1end1nen.t
34. Abington S<hool Di<.h-ia v. Schempp.374 U.S. 203 (1963).
3S.Ru d v.11m Hovrm,237 F.Supp.48 (W.D. Ml 196S).
The1\1tl .<a>1 Trial (1982 ) 145
A 1"1 IS UN DE RSTA N D I N G OF RELIGION
ll1ac Judge Overcon niisunderscood d1e nature of religion is dear
froni his scacenient diat,"111e a rgtunent advanced by defendants' wit-
ness, Or. Nonnan Geisler, that teaching die existenceof God is not
religious unless me ceadling seeks a conuninnent, is concrary co co1n-
n1on understanding and contradictsseeded case l.a,v. Stone v. Graharn
... ( 1980);AbingtonSchoo/Districtv.Schernpp . . . (1963)."
Firsc of all, Overcon does noc scare precisely whac ic is in rhese la,vs
char de1nands chat one cannoc refer to a rational inference fro,n sci-
entific evidence, without any call co or i1nplicacion of devotion to or
worship of d1is firsc cause, ,viiliouc1naking char firsr cause an objecr of
religious ,vorship. A carefi.t! exan1inairon of chese cases reveals d1ac no
sud1 iniplicacion is rhere.
Second, he overlooks die facr d1at in 1ny cesci1no ny(seechapter 4) I
citean expert witnesson chesideof teachingo nlyevolution (Langdon
Gilkey) ,vho supports the very poinc I n1ade.
ll1ird, like,vise,che judge ignores rhe face char in che Torcaso case
(1961),PaulT illich, whon1I citeinsupport ofdiissan1epoinc, was used
as an authority by the Court in helping ro define religion. And Tillich
testified chat religion involves aco1111nia11enc r.o ,vhac is"ulrilnace," even
ifone does noc believein God.
Finally, if me 1nere reference co a creacor is ipso facto religious and
unconscicuicon al, d1en so are The Declaration o_fIndependence, " under
God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, presidencial oaths, and nu1nerous
oilier paresofour heritagechathave never been ruled unconstitutional
(see chapter 6).

MISSING THE POINT

1l1e judge1nissed che1nain pointof1nycescilnony (seechapter 4) and

ignored che rest. He dis1nissed n1y point (d1at science is an objective
approach to a first cause,while religion calls for devotion or co1nu1it-
1nenr ro such a cause) in a single sentence: "le is contrary co conunon
undersranding and contradicts seeded case law." He does noc explain
how ic is concrary, and che cases he cites (Stone (1980] and Abington
[1963]) do not address d1is issue. TI1e niajoricy of rny cescirnony is not
 Creation and the Co urts

even addressed, yet according coexpert eyewitnesses (see the foreword

and preface co chis book) it destroyed the ACLU case.

The Inescapable Conclusion

On January 5, 1982, federal courc judge \X'illiatn Overcon in ef-
fect established secular hunianisni as a religion in the Arkansas public
schools. For he ruled rhar only hu1nanisr beliefs, including nonche-
is111, evolution, and nacuralis1n, can be caught in public scliool science
classes.n1ese beliefs nor only favor hu1nanisni bur arecencral beliefsof
die religion ofsecular h u1nanis111. Perhaps die judge did noc intend co
do diis, bur diis is nonetheless the effecc of his decision. History will
record chat in Judge Overron's federal court (Dece1nber7-17, 1981)
die Creator "losr"!nie irony ofhiscory ,vas diac chis very court which
dishonorably distnissed God began each day by che U.S.1narshal pray-
ing,"God save die United Scares and diis honorabl.e coun ." To chis we
can only add, Anien!36

Further Reading
Geisler, Norman L., wich A. F. Brooke II and l'vlark J. Keough. 1he Creator in t fJt
Com1mom: "Scopesll: l'vlilford, l'v!ich.: l'vlo ct l'vlc,li a, 1982.
Gentry, Roberc. Creation's Tiny J\1ystery. Knoxvillc: Earth Science Association,
1988.
Gilkey,Langdon. Cre,11io11i,.,n 0 11 Trial:Evo!J1ti o11a n dGod111U trle Rock.l'v!in neapolis:
\'v'in.ston , 1998.
Hilleary, \'v'illiam, and Oren \'v'.l'vlcczge,reds. TheWorldsi\ 1ostFamousCourt 1hal:
Tennessee Evolraio11Case.C incinnati: National Book Company,1925.
Scalia, Antonin. Dissenting Opinion in Ed,uards ( J 98 7) (excerpted in chapter 6 of
this book).

36. 1:ot further e v.tlua60 1l o f th e cas e se( ch ,ptet$Sand 9.

 L.

The Testimony They Refused

to Transcribe

he circunisca.nces surrounding niy O\ Vll cestinio ny in the Ar-

kansas1\1clean trial are strange and suspicious. TI1e cescirn o ny
wenc co che he.ire of the issue of whether creation science is re-
ligio n or science, and ye t it \vas aJrnost corn plecely ignoredby ACLU
cross-exarn inacion (seeappendix 4). Further, rhe court refused ro tran-
scribe the cescirnony1u1cil after the Suprenie Court ruled on che issue
of whether creation science is religion orscience, which wasfive, vhole
years lacer.
Another eyewitness at che trial (\VayneFrair) has spoken co the
strange circuniscanc.es in which cestirnonies in favor of teachingcrearion
were not transcribed and rn ade available co higher courtsor thegeneral
public until after it was coo laceco inAuence their decision. He failed
co ever get h is cestiinony transcribed, despite repeated and frustrating
accernpcs (see die preface co this book).
My cesci1no ny waseventually tran scribed and sent co rne by the Ar-
kansas attorney general's office.TI1ecestiniony,vasgivenon Dece1nber
147
 Creation and the Co urts

11, 198I, but it wasnot until alter theSuprenie Court ruledon theissue,
on June 19, 1987, d1at I received d1e tran scrip.t111is scr-ange situation
has challenged niy nonnally anti-conspiratorial beliefs!
According toochereyewitnesses at d1e trial,,ny testin1ony wascrucial
co the caseand hannful to the ACLU'scause againsr teaching creation
alongside evolucion in public schools. Duane Gish, an eyewicness of
rhe event, wrote: "Geisler was not only present during the trial; he,vas
d1e lead ,vicness for d1e creationist side. . . . His cescitnony, in ,ny vie,v
(I,vas present during d1eentire trial), effectively den1olished d1e n1osr
ilnporrant thrust of che case by the ACLU" (see the foreword to chis
book).
Anod1er ,vicness ac me crial (Wayne Frair) confinned Gish's co1n-
mencs, saying, "Geisler'spresencarion ,vas superb, ... and ac its end
Gish was absolucely exube rant. . . . In no uncertain,vords he declared
co ,ne char Geisler successfully had de111olished every one of cheargu-
01encs present.ed by ACLU ,vicnesses during d1eir preceding five days
of resrirnony" (see rl1e preface ro chis book).
In spireofd1e crucial nature ofir in d1ecreationists' cause, n1y te sti-
1nony ,vas nor available tor any higher courc co see unril roo lace. And,
sadly, cheSupren1e Court (in Ed11Ja1-ds, I987)and lacercourts likeWeb-
ster (1990) and Dover (2005) cite McLean as a precedent opposed co
allo,ving creation into public schools. \Vhac follo,vs is che co,nplere
unedited transcript of 1ny testirnon y in Mclean v. Arkansas Board of
Education {1982), no,v being ,nade available tor d1e very first rune:'

IN 'fHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DIST RICT O F ARKANSAS
\VESTERN DIVISION

McLean, Plaintiff. vs.

Board of Education, Defendant.
Docket No. LR-C-81-322
1. All correeti01l of enors are in brackets. All com rnents on the text are in footnotes. n1e
complete '"C ross, .tamlnation" is fo und in appc11dix4.
The Tes timony' fhe y Refused t() Transc ribe 149
Friday, Dece niber 11, 198I
Little Rock, Arkansa,s9:00 a.111.

PAR"fIALrRANSCRlPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HON. \VlLLIAM R.OVERTON

TRANSCRIPr OF"f ESTIMO NYOF DR. GEISLER

REPORTED BY: JAMES TAYLOR

TRANSCRIBED BY: PEGGE MERKEL

N0Ri\1AN GEISLER, DEFENDAN"fS' \VITNESS S\VORN

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. CA..\.f PBELL:

Q \Vould you please srate your na1ne and address?
A My nanie is Nonnan Leo Geisler, 9551 Millrrail Drive, Dallas,
Texas.
Q And what is your occuparjon, Dr. Geisler?
A I',n a professor at Dallas' Theolo gicalSe,ninary.
Q .I'd like to sho,v you , vhat's been u1arked as defendants' exhibit
no. 9 [8] for identification and ask you if this is a copy of you r
curricuhun virae?
A Yes, ir is.
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor , ar d1is rin1e die Scare,vould 1nove
rhe inrroducrion inro evidence ofdefendanrs' exhibit 9 [8].
MR. SIANO: No objection.
MR. CA..\.f PBELL: Your Honor, d1a'rsdefendanrs' exhibit no. 8.
(Defendants' exhibit 8 received inro evidence.)
BY MR.CA..\.f PBELL:
Q Dr. Geisler, are there any additions to your curriculwn vicae that
you'dlike co rnake?
ISO Creation and the Co urtS

A Yes, rhere are a couple. First of all, I belong to the Arnerican Sci-
entificAfliliarion. Also, I noced d1ac rhelisc ofso,neof d1earcicles
d1ac I've ,vrirren is nor corup le ce.
111ereareacouple articles fron1"Scho larlyJournals" that aren't
included. I can 1nenrion rhen1 no,v if you wane, or I can-
Q Mention mose for the record if you kno,v right offi1and.
/\ Okay. One isn1e Missing Pre,nise in the Oncological Argu-
1nenr" ,vhich ,vas published in "Religious Studies"; che orher is
"TI1e Missing Pre,nise in the Cosrnologic al Argurnent;' which
was published in d1e"New Scholastisrn" [ Scholasticisrn ].
Q Dr. Geisler, ,vhere did you receive your Ph.D.?
A I received rny Ph.D. in philosophy frorn Loyolla [Loyola] Uni-
versity in Chicago.
QAnd ,vhar ,vas che subjecr of your dissercarion?
A My dissertation dealt wid1 che- \'{fhat is Religion? Whac is d1e
nature of religion and religious experience as ir bears on the bor-
derline areasofscience and philosophy and rhe interrelarionships
berween then1 .
QAnd ho,v longhave you been employed by the Dallasn1eological
Sen1inary?
A This is rny third year.
Q \'{(here,vere you previously ernployed?
A Previously I was a cl1airn1an of me Philosophy of Religion De-
parn11ent at Trinity Evangelical Divinit y School in Deerfield,
Illinois and rhen just previous to char cha innan ofrhe Philosophy
Deparnneor at Triniry College in Deerfield, Illino is.
Q \'{(hat classes do you reach at che Dallasnieological Sen1inary?
l\ I teach classesin philosophy, philosophy of religion,n1ed1odloogy,
philosophical 1ued1odology and theology.
QAnd what are your areas ofexpertise?
The Testimony' fl1cy Refused t() Transcribe JS I

r\ My areasofexpertiseare che very areas chat I 1ne ntio nedin chose

classes and describing n1y dissen.ation areasof religion, philosophy
and the relationship bec,veen the1n and science and the border
lying [borderline]areas.
Q Ho,v n1any books have you ,vriccen?
A I'1n not sure but I chink about 14 or IS are published.
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, theStace would render Dr.Geisler
asanexpert in rhe areasof philosophy, religion and theology and
how the two interrelate wid1science.
MR. SIANO: No objection, Your Honor.
BY MR.CAt\llPBELL:
Q Dr.Geisler, ho,v,votud you define religion?
A Religion is a very difficulc cern1 co define, and it's really pare of
our proble1n. First of all, whar I did was an exaniinacion of che
nature of religiousexperience, and I discovered rhac probab ly rhe
oneco,nmon denon1inator inall religiousexperience isson1ekind
ofa co1nn1icn1enr co so n1eiliingrhat goes beyond die iln,nediate
e,nperical (e1npirical] experienceofan individual.Thisiswhat we
call uanscendence, n1ore rhan me inunediace e1nperical [en1piri-
cal) experience, and I discovered in doing that, that the reason
char one religion rhoughc ocher religions ,veren'c religion is chey
were rranscending in different directions. So, the tendency ,vas
chat if son1eone cranscended, lee's say up,vard and choughc rhat
God ,vas up d1ere, and dien son1eone else denied that God ,vas
up diere and d1ought diat God ,vas a grotuid being [grow1d of
being), char one had a tendency to think the od1er one ,vas not
religious,but he,vas transcending in another direction.
So,,vhat I did ,vas,vork out an exan1inationofwhat I called che
cypology orclassifications ofdiflerenc ways you could uanscend
or go beyond your inunediare experience. I studied Eliadi [Eliade]
and che "Myd1sof Origin," and d1eir [d1ere)religion is d1oughc
co be a transcendence backwards, that you ,nove beyond yotu
i1n1nediace experience by going back co origins.
 Creation and the Courts

I also studied people like Plotinus whosaid you transcend up-

ward, you niove froni the en1perical [enip irical] experience co
higher spirirual experience untU you gee to the cop.
In rhe1nodern world chere wasa n1ove1nenc against cheGodour
diereor up diere by Bishop Robinson and ochers in die Dearh of
God niovenienc, and they denied chat God is up diere, and diey
transcended downward coagrowid of being.Sonieonesatirized it
bysaving [saying] we should probably cake thesteeples offof the
churches and rn akecisterns now be(.-ause they were transcending
in depth .
- Then I discovered that there ,vere people ,vho transcended
forward, char is, they chought of God or the equivalent of God
as nioving in a fo1,vard direction. Hagle [Hegel], for exaniple,
and die process d1eologians, along,vid1 Herbert Spencer and
the evolutionary philosophies diar chink of die ulci1nate or rhe
transcended as nioving forward.
llicn I alsodiscovered thatson1e people actenipt co transcend in-
wardcoa center.Chardin,Tellarde Chardin ['feilhard deChardin],
rhe fa1nous Ro1nan Catholic theologian who said we transcend,
in his book "'Ihe Divine MWieu" [Milieu ] inward.
TI1en there,vere those,vho transcended just kind ofounvard co
theperipheryofche universe.nien I found those,vho transcended
in kind of a circle like Necue (phonetic) (Nietzsche] who was
diought co beanatheist said diac he ,villed dieeternal recurrence
of che same scace ofaffuirs.
So1ny con clusion was that religiondoesn't necessarily involve
God. Religion doesn't necessarily involve sonieone up thereor
so1neone at the beginning.It could be a depth, it could bea con1-
niicn1enr ro acenrer,could beaconimicn1enc roan outer or itcould
be a conunicn1ent to so1nething 1noving forward, a progressive
evolurionary rhing, in which case d1ere are really evolurionary
religions.
Q You r-alkedabout chistranscending.\Vhac does- whatdoes tran-
scendence or transcendent value, what does diat 1nean?
The Testimony 'fl1cy Refused t() Transcribe 153

r\\o/ell, transcendence n1eans 01ore than. Let rne try and give son1e
illustrations fron1 Lan Ran1sey in his book "Religious Language."
Hesayschat transcendence isyou could cake rhesa1ne object,say,
the sarne eniperical [e1npi rical] object and when suddenly it has
disclosure power, when it suddenly tells you u1ore than e1nperical
(e1npirica)l. Oneof the illustrarions he givesis ofa judge passing
outsentences and rhen finally he recognizes in one of the people
that he's passing out a sentence ,co a fonner loverof his. And
he says chat has disclosure powe,r because die nonnal en1perical
(enipirical] understanding of cl1at cakes on a new din1ension, ic
rakeson a transcendent di1nension.
Odrer illuscrations he gives is rhe experience cliac 1nany scien-
tists have had when cliey niake a d iscovery. n1e insight, die flash
ofcreadve insightrhac diey geeor diediscovery mac people have
when they look at Lineson a page and they realized1at sudden ly
that's noc jusc l6 line s, that'sa cube and ic takeson depth.So, tran-
scendence rneansthacability cosee rno re than or cogo beyond che
inune diace e1nperical (eoipirica)l data and gee sornediing d1ac is
a co111prehensive111odel by which son1eone can order their life.
Q For die court reporter, Dr. Geisler, you niay ,vane co slo,v down
just a licde bit. Does a religion den1and a belief in a deity?
1\ No, it doesn't. n1ereare 1nany religion s rhat have no belief in
Godar all. Certain fonns ofBuddhis1n do nor have a belief in
God but mey do have a transcendent. Nervannal1 (Nirvana]
beco1nes meir transcendent. 'There are religions of adieisn.1Al-
d1eiser (Altizer] in die Dead1 of God1nove1nenr said diar God
is dead. He transcended fonvard, niov ing forward. TI1ere are
hu111aniscic religionschat have noGod whatsoever. In face, they
deny the exisrence of God or at least a need for an existence of
God, but rhey nevertheless have a coni1niDnenr co so1ned1ing
mac they consider to beof transcendent value and ulcilnace im-
porrance co che1n.
1chink rhe best way todefine religion is rhe way char D r. PaulTil-
lick(Tillich] of Harvard defined ic,oneofdieforeniosc Atnerican
154 Creation and the Co urts

theologians. He said, really religion is an ulti1naet co1n111itnient,

and you don'c need co have a God or a deity co n1ake an ulci-
n1ace con1niit1nenc. You could ,nake an ulcilnace conuninnenr
t.o a country. He calls chis pacriologry [Pacriolacry). My country,
right or \Vrong, is an ulrin1ace con11nirn1enc ro a country, and he
says chat ,vould be a religious conuninnent. Or you could have
an u.lci1nate co nun icniencco an idea.I.John Dewey, die fad1er of
An1erican education so called, is son1eone who had a had a [sic]
definition of religion in his book,"(A) Co,nnion Faith" in which
he said religion or the religious is che ,vay he described ic, is a
conuninnenc coanideal,anenduringidea.I, rhac's,vorc.11 pursuing
even over obstacles. So, it's not necessary co have God at a.II in a
religion.
Q \Vhac is a hu1nanisric religion?
1\ \Vell, a hunianiscic religion is a religion chat centers ics con1n1ti-
111ent in ,nan.n1at is, it's con1n1irced co son1eching it chinks is of
rranscendenc value, n1ore chan an individual rnan, ir's aconunir-
rnenc ro ,nanand nian'sprogress.
Forexainple, in evolutionary lu1n1anist religions such asHuxley,
the con1n1innenc is co die process of evolution which produced
,nan and ,nan's fun1re. So chat it's a conuniunent co so niediing
rhat centers in hurnan values rather chan son1eching chat centers
in craditional divine o r theistic values.
Q I'd likecoshow you what's been1narkedfor identification purposes
as defendants' exhibit no. 9 for identification and ask if you can
identify chat?
1\ Yes.111is is the Hunianist Manifesto I and II that I provided.

Q \Vhere did you gee rhac?

1\ I bought mat in a book score in Dallas.

Q \Vould ic assit [assist] you in your cestilnony today co use this?

A Yes. May I use n1ycopy here? I chink I havesorne notes on ic char
will be- I ,nean, sonie ,narks chat will beeasier co find passages.
The Testimony 'fhey Refused t() Transcribe 155
QLookJngac d1eexhibit, Dr. Geisler, are there any referenceswhich
you relied upon in concluding chat hun1anis1n is religion?
A Yes. First of all, chis is d1e Hun1anisr Manifescos I and II, which
,vere published in 1933and 1973 respectively, and iliis particular
edition con1es from Crornecheist [Pro n1echeu]sBooks, ,vhich
publishes a lot ofhu111anistic n1aterial.
In die preface it says in rhe very firsr line on page 3, "H u1nan-
is111 isa philosophical religious and rnoral point ofvie,v as old as
hun1an civilization itself."
TI1en,vicl1ouc readingn1ore ofcl1is parr l counted son1e 28 rinies
in rhefirsr nianifesco die useof rhe word religion, 1nosr of,vhich
wasa posirive use describinga h1unanist point of view.
1l1en if you nore on page 4 in cl1e lase pa ragraph cl1ere about
four lines do,VIi, irsays, n1ey are intended nor as ne,v dog1nas,"
referring co rhis 1nanifesco, "for an age of confusion, buc as rhe
expression ofaquesr forvaluesandgoalsd1at wecan work for and
d1at can help usrotake new direction. Hu1nanists areconunicted
co buildinga world that issignificant, nor only for theindividual's
quest for1neaningbur for thewhole ofh1unan kind." I think chat's
a good description of ,vhac l discovered a religion to be. n1ey
describe it as a religion. le is a conuninnenc r.oso,neching chat is
of cranscendenc value for men1.
Then l noted on che first page,page 7 really, Hurnanist Mani-
fesro I on the bocco1n, ir speaks several rirneson cl1ac p age,line 2,
religion, line 5 religion, do,vn through rhe page about six rinies,
and die lasr line refers co abiding values. So diey are conunicred
ro these abiding values.
Then on die next page, page 8, die first ftill paragraph, ar rhe
end of diac paragraph rhe rhird line up fro111 theend ofcliac para-
graph reads, "To establish such a religionis a 111ajor necessity of
the present. leisa responsibility which rests upon diisgeneration .
\Ve, rherefore, affirrn rhe toUo, ving." And clien rhey give d1eir
l1tunanisric beliefs.
 Creation and the Co uru

So. the Hun1anisc Manifesto clairns to be an expression of a

religion called Hurnanisrn chat hascertain con1ponenc pares that
chey describe.
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, rhen I would rnove rhe int roduc-
tion into evidence of defendants' exhibit no.9.
THE COURT: Lee it be received.
(Defenda nts' exhibit 9 received into evidence.)
BY MR. CAi\.iPBELL:
Q. Dr. Geisler, I'd like cosho,vyou what's been n1arked asdefendants'
exhibit no. 10 for indentificacion [ identi fication)and ask if you
can identify this.
A Yes. 111is is an article in "1he Hun1anisc;' ,vhich is a huruanisc
journal chat I cook frorn che journal in che library at Southern
Methodist University in Dallas.

Q. \Vould it assist you in your cestin1ony today co refer co chis?

A Yes, it would.

Q. Lookingat defendants'exhibit no. 10tor identification, are there

any references ,vhich you have celled upon in concluding chac
hur,nanisrn is religion?
/\ Yes. I rnighc not.e first that this isJanuary and February 1962and
on the front page the first article is entitled ""Die New Religion
of Hu111anis1n," and cl1at is by Julian Huxley. n1e J. is cur off by
rnerneograph (rni rneogr aph) n1achin,eson1eching overlapped ic
there. And then inside, the page 3, the title of the arc.icle isn1e
Corning New Religion ofHun1anis1n," by SirJulian H1Lx.ley.
"Then on che boccoru of page 4, che lase paragraph , che begin-
ning of the lase paragraph, ic says, "111e ne,v frarne,vork of ideas
on whicl1any ne,v do,ninanc religion will be based isac once evo-
lutionary and hurnaniscic. For evolutionary hurnanisrn Gods are
creations of ,nan, not vice versa." So, I'vedone astudy-
The Testimony'fhey Refused to Transcribe 157

t.1R.SlANO:Your Honor, if! n1ighc, I wotild likeanoffer of proofac

this tinie based upon the1nen1orandu1n the plaintiffshavesubn1it-
ced earlier in chis case. We diink che line of inquiry at diis poinr
is inappropriate and,ve,vould object.
THE COUR:r: n1ac will be overruled.
THE \'v'lTNESS: 'Then on page 5,on the botron1 righr hand colunin,
a paragraph entitled "Evolution Hu1nanis1n.["] ["]The beliefs of
d1is religion ofevolutionary luunanisn1are not based on revelation
in che supernatural sense but on rhe revelarions chat science and
learning have given us about n1an and d1e universe. A hu1nanisc
believeswith full assurance chat n1an is not alien co nature buc a
pareof nature albeit a1u1ique one. He is rnade of thesaine niaccer
and works by rhe saine energy as che rest of the universe."
n1ac'soneofdiecentral cenanrs[ tenets] ofdieluunanistic belief
is mac eicher d1ere is no God orGod isnot involved in my direcc
way in che,vorld and chat the,vorld is co be tuiderscood in a r.ocal
naturalistic waywithout any reference toanysupernatural interven-
tion. Htunaniscs are nactu-alists as opposed co supernacuraliscs.
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Ho nor, l 1nove cheincroducrion ofdefon-
dancs'exhibit no. IO foridencincacioninco evidence.
THE COURT: le will be received.
(Defendant'sexhibir IO received inco evidence.)
BY MR.CAMPBELL:
Q_DL Geisler, what are evolurionary religions?
A In 1859 when Darwin published che"Origin of dieSpecies," rhere
were i111111ediacely a nu1nber of people ,vho cook the biological
idealor niodelor d1eoryofevolution and n1ade ic into a religion
in thesense in which I have jusr denned ic. For exa1nple, Herben
Spencer cook Darwin's concept, and he developed ir into acoin-
piececosinic philosophy,vhich wasd1eequivalenrof the uki1nace
and co which of course heand diose who followed hi1n 1nadean
ulcin1ace con11ninnenr. So, ir becainea religion.1he evolurionary
process irselfbecanie a religion. Thar was che rranscendenr.
 Creation and the Courts

Ar rhe san1e ri1ne1nany philosophers of religion and scientists,

Heckle [Haeckel] in Gennany, took theevolutionary hypothesis
and used it co attack God, co say ir was anti-theistic co attack
1niracles and coatcack chesupernatural or any belief d1erein. Even
Darwin hiniself whostarted outasa believer in God ashereferred
ro in ilie last line of ilie "Origin of the Species," but he was a be-
liever I u1ighr add in adeistic God, a God who created die,vorld
and fro1n there on che world ran by nacura.l processes, God didn't
intervene again atier he had created die first si111ple fonn or fe,v
fonnsoflife.Bue Darwin becan1e increasingly sceptical [skeptical]
over hislife; char is,afi:erhescarred coapply his d1eory ofevolution
consisrencly, hecan1e cotheconclusion char you couldn't even have
grounds for believingin God,and in hisletters, which incidentally,
arepublished, andalso there'sanexcellent book byJunes Moore I
think referred co byGeorge Marsdin [Marsden] in his witness as
well.1liis book byJa1nes Moore docu111encs iliac-ic's called me
"Pose Darwinian Controversy," by the ,vay, and it's published by
Ca1nbridge. It's probably che n1ost definitive and scholady ,vork
on this topic in print today published just a te,vyears ago. In this
bookhe narrates diefact d1at Darwin beca1ne increasingly scepti-
cal (skeptical] and in hislater yearssaid, and diis is paraphrasing
Darwin, "Natural selection is n1y deity."
So even Darwin hiniself d1oughc of che process of natural se-
lection as a deity and he was nor at all sure that there could be
another one.
So, Spencer, Heckel [Haeckel], \Vallace, who ,vas a colleague
and actually co-inventor,co-fonnulator of die rheory of natural
selection with Darwin, Wallace hin1selfn1ade rhe process ofevo-
lurion into a God. So, siniultaneo uslywith the origin [Origin]
of die species [Species) in 1859 and follo,ving, there developed a
whole religion ,vhich 1nade the evolutionary process ofdevelop-
1nenc oflife inr.o higher fonns into aGod co ,vhich people 1nade
their ulcin1ate conunittnent.
nwT-e s-timony' fl1cyRefused t<> Transcribe 159
Qis belief in a supre1ne being or a Creator or that a supren1e being
or Creator exists necessairly religious?
A No. As a rnatter of fact, you can believe in God ,vithout any re-
ligious, or at lease you can believe d1ac there is a God. I ,vould
distinguish berween belief inand beliefrhac. You can believe char
chere is aGod and have no religioussignificance wharsoever. Lee
n1e give a fe,v hisroric exa1nples and then a fe,v conternporary
ones.Aristotle,diefainous Greek philosopher,argued d1acif there
are things char are ,noving in che world, there 1nusr be a cause
of chat Motion and ulcin1arely,since you can't have an infinire
regress ofcauses, there 111usc be a first unnioved niover. Nov,, die
first unn1oved rnover for Aristotle had no religious significance
whatsoever. "This was just a cosniic explanation. It was the result
ofscarring wirh ,vhar he could observescienrificallyand carrying
chrough ascientific principle, the principle ofcausalicy,diat every
event n1usc havea cause.And if you cake d1is principle chat every
event has a cause and scan carrying it duough, you end up as me
logical conclusion Arisrocle said, of this process that begins widi
science of positing an uninoved n1ove,ran uncaused cause.
Bue Ariscode didn't , vorship diis cause, it ,vasn't his religious
objecr, it ,vas just a scientific or1necaphysical explanation.
San1c d1ing wasuueofPlato,theancientGreekphilosopher.He
posited a den1iergos[sDm1i1ugos], a Creator ,vho looked ac die
ulcirnace.1lieultin1ate in Plato'sphilosophy wascalled rheGood,
not God, and chis deniiergoss [Demiurgos]looked ac die good
and used mar as a paccern co fonn rhe ,vorld. So char you have a
fo rmerlook ing at the ulrirn atefonn and fonning the unfonned
,vorld.
No,v. rhe den1iergoss [Demirergos] has no necessaryreligious
connotations atall in Plato.leserves a cosn1ic fw1ction coexpl ain
theorigin of the universe. And I might add rhat inChristian belief;
which includes die beliefin the historic sense, historic Christians,
,vho-t.ake, forexainple, Ro1nan Catholic, Protestants in die his-
toricsense until the turn of diecentury in1\1nericaor just betore
160 Creation and the Co urts

chat, traditionally believed chat there was a God and chat he had
created angels and char so,ne of these angels rebeled [ rebelled]
and becaineden1on.s111eleader ofchis rebellion wascalled Satan,
and they believed chat he was a real person who hasgreat powers
who can deceive people in rhe ,vorld. n, e occult is usually con-
nected,as it is in theScriptures, co chis beliefrhac occult practices
like nioving physical objects chrough che air such as n1aybe you
1nighcsee in "]lieE1npire Scrikes Back" Luke Sky,valker learning
rodo rhis.1his,votild bean occulr po,ver, and che belief in Satan
in diis Christian concexc in no way auconiarically ,neans char die
God mac d1ac (sic] Satan recognizes isan objecc of his worship.
Forexaniple, chere's a verse in che Bible d1acsays Saran believes
in God, believes mac there is a God bur he cren1bles. In ocher
words, God is nor die ulciniace objecr of his,vorship. So, diough
he knows diere is a God in diis Christian cradicion and diough
he believes diac God exiscs, he doesn't believe in God, he's nor
rnaking God an object of his con1n1itmenc.
So, it'sentirely possibleco have a belief that chere isa God, that
rhere is a Creator, wid1no religioussignificance whatsoever. In
face, Paul T illick [T illich] l think put it very well ,vhen he said
1u1less you ,nake a conuniunenc co it, unless you rn ake it the ulci-
1nare co1nniinnent, 1nake it the object of your devorion or your
tJcirnace pursuit or your overall explanation ofeverything, it has
no religious significance ,vhacsoever. And he gives chis kind of
description. Hesaid philosophy and religion are twodifferent,vays
ofapproaching rhe sa,ne objecr. If you approach die object frorn
rhescandpoinc of reason, char's philosophical. If you approach ic
fron1 die standpoint of faith, diat's religiou.sIf you approach it
just co explain it, chac's philosophy. If you approach it ro believe
in it, diac's religion.
And Dr. Gilkey, who cescified here earlier, ,vho ,vas a student
of Paul Tillick [T illid i], gave an excellent illusrracion of d1is in
his book, "Maker of Heaven and Earrh." He said on page 35, I
believeic was,in"Makerof Heaven and Eardi," d1ac ic's like1noun-
tain clirubers going up cwosidesof diesanie n1ountain.111ey are
The T csti 1m)n y 'hey Refused to Transcribe

headed fr,r thesaine peak but they are approad1ing it differently.

Oneisapproaching it phUosophically,just fro1n thestandpoint of
reasonand whaccan be tested and proven.Theother isapproach-
ing it religiously, but it's one and che sa1ne peak. We don'r have
nvo peaks. TI1ere's on ly one peak because you can only have one
highesr. And I d1ink this is an excellent illusrration of ,vhac Paul
Tillick ('f illich] n1eanc and whac I've discovered in my writings
co be che discinccion between belief thac ai1d belief in.
io w.let1neelaborate d1at distinction, because it brings out this
point. Belief d1ac d1ere is a Creator has no religious significance
,vhatsoever anyn1ore [any n1ore) than me devil's belief mat there
is aGod 1nakes God che objecc of his worship.
(3eljef mat mere is aCreator has no religious significance ac all
anyn1ore [any n1ore] chan Aristotle's belief that r.here wasaCreacor
,vas die object of his religion.
THE COURT: Are you saying mac if! believe in a Creacor mac has
no religious significance at all?
THE \Xlf f N ESS:No, I didn't,yourHonor. I said ifyou believe mac
there is a Creator has no religioussignificance.
rHE COUR'f: Oh, excuse 1ne. I 1nisunderscood.
THE \XIIT NESS:Yes.And d1ac's the rustinccion I waneco now1nake.
111e beliefd1at chere isaCreator has no religioussignifica11ce atall.
!e'son lyif youcon1111it yourself coit. TI1edevU believes chat there is
a Creator. ln fact, he knows because he ,vas created by hio1in the
Christian tradition. But God has no religious significance to rhe
devil because he's tot allyopposed coGod.And Aristotle and Plato
were tl1eocher illuscracions.TI1ey believed d1at tl1ere,vasaGod but
they didn't believe in d1is God as the object of their religion.
Now, lee n1e d istinguish this, if I 1nay, in cenns of a con1111ic-
n1enc today. Suppose I believe d1ac there is a lovely young lady
who ,vould n1akea nice wife for1ne. I kno,v d1ac she is available;
I know char she can cook. I kno,v iliac she ,vou.ld n1ake a nice
con1panion. TI1ac,vUl noc aucornacically1nake n1en1arried co her.
 Creation and the Courts

I n1usc 111ake a con11nit1nenc co her; I ,nusc believein and 111ake a

co1n1ninnenc. So d1ac oneand chesa1ne object can beapproached
in c,vo different ,vays.
I n1ighc approach it this ,vay. Let's suppose I ani a studier of
srarisrical cables of dead, and 1'111 doing actuary ,vork for a life
insuranceco,npany and I'111looking ac chese cablesof dead,. And
one of che-d1ey are all nun1bers and 1'111 adding d1en1 up and
seeing how 1nany people die on chis occasion and what die pat-
terns are.1hen suddenly across rny desk conies a new nu1nber
,vhich happens co be che uurnberof n1y1norher'sdead,.n,ac rakes
on ne,vsignificance. Ic's noc jusr a nun1ber. Ic's- 1had a personal
relationship chere. I had-I was involved. Paul Tillick [Tillich)
says this, rhe difference between a religious attitude co,vard rhe
san1e object and a no-n-religiousattitude is are you involved, are
you co1111nicced co it, are you,vorshiping ic, is it meobject of your
devotion? If noc, ic'sjust like another scacistic.
Now, lee'ssuppose charsa1ne person whose n1od1er's na,necan1e
across che desk, nvo days lacer, ic's jusc one of rhe ntunbers in che
pileand it's pareof chestatistics. Now hisn1od1er isapproached in
a detached way, just a nun,ber nor conunitted to it. Sooneand the
sau1e 111othercan beapproached in two different ways, one fro1n a
statistical objective analysis, anorl1er fron1an involvedconunitted
analysis, and what d1ey aresaying is chac jusc rhe belief mar mere
is a God is not in and ofirself religious unless you say I',n going
ro ,vorship d1ar or I ,vane ro con1n1ir 1nyself co it as rhe ulrin1ace.
Just as the belief in biological evolution is not inand of itself a
God, buc ifone1nakes bio logicalevolution dieexplanatory n1odel
of all and conuuirs hin1self co ic, chen it has beco1ne a God co
hin,.
So ,vhac I ,vould say is son1ething like chis. If the belief d1ar
there isan ulcin1ace isauco,nacicallyinand of irself a religiousco m-
n1innenc, rhen me belief rhar rhere is evolution ,votild auco1nari-
cally in and of icselfbe a religious co111tnit1nenr. Of course, that
would be w1fair co say diac soniebody ,vho believes in evolution
The T-c timony 'fhey Refused to Transcribe

has aucon1aticaUy 1nade evolution his God. Huxley did; Spencer

did;\Vallace did. Bueall evolutionisr.sdo not and it can be caughr
strictly in a scienrific \vay.
I \vane co n1ake mis poinc one oilier ,vay because it'san i1npor-
tant poinr. Suppose in a history class in school \Ve srudy Jesus of
Nazared1. Now, as a Christian sitting i.!1 d1at class who believes
d1at Jesus is God, d1at is, he believes d1at Jesus is God in carnate
(incarnate], in human forn1, which is me traditional Christian
belief. Ron1an Catholic and Protestant until111odern tilnes. No\v,
when theylook atoneand diesa1ne object,Jesus,could it possibly
become a religious object co chen1?
\Veil,it'sconceivable chat it n1ighc trigger in their d1oughr son1e-
d1ing they learned in church and that's1ny God,and any historical
evidence mat,vould be presenced for rhe existence ofJesus rnight
possibly lead then1 to be further confinned in their faith, but sciU
thesrudyofJesus asa historical person has n1erit in an [and) ofirself
provided chat the readier doesn't sayJesusshould be worshipped
conunic yourself coJesus. Provided ic'sstudied in anobjeccive de-
tacl1ed way rather rhancalling forconuninnent.Jesusisa religious
objecc coa Christian.Scones are religious objeccs to son1e people.
'!hey are ,vorshipped. But \Ve wouldn't rule out a stone fron1 a
geology class just because sorne people have \VOrshipped scones.
And \Ve don't ruleouc God fro1n a science class just becaues son1e
people have worshipped God.
Q \Vhat do you1nean by worship?
A Make the object of your ultimate con1n1innent.
' f H E CO URT: Mr. Can1pbell, why don't.we r.ake a recess undl one
o'clock.
MR. CAl'vlPBELL: AU right, sir.
(Recess.)
BY MR.CAMPBELL:
Q Dr. Geisler, before die break we had been discussing or you had
been disringuishing tor d1e Court berween a belief in a Creator
 Creation and the Co urts

and a belief chat a Creator exists. Do you have an opinion as co

whether one can refer co a Creator wichouc teaching religion?
A Yes, I do. And n1ay l apologize for speaking so rapidly. !'11 cry
and slow down a liccle bit.n1e belief mac cl1ere is a Creator is noc
essentially religious. If son1eone curns cl1ac object inco an objecc
of rneir devocion or ,vorship, chen it beco1nes religious, che ,vay
sonieone curns a rock or country or an ideal into die object of
cheir ulci1naceco n1n1innen,cic,coo, beco1nes a religion when cl1ey
n1ake mac kind ofcon1n1icn1encco ic. I 1nighc alsosay chat surely
incidental references co a Creator are not essentially religious,
or if rhey are, chen surely rhe pledge under God, the pledge (of]
allegiance under God or in God we crusr. on coins or die Decla-
rarion of Independence, ,vhich refers ro rhe inalienable righrs of
the Creator, chose references co rhe Creacor would auco1nar.ically
cl,ereby be religious ifsin1ply referringco aGod.
Bur ifson1eone says chisGod isson1eone cl1ac youshould believe
in and chis God is son1eone worthy co be worshipped, then char
becon1es essentially religious.
Q You studied che history of philosophy and religion.
A ']liac's correcc.
Q And I believe you alsosaid youstudied die hisc.or yofscience and
die religion debace.
A As it relates to the tension between theni, yes.
Q Based on your snidies whar gave rise ro1nodern science as we
kno,v ic roday?
A \Veil, n1any conteinporary scudenrs of rhisissuewhoare nocChris-
tian in diecradirional sense arall, d1ey arejusr srudying ir hisco ri-
cally, haveacknowledged char che Christian view ofaCreator and
aCreation wasche n1orivacing force for niuchof the riseof niodern
science.
For exan1ple, n1any of che earliesc sciencists ,vere then1selves
believers in a Creator, and they looked at rhe Creation and diey
The Testimony 'fhey Refused to Transcribe

said if He created it and itoperatesregularly according co kno,vo

parterns, rhen it's subject co scientific scrutiny. So, it's really chis
char led people like Sir Isaac Ne,vton and Calvin (Kelvin] and
rn anyofche- FrancisBacon,for instance, in"Novun1O rgantun;
his classic ,vork that gave rise ro n1uch of the rnodern inductive
experi1nencal n1echod explicitly scares cl1ac it was cl1e 1nandace
in Genesis I, and he was referring co che rnandace co subdue die
,vorld, d1ac gave rise to the scientific or at least gave sorne socc of
inspiration for diescientific 1nethod.
Alfred North \Vhicehead, who ,vroce a book with Berrran[d]
RusseU " P rincipia Machernacica,",vhich ,vas a 1nassive work, also
wrote another bookenrided "Science in che Modern World; and
Alfred North \Vhicehead said chat Ch ristianity is die1nocl1erof
science; d1ac is, it wasonly within chis Christian,vorld view chat
ic,vas possible forscience co arise.So,1 rhink it's,videly ackr10,v-l
edged d1acic \Vas Ch ristianicyor cl1e Christian view of a Creator
[and ] Creation chat ,vas che ilnpocus [ in1pecus] for che rise of
n1uch 1nodern science.
Thereareocherfactorsaswell, but char wasoneofchedo1ninanc
faccors.
QAre there ocher early Christians ,vho ,vere in science?
A Yes. Manyof d1eearly scientists,vere then1selvesconunicced Chri s-
cians; chat is,d1ey believed in God in terms of their personal re-
ligious convictions. Bur mey scudied the ,vorld objectively in a
der-.iched way.n1ey ,verecorning, as it ,vere, up the od1er side of
d1ac mountain when chey were, vorkingassciencisrs and chey felc
no conrradicrion ac all beC\veen their personalreligious beliefs in
God and approacliing Creation objectively and scientifically co
see whac in it was capable of scientific scrutiny.
Q Do you know ,vhecher che scientific vie,vs of d1ese 111en,vere re-
jected by rhescientific conununity of d1eir day because rhesource
of so rne of dieir views was religious?
166 Creation and the Courts

/\ I think it's safe co say chat scarcely any reputable scientist ever
rejected asciencificvie\\' sin1ply because of d1e religioussourceof
chose beliefs. In oilier words,sin1ply because Newton believed in
God, I don't recall reading about anybody who ever rejected d1e
meory ofgravitation because Newton believed inGod. Or Pascal
or Pasteur or Calvin [Kelvin) orany of che ocher ,nen.
You see, in science, as one of me earlier ,vicnesses cescified co,
I chink it ,vas Pro[ Ruse, you distinguish between rhesource of
your niodel and che justification of diac n1odel, and die source,
d1ac is,,vhere you got rhe n1odel, has noiliing whacsoever ro do
\Vith me Scientific jUStifiability Of me lllOdel.
lberearea nu1nber ofinceresring illuscracions in che hisrory of
philosophy chat I niighc bring co your accencion char have very
weird source.s'Ihey ,vere philosophical or scientific people ,vho
were notconiposing religious n1odels, bucd1eir niodelscan1e fron1
very odd sources.
For instance, it's well ki10,V11 d1ac Socrates, in his philosophy,
that the in1pecus for his philosophyc.une fro1n che oracle of Del-
phi. ln other words, a prophet hascold hi1n chat he,vas the wisest
of n1en. Bue no,v I don't really recall ever reading a historian of
philosophy who rejected Socrates' philosophy sin1ply because a
prophet has cold hi1n.
Thesanie mingistrue,cheyscrucinizediconphilosophical grounds,
they reasonedabouc ic.Thesa1nerhingiscn1eof1na11yofchepeople.
For exa1nple,I 111encioned Francis Bacon. He adn1ics in che 'Ne,v
Organ" iliac. chis inspirncion can1e frorn Genesis, the1nandace that
God had given. Bue nobody rejected Bacon, d1eyhailed hiln as me
lamer of modern science in111any respects because ofir.
DeCarc[Descartes], a fan1ous cacionalisc philosopher ,vhosaid
thatyouhave coprove everychingby reason,either axio1nsorwhat
is reducabl.e [reducible) co axio1ns, received me i111perus for his
philosophy in d1ree dreams. He had three successive drean1s in
which there was lighcening (lighcning) and a wacern1elon and
soniebody giving alicde voice co hini.
The Testimony' fhe y Refused to Transcribe

iow,I've never ever heardofa philosopher rejecting DeCart's

[Descartes]'philosophy si,nply because he had rhree dreams co
gee him going.
There'sa n1an na,ned Kecule (phonetic) (Kekule] ,vho is che
invencorofche benzyne [benzene ) ,nolecule, and d1isisoneof the
u1osr fascinating stories in che history ofscience. Kecule [KekuJe]
got his idea for me benzyne [benzene] ,nolecule in a dream or a
vision in ,vhich he sa,va snake biting itso,vn rail, and chat ,node!
ofd1esnake hiring itsown tail suggested co hiln the u1odelofrhe
benzyne (benzene] ,nolecule which ,vasaccepted by rhescientific
con11uunity, and co 1ny kno,vledge no one has ever rejected his
1n odel of the benzyne [benzene] u1olecule si1nplybecause he got
ic in a drea,n or a vision seeing a snake.
Theres another 1nan nan1ed Tessla (phonet ic) [Tesla) who in-
vented rhe internal 1nocor, me alrernaring current n1oror, and he
received his inspiration or his ,node!,vhen he ,vas reading rhe
Gennan poet Gerra (Goed1e) onSunday ,norning, I believe ir,vas,
and suddenly die inspiration ca1ne co hi111, and hesa,va vision in
which he sa,v che internal ,vorkings of d1is niotor and he built it
and it v,orked. And no one, so far as I kno,v, hasever rejected his
,notor sin1plybecausehe got it in a vision while he \Vas reading
Gerta [Goedie]. Spencer, the f.unous philosopher-
THE COURT: You don't need co site (cite] anyn1ore (any ,nore ]
exa1nples.I got the picture.2
BY MR.CAi\.fPBELL:
Q Dr. Geisler, how would you define science?
1\ \Veil, diere'sa narrow definition ofscience and a broad definition ,
and a lot of die a1nbiguicy mac occurs on die topic is because , ve
fail co distinguish chose nvo rypes.
The narrow definition ofscience,science has observability or
to observe son1e phenoniena in the world. It has repeacabilicy.
2. Apparentlythejudged.id norwainan)'moreof these iJlustrationsi 1l the re.cord.Hesaid,
"I got the picture," but his ruling showsthat he didn't get it, since he ruled that creation is
<digi ousb ausc itca1nc froma rdigious ourcc (the Bible).
168 Creation and the Cc.lu rts

It'sson1ething chat you have co beable co repeat sorne how.lchas

testability, sornerhing that has co be tested, a rnodel or theory
that is falsifiable,and chese arecharacteristicsofsorneching chac
is the narrow definition of science; that is, sornetliing that ,ve
can do now. le deals ,virh che present. You can observe ic, you
1nake theories about ic, you can cesc ic, you can excrapolace on
rhc basis of ic.
In che broad definition ofscience, ifyou're dealing ,virh things
in die past, chen obviously repeatabilityisnot oneofdieessential
characteristics, because ,ve can't repeac origins. \Ve can't say co
the fossils, for exaoiple, would you repeat chat death, run char
duo ugh again for 1ne. \'{fecan'c say co cheorigin of me universe,
could I see diisexplosion again,for exarnple, che bigbang d1eory.
\Ve can't repeat.
So, in a sense, ,vhen you're dealing,vidi origins repeatability
and narural law,that is, a narural process that is often used in die
sciencific process in che present, doesn't apply. Because in dealing
wid1origins,you haveco rnake inferences builconanalogy.Son1e of
rheearlier ,vicnesses I chink said mesarneching .' Iliacyou observe
thingsin die present,you n1ake a n1odel d1acistestable,111akesorne
predictions d1at are cesrable, falsifiable, but you have co111ake au
inference of what is likelyco have been che case ac che beginning
where you couldn't observe. See, observability and repeatability
aren't possible for origins.
I chink ic'sson1echinglikerhis. Origins, scientificstudyoforigins
issoruethinglike forensic n1edicine. You look accertain scientific
data and you cry and reconstruct d1e original situation. Bur, of
course, you can'c do ic with absolute definitiveness, because you
can only n1ak.e probable1nodels rhac can be cesced . And I tliink
when ,ve're talking about origins, ,ve can't ralk about rhe face of
evolution or thefaceofcreation, because it 'sreally only a11e xuapo-
lacion or an inferencebuilr on observation co try md reconscrucr
that [whac] ,ve can'c repeat and observe.
Q \Vhac isa scientific rnodel?
The Testimony' fl1ey Refused to Transcribe

r\ \'(fell, scientific 1nodel is a structure or fran1e,vork by which ,ve

undersrand rhe scienrific daca. !e's so1nediing like looking ac rhe
srars ac nighr and yoJve seen these ascrological charts chac have
alldieinterestinglinesbetween die1n and you see die bigbearand
all of diese lines. \1Q'ell, accually die lines aren'c dlere. All diac ,ve
have is stars. Now, stars are like facts in chis illustration. Science
draws d1e lines benveen dlose scars. nie lines don'c exisc, and in
facc, noc only can I notsee die big bear, I havea hard cin1eseeing
rhe bigdipper son1erin1eswhen I look at rhe sky, because chose
are constructions of the1nind put on reality.
Now,a scienrific 1nodel is a construction. \'{Te've all seen these
charrsin books,eirherCreacion booksorevolurion and cherewill be
linesdra,vn between dievariousspecieson diechart. Now,chelines
don't exist iliac ,vay in nature.n1ere aren'c any lines there. niose
lines exist only in dieories or conscruccs or niodels diat scienciscs
pucon the1n, because chat's ho,v rhey suppose mey are related.
Qin ,vhat ,vay can science deal,virh ulti1nace origins?
A \Veil, oneof die ways diat science can deal ,vidi ulriniate o rigins
is by analogy. !chas co cake dlings char we kno,v co be rrue in che
present and suppose diac chey ,verealso cn1e in d1e pasc or argue
from analogy.
For exa111ple, if you kno,v son1erhing co be true in me presenc
chat chiskind ofproduce isproduced by intelligent accivicy.Say, for
exau1ple, adictionary is nonnaUy produced by intelligent activity,
not [an] explosion in a printingshop.
No,v.you cake chat kind of analogy and you apply it co,vard
rhe beginning . Buc you can'c be absolucely sure. lc niay or n1ay
not apply. Analogy, inference builc on presenc observacion and
expenence.
Q.Ho,v n1any views ared1e1-e on the ultin1ate 01iginsofd1e universe?
A \Veil, it all depends on whet her you're calking about religious
views or philosophical vie,vs. Religiously there are 1nany vie,vs.
No God created it, that a finite God created ic, char an infinite
170 Creation and the Co urts

God created it. 'TI1is infinite God,vasa panrheiscic God idenrical

to the universe, that he,vasn't identical to the universe, that ,nany
Gods- see,there are ,nany religious vie,vs, buc philosophically
there are only two. Eicher rheorigin of die universe, rhe origin of
lite and d1eorigin of new kinds oflife, new fonns oflife.
l l 1ese chree thing s either happened by intelligent intervention
or not by intelligent intervention. 1l1ere are only f\VO chances.
And it's nor only philosophers ,vho chink cwo alcernarives. !e's
nor only philosophers ,vho chink char ,vay,bur if you read rhesci-
enrific literat ure,111any scientistssay chesa1ne rhing. Forexaniple,
Roberc Gesrro [Jasrro,v) says rhe san1e d1ing in his book about
either lifescarred by Creation or sponraneous generation. Eicher
the universe ,vas eternal or it ca1.ne to be.
So, philosophically diere are only c,vo, but if you ,vane co ask
about d1e narure, the religious nature of the cause or no cause,
then you gee into all kinds of religious differences.
Q Ho,v do philosophers apart fro1n religion talk about ulcin1ace
origins?
A \Veil, philosophersaparefro,n religion talkabout ulci1nace origins
in rennsof the tertn God. As one philosopher pur ir, western phi-
losophy has borne the burden of mis cenn God. Ir's ,vid1 us, ,ve
can't avoid it. So, mey talk about proofs for meexistence ofGod
or disproofs for rheexistence ofGod as no religious connotation
co then1 at all. "The jour nals, both pro and con on chis topic of
ultin1ate origin fron1 a philosophical point of vie,v, you'll find a
reference co God all d1e ci1ne.
Q \Vhar isyour o,vn vie,v as ro me ulri,nare origin of the universe?
A \Veil, niy own view fron1aphilosophicalstandpoint isverysiniilar
to chat of'TI101nas Aquinas, the fiunous 13th century Christian
philosopher ,vho said diac if every event has a cause, then d1ere
muse be an ulciinate first cause ofche universe, because you can't
havean infinite regress of causes; therefo re, ic's necessary co pos-
culacean ulcin1ace first cause.
The Testimony' fl1cy Refused t() Transcribe 171
QAs a theologian \vhat ,votild the n1odel of Creation or the
scienc[ific]- ,nodel of Creation ilnply co you?
A I',n not sure I understand the question. Could you rephrase
d1ac?
Q \Veil, ho,v doesdiescience ,node!ofCreation iniplydieexistence
of God ro you?
A Well, chescience111odel ofCrearion i1nplies ilieexistence ofGod
ro1ne rhe way chata moral law impliesd1eexistence ofa nioral law
given [giver]. If you cell 1ne you ought codo rhis, that's a prescrip-
tivescarenienr, nor adescriptivesrarenient.Adescriptive scarenienr
is d1is is die ,vay it is being done. Bue a prescriptive scate1nenc is
diis is che ,vay it oughr co be done.
\Xlhe n you niake a prescriptive conunand to 1ne, you ought to
do this, rhac i1nplies a prescriber. See, chac's a logical inference I
111ake diacall prescriptions conie froni prescribers.
Now,indiesame way,ifyousay to1ne chis isCrearion,chat logi-
cally i111plies cornea Creator. I111ighc add not everybody cornes ro
die sa1ne co nclusion.111ere are people who believe d1at d1ere are
1norallaws ,vith no n1oral la,v givers, and there's a Creation ,vid1
no Creator. Bur diar'sa logical inforence diac I 1n ake philosoph i-
cally froni die Creation co die Creator.
Q \Vhy would you necessarily believe chat che Creator ,vas or ,vas
nor God?
A \Xlell, rhe tenn Godcan betaken incwosenses. AsIsaid, it'sacom-
rn o n cenn. Philosophers use it even ,vhen rhey are talking froni
a philosophical perspective, but theologiansuse it ,vhen diey're
calkingfro111adieological perspective.!e'sconven ient chat theydo,
because asDr. Gilkey putit, rhere's only one peakon this niountain
and youcan conieacicfro1n nvodifferent directions. Bueche cerui
used of die peak is ofi-en used interchangeably. So I would say in
che sense that scientific creation i111plies a Creator and ilie tern1
God isconinionly used ofdieCreator, dien scientific creacionis111
would irnplyaGod indiatsense buronly belief diacdiere isaGod,
172 Creation and the Co urts

not beliefin God. Unless,ofcottrse,somebody cead1es youshould

believe in Hini as well as believing chat he is there.
QI'd like co sho,v you a copy of Act 590. I believe it.'s plaintiff's
exhibit no. 29.
A Could I use 1ny copy ofd1is?
Q Yes.Whar does Ace 590 say abouc references ro religion and d1e
tise of rel.ig io us n1acerilas?
A It explicitlyprohibics d1e use of religious1nacerials or references
ro religion.
Q Under me provisions of the Ace, in what way could a Creator be
referred to?
A \Veil, I d1ink a Creator could be referred co as alogical inference
ofCrearion oraCreator could be referred toas anend ofa process
of reasoningchat posiesson1ed1ing chat isnecessary coaccount for
ic. For exaniple, if d1e only ,vay you could account for a certain
scientific data is co poscular.e an intelligent intervention, then I
chink it would certainly pennic diac.
QHow long have you caught d1eological and Biblical subjects?
A rwency-nvo years.
Q Duringchat tin1ehave you had an opporr.unity costudy rheoriginal
languages of rhe Bible?
A Yes, I have.
QHave you studied the various interpretations of Genesis?
A Yes, I have.
Q Can you describe son1e of d1ose incerpretacions?
A \X1ell, l'n1 glad you said so1ne. 111ere really is a speccrun1 of in-
cerprecacions from very literal co very allegoric.-il, and chere are
all kinds of shades in beC\veen, but generally speaking there are
those who cake Genesis at face value. n1ey cake it as a historical
literal account, and clien chereare d1ose who rake it as a rnym or
The Tc.st imo ny' fhey Refused to Transcribe 17 3
an allegory spiritual n1eaning co it, reference noc co any literal
historical based on faces, and then there are son1e who kind of
conibine chose in beC\veen.

Q How is Biblical liceralsi111 d istinguished fro1n inerrancy?

A \Veil, che belief in inerrancy, inerrancy 1neans ,vichouc cerror
(error), and chose who accepc die inerrancy of rhe Biblesay chat
nodiing chac d1e Bible ceaches is 1niscaken , diar ,vhenever die
Bible ceaches sonieching ic ceaches ir cruly. \Vhacevec d1e Bible
aflinns, God affinns. So chac's che nacure of d1e Bible. Whacever
che Bible ceaches is crue.1liac ,vould be inerrancy.
The odier question, liceralis111, is ho,v do you interpret chat
truth? You see, it's one ching co say the Bible is co1nplecely true
and another thing co say ho,v you should interpret mat crud1. So
often these c,vo q uestionsare confused, and I chink they should
becleailydistinguished because tnany people believe in inerrancy
who do noc cake Genesis literally. And diere are people who cake
Genesis licera llywho don't necessairlybelieve in inerrancy.
Q How doesalic.eralisc'isncerprecacion ofGenesis relate co rheorigins
issue?
A \'X'ell, if you were interpreting, no,v as a meologian ,vich a lit -
eral 1nediod(,] die book of Genesis[,) ic would conie ouc I d1ink
soniediinglike diefundan1encaliscshavecradicionally incerpreced
ic fron1around 1920 co I930 and follo,ving. Nun1ber one, d1ac
diere ,vasa God who creaced che universe in rhe beginning, rhac
diis God creaced che universe ouc of nodiingand chat he direcdy
created every newspeciesor kind ofchingchac can1e intoexistence
and chat hecooka handful ofdust and he breamed in it and n1ade
Adan1and chen he cook a rib out of Adan1 and he rnade Eve out
of mis rib, that he brought die anilnals before Ada1n and hegave
nan1es co all ofd1eseani111als. All ofd1is is taken literally,and that
he did d1is whole thing in 144 hours , six 24hour days.
O.. \Vhac do od1er incerprecacionsof Genesis say about origins?
174 Creation and the Co urts

i\ \Veil, rhere are chose whosayrhac rhis is basically a religious story

chat isintended coevoke our responsecoa C reatorbut nocdescribe
Crearion, d1at rhelanguagethere isbasicallyevocacove [evocative]
and not descriptive, that it's a kind of a religious story, a ,node!,
a n1yth by which \Ve can becon1e related ro a who God, but nor a
scientific description of a ho\v process.
Q You 1nentio ned fundanienca list a n101ne nt ago. What is
fundan1encailsc?
A That's a difficult cern1. I feel alicde bit like aprevious witness who
said I don't prefer labels but unforcunately they're there, and lee
1ne try and describe fi1nda1nentalis1n.
Funda1nernalisn1is a 1nove1nent char began around rhe rurn of
thecentury,and it began because, asthe resulrof the new religions
that\Verearising in rheworld, arheisn1and skeprciisrn, rhe religion
of hw11anisn1 and evolutionisrn, d1at had atcacked the ir beliefs,
che beliefs I just described a1non1ent ago.1he fi.1nda1uencalis(ts]
stated d1eir basic beliefs in cenns offive or six funda1nenrals. ll1ey
said chese things are fundarnencal and essenrial coCh ristianicyand
rhese we'll defend. n1eVirgin birch ofChrist; the deity of Christ,
chathe isGod; chesubstitutionaryaconeu1en,cmat hedied for rhe
sinsof1uankind; rhe bodily resurrection ofChrist frorn rhegrave;
che second con1ing of Christ and die inspiration of the Bib.le.
Now,the reason I 111encion sixand norrnally they are d1oughc
of as five is because mere \vere two secs of five.0 ne \vas by the
Presbyterian church and che omer by a Baprjsr chwch and they
overlap on one. So it turnsout co be six really radier d1an five.
So, rhese people believed in che fund:unencals.111at's whar I
\vouldcallearlyfirndamencaliscsfrom lee'ssay beginninganywhere
around1858 and '59\vidi rhe revivilis,u n1oven1e,nrruovingrighr
on up co 1900. Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, B. B. \Varfield are
people who would represent d1is vie\v.
\Xlharhappened, and rhe reason mey werecalled fundan1encal-
iscs is there canie cobe people in mechurch diac had rcadicionally
believed mose, chat due co che influence ofsonie ofrnese rnodern
The Testimony 'fhey Refused to Transcribe 175
philosophies, deniedoneor n1oreof rhoseli1nda1nentals,and d1ey
didn't wane d1ese people co be part of dieir church. So ehey said
if you \von'e believe iliese funda111entals,d1en youcan't be part of
d1e church.
Anda n1an by d1e na,neofBriggs wasdefrocked of his posicion,
and ehe fi.1ndan1entalisc,no ve,nent began about chat ci1ne.
1-lowcvc,rd1at'searly fundame ncalistn. Later fw1da,nenralisni is
a lirde different than this, and I'd like co characterize the difier-
ence. Ir's not oli:en clarified. Lacer fundanientalistn really began
around 1920 as George Mandan [Marsden] purs in his book.
Abouc 1920-\vhac happened benveen the l 890'sand 1920 \Vas
very significanc1 . l1egro,vth ofevolutionary philosophy was very
strong.
Spencers' philosophy of evolutio nis1n was very strong in the
Unieed Scaees, it wasbeingtaught in theschools, and these people
perceived it asa threat co ilieir fairh, because indeed it was.n1eir
faith said aJJ chese thingsareliterally crueand rhisphilosophy said
they aren't crue.
As a result of that ali:er the Second (First) \Vorid \'(far, I9 I8,
when people saw die barbarisn1 char had occurred as a resule of
this\var and,vhen Hider in 1924 \vroce Mein Ka.rnpfand declared
d1aeevolution ,vas co be used asa niean [1neans) to prove d1ae die
Arian [Aryan) race was superior and that natural selection was
used by hin, c.ojustify annihilation of'Je\vS, chen people began to
react against th is and say this whole d1ing is bad.
"!liarscarred a swing coward I9 I8 ,vhen Reilly [ Riley3] gave a
fan1oussern1onon rhishavingconie back froni abroad saying we've
goe tofighe chisehing.Tharsea.reedaS\>,;ng ro,vard what I call n1ore
radical fi1nda1nenralis1u or lacer funda1nenealisn1as described in
Marzdan's (Marsden's] book. And chis took on a ne,v character-
istic. It beca1ne1nilitant where theearly ftuida1nental.is,n \vas not
1nilicanc. It beca1ne separatiscic where the early fundamenraJisn1
3. \'i'illiam llell Riley (1861- 1947), pastorof First Baprisr Church of Minneapolis.
 Creation and the Courts

was notseparatistic, it was che liberals who,vereseparating fron1

the orthodox, noc che reverse.
Q,Lec nie ask you. Have you prepared an oudine of the hiscory of
Darwinisn1 and funda111encalisn1for rne?
A Yes, I have. I don't have acopy of that.
Q,Isho,v you ,vhac has been n1arked as defendants' exhibit no. 11
for idencificacion and ask if you can identify d1ac.
A Yes, chis is che one I prepared.
Q \'v'ould chis assist you in your c.esrirno ny today?
,-\ Yes. Yes, it ,vill.
Q Can you tell 1ne ,vhac caused die split benveen chese-benveen
cheearly and lace ftu1da1nencaliscs that you just discussed?
A It was not really asplit,it,vasanevolution.\Xlhac happened co the
lacer fundan1encaliscs isasa result of what they perceived co be the
philosophy ofevolution,noc die biologyorscience ofevolution, chey
perceived itasa religious threat,and indeed,it wasa religion, because
as we testified earlier,Spencer and \'v'allace and these n1enhad rnade
it into one. So ,vhat happened is the earlier fundainencaliscs,vere
nocanci-Dan vin cacegorically.Maiiyofd1eseearly fundarnencaliscs
,vrote bookssaying biological evolution isokay.
In face, oneofche inceresring diings isrhat the book,"The F1u1-
da111encals," which ,vas put ouc if you ,viii note hereon the charc,
""Il1e Ftu1da1nentals" was published 1910 to 1915, d1at book had
rhree authors in it who ,vere pare of chis early fundan1entalisc
group who said that evolution in che biological sense is fine. \Xie
can acconunodace char. inco our Christian beliefs. So they were
noc n1ilicandyai1Ci-evolutioniscsand son1e ofd1en1weren't in tacc
anti-biologicalevolurion.
Buecher1after 1918 ,vhen it ,vasperceived inasocial philosophi-
cal and religious sense, then thisgroup becatne very rnilicanc and
ic scarred co-,vell, look on checharc in 1921 Williarn J. Bryant
(Bryan) adopts anti-evolution carnp aign; 1921 fundarnencal fel-
The Te timt)ny' fl1cy Refused t() Transcribe 177
lo,vship adopts fivefundan1entals;1924Hitler wrote Mein Karnpf
,vhich had a scrong Danvinian antisen1etic (anti-Sen1itic) flavor.
Then 1925 rhe fundan1enclaisrs anti-evolutionlobbies began.They
decided to figlu against all kinds of evolution, social, religious,
scientific, and I think what happened is that they threw the baby
out,vich che bath water, rneaningby chat rhac they threw scientific
evolurion our with rl1eiroverreactionagainst religiousevolution,
and then ofcourse, following chat there wereseveral srates, 1926
and following, that adopted anti-evolution la,vs, one of ,vhich
wasn't revoked until son1etr1i1e in the I960's.
Then i1nn1ediacely follo"'ing chat the "Hurn an isc Manifesto"
1933 in which evolution was adopted as one of die cenancs (te-
nets) of hu1naniscic religion. 1l1ere are about four basic cenancs
[tenets ): no God, evolution, naturalistic p rocessand everything
is relarive in cenns oferl1ics.1l1ac ,vas adopted in hu1nanisn1.
Julian HtLxley in I962 pronounced evolutionary hu111anism a
religion and chen I973 che"H wnaniscManifestoII" follo,ved it
up saying it's srill a religion.
In I98 I, incerescingyl enough, che secular hu111anist declara-
tion on1ics all references ro religion entirely. And I chink ,vhac
happened there in chat period is that they decided chat because
hun1anis111,vas a religio11, evolucio11,vas pareof ic, and it's wrong
ro reacl1 religion in die scl1ools, d1at rl1ey would back off calling
ir a religion.
Q As I understand your testin1ony, then, early fundamencaliscswould
have had no disagree111enc,vich rl1e reachingof evolution, is char
correct?
A Biological evolution as a science, rhe early funda1nencaliscs,vere
willingcoacco1n111odacethemselvest.o it. Because\'7arfield,\X'right4
and Ja1nes On, ,vho were dlt'ee1nen who wrote diac book, nie
Funda1nencals; all believed in s01.ue torn1 of meiscic evolution.
Bue the larer funda1nentalistsadopr.ed anti-evolucion of all kinds
4. 8. ll. \rficld ( I8S1- 192I) and George Frederick \V,;ght ( I838- 1921).
 Creation and the Courts

aspareofcl1eir niilicanccanipaign against- and evolution becaine

alarge [bad) word.
And I rnighc add that the thing that characterized these later
fundan1encaliscsfrorn cheearlyfundamencaliscs noconly,vere rhey
1nilir.ant and anti every kind ofevolution, but they were narro,v
and ofi:en bigoted and ,vere people who I chink really brought
disrepute on thefullcause of rheearlier f11ndan1entaliscswho were
educaced.1l1ere[TI1ey]werealsoanri-incelleccuaJ where theearly
fund ainencaliscs,vere the teachers at Princeton and che n1ajor
schools in theease.So, chey,vere1nUicanc, narro,v, ofi:en bigoted
anri-inteUec tualand thre,v all kindsofevolution out.'ll1ac'squite
different fron1die early hu1dan1enraliscs.
QDo you have an opinion as to ,vhecher Ace 590 reAecrs lace fitn-
danientalisc attitudes?
A Yes, I do have an opinion on cl1ar.
Q \Vhac is your opinion?
A Ir see1ns ro n1e cl1ac Ace 590 reAeccs far1nore ofcheearlier funda-
1nencaliscs chan che lacer fundainenr.alisc,because Act 590says co
rue reach both sides. Well, you ,vould never gee a fundan1encaJisr
ofrhe 1920, 1930 variet ysaying lee's teach evolution. \1(/here Act
590says lee's reach evolution as ascientific theory right alongside
creation.So, I don't see chis [ rneaning ) we're cocally against all
kindsof evolution.1l1is isan Ace ro rne chac says both should be
taught.
Another cl1ing. I don't seecl1eanci-inceUeccu alaccicude you had
fron1 these fimdan1enraliscs,because chisissayinglee's teach it asa
scientific cl1eory, which would in1ply we're going co have to have
scientists who have degrees chat aren't just attacking everybody
who ,vent away and got a Ph.D. and saying well, he's just phe-
no1nenally dun1b or the kind of satires chat the fundan1encaJisrs
would rake on.1l1e lacer funda111entaliscs would r.ake on people
who goc education. So I see chis-lee 1ne put it chis \vay. If chis
reAects lacer fw1dan1entaliscs they repent (repented of] it.
The Testimony 'fhey Refused t() Transcribe 179

Q What relar.io nship is there benveen the definition of creation

science in section 4(a) of Ace 590 and che book ofGenesis?
A \Vell, I d1ink inall honesty d1at d1e people whodevised d1is p rob-
ably goc their n1odel fron, the book of Genesis. I think chat the
inspiration and dien1odel for d1iscan1e &0111die book ofGenesis,
just as rheinspiration and model Idescribedof n1anyofche ocher
peoplecan1e fron1oracles orsnakesor" 'hathave you.
Q\Vhac significance is it d1ac d1e book of Genesis ,nay have been a
source of dle scienrific rnodel ofcreacion science?
A I don't d1ink it'sanysignificance at all, because diesource does nor
n1aner.!e's the justificatio n. Can you provideascientific theoryand
n1odel d1accan be justified?1hat'sallscience should beconcerned
about.
Q Can you d1ink ofexa1nples ,vhere me Bible 1nay have been rhe
source ofson1e scientific discovery in d1e past?
A Yes, I can mink ofa nu,nber of these. Forexa1nple, the Bible talks
about rnany historical evencs rhac happene d. No,v, dloseare sub-
ject co historical verification because when you say, for exarnple,
Hesekiah [Hezekiah] builca turu1el, peoplecan godigging.uound
Jerusalern ro see if d1ey can find Hesekial1's [Hezekial1's) tunnel,
and as a ,nacrer of facr, rhac's exactly what has happened.' They
have unearrhed, by che science of archeology, ,nany of che very
d1ings n1entioned in rhe Bible. So che Bible has actually been a
source tor finding d1ese d1ings n1enrioned in d1e Bible.
The sin1ple facr d1ar d1e Hitcires are 1nentioned in rhe Bible.
Now, a generation or so ago scholars used co laugh and say Hit-
tites, rhey are nor n1enrioned any,vhere in die world outside die
Bible. n1e only book in the world Hittites are n1entioned is rhe
Bible. "!h ey didn't exist, dle Bible created thern.
No,v, every scholar knows diac che whole Hiccice library has
been found and dle Hier.ices were a people froni ancient tin1e,
diey accepc ir as pare of hiscory. So diey gor rheir clue fron1 die
Bible and d1en d1ey reseed it scienrfiically.
 180 Creation and the Courts

1\ sfaras I know noone has thrown out the principlesofarcheol-

ogy because the inspiration for1n11d1 ofit came fro,n the Bible.
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, I'd like co ,nove rhe ad,nission of
defendants' exhibit no. 12 for idenrificarion inco evidence.
THE COURT: Ir will be received.
( Defend ants'exhibit 12 received into evidence.)
BY MR. CAMPBELL:
QDr.Geisler, do you have an opinion as ro whed1er it islegirirnate
ro derivea scientific ,node!fron1a religious source?
A Yes, I do.
QAnd what is yowopinion?
/\ My op inion is rhac ic's perfectly legitirn ate,it's done ,nany cin1es.
MR.CAMPBELL: 'Thank you. I have no further questions.

Bri ef Con1n1ents on My Testimony

Aswill beshown inchapter 8, much of n1y cesci1nony\vasco d1eheart

of the issue, nainely, what is religion? And iscreation science religious?
Theanswers ro these questions derennine wherher or nor irisan uncon-
scitu rional violation of d1e Firsr Ainend,nenr ro reach creation science
ina publicschool.Since che Arkansas judge largelyignored the forceof
me argurnents and they were not available for Supren1e Court revie,v
{since the Arkansas aud1orities refused to transcribe d1e111), I ,vill briefly
conunent on rhe issue here. A fuller creacn1ent is found in chapter 8.
First, rhe judge didn't ger (or goc and didn't like) 1ny poinr that d1e
n1ere fact d1at an idea can1e fron1 a religious source does not 111ake it
religious, since n1anyscientific ideas, including evolution, came from
religious sources.' [h isdestroyed oneof the ACLU's n1ain argu1nents-
d1ac creation is religious because ir con1es fro,n a religious source, d1e
Bible.
Second, the judged failed ro rakeseriously n1yargun1enc thacaCreator
canbe referred toobjectively inascientific or philosophical waywithout
The Tc.st imony'fhey Refused to Transcribe

establishingreligion,asdid Aristotle, Plato, and ochers. I even referred

cooneofcheevolucion iscexpert ,vicnesses,Langdon Gilkey, insupport
of the point. I also referred co Paul Tillich, who1n che Suprerne Court
lLSed co helpdefine religion (in Torcaso, 1961), and who1nade thesarne
point in his,vricings.Bue rl1e judge ent irely ignored chis.
1l1ird, the judge totally ignored niy d istinctionbetween enipirical
science{which neither macroevolucionnor creation is) that deals with
regular observable evencs and science in a forensic sense (which bod1
rnacroevolucion and creation are) which deals with past, unobserved
events relatingco the origin of the universe, life, and ne,v life fonns. If
he had pondered rl1is po int, he would noc have ruled chat evolurion is
sciencein an ernpirical,observable sense and creation is not.
On these threepoincsche wholecase hinged. And dieSupre1ne Court
never had rny cestin1ony "'ith thesearglUnencs before d1e1n, for the Ar-
kansas authorities refused co transcribe d1e1nfor five years, lUltil aii:er
theSuprerne Court made its rulingagainsc ceachingcreacion in schools
based in parr on rhe Arkansas case. n1is isa verystrangeand suspicious
fact. Inany event, me Arkansas judge eidier rnissed or ignored rnyargu-
rnencs and ruled against creation being caught alongside evolution in
public schools (see chapter 3). All of these issues ,viii be addressed in
n1ore detail later{in chapter 8). First, in chapters 5 through 7, we will
exarnine the disastrous consequences ofJudge Overcon's decision in
subsequent court cases.
 The Edwards Supreme Court
Ruling (1987)

he 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard is che only crear.ion/

evolution case to reach theSupren1e Courr to datesinceEpper:;on
(1968 ). Assuch, it is very i1nporcanr and precedenr-sercing. \Xe'
,viU look first ar die backgroundof che ruling and rhen ar. die decision
irsel( Finally,,ve,villevaluate itsconclusions.111einsighthd and strong
djssenting opinion co this ruling by Supren1eCourc Justice Antonin
Scalia is discLissed in the nexc chapter.

Background of the Ruling

Afi:er the Arkansas decision (1982),Jon Buell and Charles n1axron
of the Foundation for TI1ought and Ethics in rhe Dallas area pleaded
wid1 che arcorney general of Arkansas noc co appeal rl1eM cl ean deci-
sion against creation on the grounds that Act 590 was not rhe best.-
constructed law. Louisiana had a better law, and it seen1ed better to
appeal rhar o ne. I ,vas of che op inion rhar ir ,voitld be hannf1tl ro lee
183
 C reation and the Co urts

chis bad decision scand as precedent in the record, kno,ving how che
courrs use precedents. Furrher, the Arkansas la,v, ,vhile it could have
beenconstructed better, was noc unconsrit.ucional. As we will see, the
better-constructed Louisiana la,v fared no better and was reject.ed for
1nany of die sa1ne basic reasons,citing che Arkansas McLean decision
as a precedent, just as I had feared.
Louisiana's"Creationisni Ace; like the Arkansas law, wasa"balanced"
approach. leallowed d1acschoolscould ope nocco reachon origins acall.
Ho, vever, ic demanded chat if chey chose co teach one vie,v of origins,
then die odier vie,vshould be presented in a balanced way as well. It
defined the d1eories as"diescientific evidences for [creation o r evolu-
tion) and inferences fro1n d1ose scientificevidences.1"
The challenge to die Louisiana law can1efro1n Louisiana parents,
teachers, and religious leaders in a federal districtcoun,,vhich granted
sununary judg1nenc, holding that d1e Ace violated rhe Escablislunenr
C.lause of the First Aniendn1enc. The case then ,vent to the court of
appeals, and fro111 rhere to rhe Supre1ue Courr.

The Edwards Supren1e Court Ruling (1987)

' The U.S. Supre111e Court held chat:

I. The Ace is faciallyinvalidas violativeof che E.scablishn1enc Clause

of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose.
Pp.585-594.
(a) The Ace doesnot further its seated secular purposeof"procect
ingacademic freedom." le does not enhance the freedon1 of teachers
co teachwhat theychoose and fails co further che goal of "ceaching all
of che evidence." Forbidding the reachingof evolution when creation
science is notalso taught underrn inesthe provision ofacomprehensive
scientific education. J-1orcover, requiring the teachingof creationsci-
ence with evolu tiondoes not giveschoolteachers a Aex.ibility that they
did not already possess co supplant thepresentsciencecurriculum with
the presentation of theories, besidesevoluiton,about the origin oflife.
J. /;tlw11rd< v. 1 /gui //;1rd , 482 U.S. 578(1987).
'The Etlw,11'dJ Suprem.e
Court Ruling (1987)

Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a basicconcept of

fairness" by requiringthe reaching of all of theevidence on rhesubject
iswithout merit. Indeed, rheActevincesa discrin1inatorypreference for
the teachingofcreationscience and against the teachingofevolution by
requiringtharcurriculumguides bedevelopedand resourceservicessup-
pliedfor re.achingcreationism burnorfor rcachingcvolurion, bylimiting
membcrshipon the resourceservicespaod to"creation scientisrs,"and by
forbidding schoolboards to discriminate against anyone who"chooses
to be a creation -scientist"or to teach creaiton science,while failing to
protect thosewhochoose to teachother theories or who refuse to teach
creation science. A law intended to 1naximize the co1nprehensivencss
and effect ivenessof scienceinstruction would encourage the teaching
of all scientific theoriesabout human origins. Instead,this Act has the
disrincdydifferentpurposeofdiscrediringevolution bycounterbalanc-
ing irs reachingat every rurnwith the teachingofcreationism.
(b) ) TI1eActimpermissiblyendorses religion byadvan cingdie religious
belief that a supernat ural being created humankind. n1elegislative his-
tory demonstratesthat the term "creationscience," ascontemplated by
thesrntclegislan,rc,embraces this rd igiousteaching."!heAct's primary
purposewas to change the public school science curriculum to provide
persuasiveadvantage to a particular religiousdoct rine thar rejecrs rhe
factual basL ofevolution in itsentirety. Thus. theAct isdesignedeither
to promote the theory of creation science t hat embodies a particular
religious tenetor to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory d isfa-
vored by certain religiousseers. In either case, the Act violates the l'irst
Aincndn1cnt.Pp. 589-594.
2.The District Court did not err in grantingsummary judgment upon
a finding that appellants had failed to raise a genuine issueof material
fact. Appellantsrelied on rhe"unconu overted" affidavits of scienrisrs,
thc(llogians, and an education administrator definingcreationscience
as "origin through abrupt appearance in complexform" and alleging
that sucha viewpoint constitutes a truescientific theory. n,e District
C.ourt, in its d iscretion, properlycond uded that the postenactme nt
tcstilnony of these experrs concerning the possible technical meanings
of the Act's termswo uld not illuminate thecontemporaneouspurposeof
thestate legislature when it passed the Acr. Noneof rhe persons making
186 Creation and the Co urts

the affidavits produced by appellants participated in or contributed to

cheenacunent of che law.'

\Vendell R. Bird, Special Assisrant Attorney General of Georgia, a r-

gued cllecase for meappdlants. \Xlith hin1on die briefs wereA. Morgan
Brian, Jr., and n1on1asr. Anderson, Special Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral, Kendall L. Vick, and Patricia Nalley Bowers, Assistant Attorney
General of Louisiana.
Jay Topkis argued the case for appellees. \Vith hini on die brief,vas
John OiGiulio,Sa1nuel I.Rosenberg, Allen Blumstein, Gerard E. Harper,
Jack D. Novik, Burt Neuborue, Norn1an Dorsen, John Sexton, and
Ron \Vilson.
1ne Court voted 7-2 against teaching creation along,vich evolu-
tion-only Scalia and Rehnquist dissented. Brennan wrote d1eopinion
of dieCourt,in which Marshall, Blacknnu1, Powell, and Stevens joined,
and in all but Pan II of ,vhich O'Connor joined. Po,vell filed a con-
curring opinion, in which O'Connor joined. White, filed an opinion
concurring in me judgn1enc.
Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Courc: 3 (1)

I
The question for decision iswhether Louisianas" BalancedTreacn1enc
for Creation-Scienceand Evolution-Science in Public School lnstruc-
tion" Ace (Creationism Act) ... ( I982), is facially invalid asviolative of
rhe EstablishmentClause of che First AmencLnenc.
The C reationismAct forbids che ceachingof che theoryofevolution
in publicschools unlessaccompanied by instruction in"creation science."
No school is required to teach evolutio n or creation science. If either
is caught, however, che o th e r must also be taught. Ibid. The theoriesof
evolut ionand creation science arestatutorily defined as "the scientific
evidencesfor[creation orevolution] andinferences fron1thosescientifie
evidences."
Appellccs, who include parents of children attending Louisiana
public schools, Louisiana teachers,and religious leaders, challenged

2. lbid.
3. Te<.'hn ica1 rd<:l'e11cc!> ha.ve bcc1) largey
l diminl:(cd.
'The Etlw,11'dJ Suprem.e
Court Ruling (1987)

the constitutionality of the Act in District Court,seekingan injunc-

tion and declaratory relief(2). Appellants, Louisiana officials charged
with in1plcmencing the Ace, defended on theground that the purpose
of theAct is to p rotect a legitimate secular interest, namely, academic
freedom (3). Appcllees attacked rhe Act as facially invalid because it
violated rhe Establishment Clause and made a motion for summary
judgment. n1e District Courtgranted then1ocion. AguiLlard v.Treen
. . . (1983).The court held char there can be no valid secular reason for
prohibiting che reaching of evolution. a theoryhistorically opposed
bysome religious denominations. n1ecourt further concluded char
"che teachingof'creation-science'and 'creationism; as contemplated
by the statute, involves teaching ' tailoredco the principles' of a par-
ticularreligious sect or group ofseers" ... (cicingEpperJon v./lrkam as
... (1968). lhe District Courc thereforeheld chat the Creationism
Ace violated rhe Establishment Clause either because it prohibited
the reaching of evolution or because it required che reaching of cre-
at ion science with che purpose of advancing a particular religious
doctrine.
n1ccourt of Appeals affirmed.n1e court observed chat thestatute's
avowed pu rposeof protecting academicfreedo111was inco nsistent with
requiring.upon riskofsanctit)n, the reachingofcreationscience when-
ever evolution is caught. .. . The court found chat the Louisiana Legis-
lature'sactual intent was "co discredti evoluiton by counterbalancing
its teaching ac every turn with the reachingofcreationism, a religious
belief" . . . Becausethe C,eacionism Act was thus a law furthering a
particular relig iousbelief,the Court of Appeals held chat the Ace vio-
lated the Establishment Clause.A suggetsion for rehearing en banc4
was denied over a dissent. \Ve noted probable jurisdiction. . . (1986).
and now affirm.

u
'fhc EstablishmentClause forbids cheenactment ofanylaw"respecting
an establishment of religion" (4). The Court hasapplieda three-pronged
test to determinewhee.herlegislation comporrs with the Establishment
C lause.First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular
purpose. Second, the statute'sprincipal or primary effect muse be one
4. \'(/irh a fu)Jco urt;withfull judiciaryamhoriry.
188 Creatio n and the Co urts

that neither advances nor inhibics religion. Third,the statutemust not

resultin anexcessive entanglementofgovern111ent with religion. Lernonv.
Kurtzm,in ... (1971)(5).Stateaction violatesthe Establisluuent Clause
if it fails tosatisfy any of these prongs.
In this case, the Court must determine whether the Establishment
Clausewas violated in the special context of the publicelemenatryand
secondaryschool system. Scates and local sc hoolboards are generally
affo rded considerablediscretion in operating publicschools. See Bethel
School Dist. No.403 v.Fnuer. . . (1986) . . . (BRENNAN,].,concurring
in judgment);Tinkerv. Des1\1oines Independent Conununity Scho/oDist
. . . ( 1969). "At thesame time. .. wehave necessarily rccognjzed thatthe
discretionof theStatesand local school boards in mattersofeducation
must be exercised in a manner that co,nports with the transcendent
imperativesof the l'irst Amendment."Boardof Education, Island Trees
Union f reeSchoolDist . . . (1982).
..n,e Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance
with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondaryschools.
Farnilies entrust public schools with the education of their child ren,
butcondition their crust on the understandingthat theclassroom will
norpurposelybeusedto advance religious, cwsrhar mayconflict with
the private beliefsof t.hestudentandhisor her family.Srudcnts insuch
instimrionsare impressionableand theirattendance is involuntary.See,
e.g., Gm11d Rapids Schoo/Dist. v. Ball . . . (1985);Jllaccv.Jajfree. . .
(1985); Meek v. Pittenger. . . (1975); Abington School D ist . v. Schernpp
... (1963) ( BRENN AN,].,concurring).'ll1c$ rareexertsgreat author-
ity and coercive powerthrough mandatory attendance rcquiremencs,
and becauseof thestudencs' emulation of teachers as role models and
rhechildren's suscepribilir-y ro peer pressure(6). . . . Furrhennore,"rhc
publicschool is at once the symbol of o ur dc,noc racyand the most
pervasive means for promotingour commo n destiny. In no activityof
rheState is it moreviral to keep out divisiveforces than in its schools
.. ." Illin oisexrel.McCollu,11 v. Boa,-do/Edttc,lfion . . . (19 48)(opinion
of f rankfurter,J.).
Co nsequently,the-Courrhasbeen requiredoften to invalidatestatutes
which advance religion in public elernenta1y and secondary schools.
Sec, e. g., Grand RapidsSchool Dist. v.Billi , supra(school districts use
of religiousschool teachersin public schools); /!lace v.Ja./frees,upra
(Alabamasramteauthorizing momentofsilenceforschool prayer);Stone
'Thel!,dwa1'dJ Supreme.Cour t Ruling(1987)

v. Graham . . . (1980)(postingcopyof "Icn Conunandmcnis on public

classroom wall); Epperson v. Arkansas . . . ( I 968) (statute forbidding
reaching of evolution); Abington School Dist.v. Sche,npp,supra (daily
reading of Bible); Engel v.Vitale . . . ( I 962 ) ( rccit.acion of "denomina-
tionallyneutral" prayer).
Therefore, in employing chc three-pronged Le11w11 cesc, we muse do
so mindful of che particular concerns that arise in checontext of public
elementary and secondary schools. We now turn to the evaluation of
the Act under the Lemon test.

III
Le1no11's first prong focuses on the purpose char a nimatedadop
tion of the Acc. n1e purpose prong of the Lemon rest asks whether
government's actual purposeis to endorseor disapprove of religion."
Lynch v. Donnel r ... (19 84 ) (O'C O NNOR, )., concurring). A gov-
ernmental intention co promote religion isdear whentheStateenacts
a law to serve a religious purpose. This intention may be evidenced by
promotion of religion in general, sec lll11ce v.ja.lfree ... (Esrnblish-
rncnt Clause proteccs individualfreedom of conscience "coselect any
religious faithor noneat all"),orbyadvancementofaparticular religious
belief, c. g., Sto11e v. Grahan, . . . (i nvalidaciogrequirement co pose Ten
Commandmencs, which are"11ndcnialbyasacred ccxcin theJewish and
Christian fait.hs")[foocnoce omicced]; Epperso11 v.Ark,1nsas (holding
char banning che reaching of evolucion in public schools violates d1c
FirstAmendment since"teachingand learning"111ust nor"be tailored
coche principlesorprohibitionsofany religioussect or dogma"). If rhe
law wasenacted for thepurpose ofendorsing religion, "noconsideration
of chesecond or thirdcriteria [of Lemon] is necessary." Ula/lacev.Jajfree.
. . . In chis case, appellants have identified no clear secular purpose for
che Louisiana Acc.
True, the Ace's scared purpose is to protect academic frccdorn....
,nis phrase mighr, in common parlance, be understood as referring co
enhancing rhcfreedom of teachers co reach whac they will. The Courc
of Appeals, however,corrccdyconcluded d1ac che Ace was nordesigned
to further char goal (7) . \'(le find no merit in the State's argument char
che "legislature may nor [have] used the terms 'academic freedom' in
the correct legal sense. They might have [had) in mind, instead, a basic
concept of fairness; reachingall of cheevidence."... Even if "academic
 C reat ion and the Co urts

freedom" is read to mean "teaching all of the evidence" with ,espect

co the originof human beings, the Act does not further this purpose.
Thegoal of providinga ,norecomprehensivesciencecurriculum is not
furthered either by outlawing the teachingofevolutionor by requiring
the teachingofcreationscience.

IHA
\'(lhile the Court is normally deferential to a Stace'sarticulat ion of
a secular purpose,it is required that thestatement of such purpose be
sincereand notasham. Sec H1u.lace v. jq{fiee. . . (P0 \l(f LL,J.,concur-
ring); ... (O'C ONNOR,]., concurringin judgment); Stonev.Grahani
... ; Abington School Dist. v. Schempp....AsJUSTICE O'CONNOR
stated in /,flalf,zce:"It is not a trivial matter, however, to require that the
legislaturemanifestasecularpurposeand omitallsectarianendorsements
from itslaws.ll1acrequirement is precisely tailoredto the Establishment
Clause'spurposeofassuringthatGovernment not intentionallyendorse
religion o r a religiouspractice:'
It is clear from chelegisaltivehistorythat the purposeof the legisla-
tivesponsor,Senator Bill Keicl1, was co narrow thesciencecurriculum.
D uring thelegislativehearingsS , enator Keithstated: "l\1y preference
wo uld bethat neither[creacionis1n norevolution] be taught."Sucha ban
on teachingdocsnot promote- indeed, it undermines- the provision
of a comprehensivescientific education.
It isequallyclear that requiringschoolsco teachcreation sciencewith
evolutiondoes not advanceacademicfreedo1n.1hc Act docs not grant
teachersa Aexibilitychat theydid not already possessto supplant the
present sciencecurriculum with the presentation of theories, besides
evolution,about the originoflife.Indeed, theCourt of Appeals found
that no law prohibitedLouisiana public school teachers from teaching
anyscientific theory.As the presd i ent of the LouisianaScience l eachers
Association testified,"anyscientific co ncept chats based on established
fact can beincludedinourcurriculu1nalready,and no legislation allow-
ing th is is necessary." The Act provd i esLouisianaschoolteachers with
no new authority. Thusthestated purposeis not furclieredby it.
'!he Alabamastatuteheld unconstitutionalin Wallacevj.,iffiees,u pra,
is analogous. In Jll11cc, the State cl1aracterized its new law asone de-
signed to providea I-minute period for meditation.\Verejected that
stated purpose as insufficient, because a previouslyado pted Alabama
'IncEdwarthSupremc Court Ruling{1987)

lawalready provided forsuch a I-minuteperiod.llu,s, in thiscase, as in

fVa/.lace,"appellants have notidentified anysecular purposethat was not
fullyserved by [existingstate law] before the enactment of [the statute
in question]."
Furthermore, che goal of basic "fairness" is hardly furthered by the
Ace's discriminatorypreference for the reachingofcreation science and
against the teaching of evolution (8). \X'hilc requiring that curriculum
guides bedeveloped for creationscience, the Act says nothing ofcon1-
parablc guidesforevolution....Simliarly,resowceservicesares upplied
for creation science but not for evolution. Only "creation scientists"
can serve on the panel chatsupplies che resource services.Ibid. 'The Act
forbids schoolboards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to
be a creation-scientist" or to teach "creationism but fails to protect
those whochoose to teach evolution or any other non-creationscience
theory, or,vho refuse to teach creation science.
If the Louisiana Legislature's purpose was solely to maxi1nize the
comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruc tion, it would
haveencouraged the teachingofallscientific theories about theorigins
of humankind (9). But under the Act's requirements, teacherswhowere
once free to teach any and all facets of this subject are now unable to
doso. Moreover, the Act fails even toensure chat creation science will
be taught, but instead requires the teaching of this theory only when
the theory of evolution is taught.Thus we agree with the Court of
Appeals' conclusion that the Act docs not serve to protect academic
freedom, but has thedistinctly different purpose ofdiscrediting"evolu-
tion by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching
of creationism. . . n.

HID
Stone v. Graha11, invalidated the Stace's requirement that the Ten
Commandmencs be posted in public classrooms. "The lcn Command-
ments are undeniably asacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths,
and no legislative recitation ofasupposedsecular purpose can blind us
to that fact."... As a result, the contention that the law wasdesignedto
provide instruction on a "fundamental legalcode" was "not sufficient
coavoid conAict witl1 tl1e J' irst J\Jnendment." Ibid. Similarly Abington
School Dist. v. Schentpp held unconstitutional a statute "requiringthe
selection and reading at che openingof the school day of verses from
 Cn..-arion and rhe Courts

the Holy Bible and the ,ecitation of the Lord's Prnyer by thestudents in
unison,"despite theprofferofsuch secular purposesas the"promotion of
moral values, thecontradiction to the macerialistic trends ofour times,
the perpetuation of our institutionsand chc teaching ofl iterature.". . .
As in Stone and Abington, we need n()t be blind in this case to the
legislature'spreeminent religiouspurpose in enacting thisstatute.There
is a historic and contemporaneous link between the teachingsof cer-
tain religiousdenominationsand the teachingof evolution{10}. lt was
thislink that concerned the Court in Epperson v. A,kansas . . . (1968),
which also involved a facial challenge to a statute regulatingthe teach-
ingof evolution. ln that case, the Court reviewed an Arkansas statute
char made it unlawful for an instructor to teach evolutio n or to usea
textbook that referred to thisscientifictheory. Although the Arkansas
anrievolution law did nor explicitlystate its predominate religiouspur-
pose, the Court could not ignore char "rhestaturewasa product of rhe
upsurge of 'fundamcncalisr' religiousfervor" that has longviewed this
particularscientific theoryascontradictingthe literal interpretationof
the Bible....(11). Afi:cr reviewingthe hisroryofanticvolution statutes,
the Court determined that "there can be no doubt chat the motivation
for the [Arkansas] law was rhesame [as other antievolution statutes]:
to suppress the teachingof a theory which, it was thought, 'denied'
the d ivine creation of man." ... ' Die Cotirt found that therecan be no
legirin1arestareinterestin protectingparticular religionsfrontscientific
views"d istasteful t<>them;. . . (citationomitted), and concluded"that
the l' irst A,nendment does not permit theSeate t<>require that teaching
and learning must be tailoredco the principles or prohibitions of any
religious sect or dogma;. . .
These same historicand contemporaneous ancagonisnts between
the teachingsof certain religious denominations and the teachingof
evolutionarepresent in thiscasc.lhe preeminent purpose of the Loui-
siana Legislature was clearly to advancethe religious viewpoint chat a
supernaturalbeingcreated hmnankind (12). lltcterm"creationscience"
wasdefined asembracing this particular religious doctrine by thosere-
sponsible for the passage of rheCreationism Act.Senator Kcithslcading
expert oncreation science, Edward Boudreau,x testifiedat dielegislative
hearings that the theoryof creati()n science included be!ief in theexis-
tence of a supcrnan,ral creator (notingthat "creation scientists" point
to high probabilit y that lifewas "created byan intelligentmind") (13).
Th,c /:,dw,11'dJ S upreme.Court Ruling(1987) 193

Senator Keith also cited testimony from other experrs to support the
creation-science view that "a creator[was) responsible for the universe
and everything in it."... (14).n1e legislativehistory therefore reveals
thac the term"creationscience," as concemplaccd by chelegislaturechac
adoptedt.hisAct,c1nbodies t.hereligious beliefthatasupernaturalcreator
was responsible for the creation of humankind.
furthermore, it is noc happenstance chac thelegislacure required the
teachingofa theorythat coincided with this religious view.The legisla-
tive history documenrs chat the Act's primary purpose was to change
the science curricu lum of publicschools in order to provide persuasive
advantage to a particularreligious doctrine that rejeccs thefactual basis
ofevolutionin icsentirety. Thesponsorof theCreacionis111Ace,Senator
Keith, explained during the legilsativehearings that hisdisdain for t.he
theoryofevolutionresulted from thesup port thatevolutionsuppl iedto
views contrary co hisown religious beliefs.According coSenator Keith,
the theoryofevolutio n wasconsonant with the"cardinal principlc[s] of
religious humanism,secularhumanism, theological liberalism,aetheis-
tis,n (sic).". . . Thestatesenator repeate(Uy stated thatscientificevidence
supporting his religious viewsshouldbe included in the publicschool
curriculun1 to redress the face that the theory ofevolution incidentally
coincided with what hecharacterizedas religious beliefs antitheticalco
his own (15). 111c legislation therefore sought to alter the sciencecur-
riculum co reAect endorsement of a religious view chac is antagonistic
to the theory ofevolution.
In this case, the purpose of the Creation ism Act was to restructure
thescience curriculum coconform with a particular religious viewpoint.
Out of many possible science subjcccs taught in the public schools, the
legislaturechose to affect the reaching of theonescientific theorychac
historically has been opposed by certain religious sects. As in Epper-
Jon,thelegislature passed the Ace co give preference to those religious
groups which have as one of their tenetschecreation of humankind
by a divine creator. The"overriding fact" that confronted the Court in
Epperson was "chat Arkansas' law selccrs from the bodyof knowledge
a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is
deemed to conflict with . . . a particular interpretation of the Book of
Genesis by a particular religiousgroup." . . . Similarly,theCreationism
Act isdesigned either to promote thetheoryofcreation science which
embodiesa particular religioustenet by requiring that creation science
194 Creation and rhc Courts

be taught whenever evolution istaught or to prohibit the teachingofa

scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the
teachingof evolution whencreation science is not also taught.The Es-
tablishment Clause, however, "forbids alikethe preference ofa religious
doct rineorthe prohibitionof theory which isdeemedantagonistic toa
particular dogma." ... (emphasis added). Because the primary purpose
of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the
Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amcnd1nent.
\v'edo not imply thata legislaturecould never requirethat scientific
critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court
acknowledgedin Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the
rcn Commandments did riot mean that no use could ever be made of
the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an
exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization....In
asimilar way, teaching a varietyof scientific theories about the origins
of humankind to schoolchildren ,n ight be validly done with die clear
secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness ofscience instruction. But
because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a
particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of
the Establishment Clause (16).

IV
Appellants contend that genuine issues of material fact remain in
dispute, and therefore the District Court erred in granting summary
judgment. Federal RuicofCivil Procedure 56(c) provides thatsununary
judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, deposit ions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
aftida,its, if any,show that thereis no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judg,nent as a matter of
law." A court's find ingof improper purpose behind a statute is appro-
priately determined by thestatute onitsface,itslegislative history.or its
interpretation by a responsible administrativeagency.See,e.g., J,Vaflace
v.J,iffree ... ; Stone v. Gr,ih,un ... ; Eppe, 011 v. Arkans,is....The plain
meaning of thestatute's words, enlightened by their context and the
contemporaneous legislative history, can control thedetermination of
legislative purpose. SeeWidlt1ce v. jaffree . . . (()' CO NNO R,J.,concur-
ring in judgment); Rich,irds v. United States ... ( l 96 2);],iy v. Boyd . . .
(1956).Moreover, in determining the legislative purpose of a statute,
The Edward.s,S uprcm.cCourl Ruling(1987) 195
the Court hasalso considered the historical context of thestatute,e.g.,
Epperson v. Ark1111stl$,supra,and thespecific sequence ofevenrs leading
to passage of thestatute, e.g.,Ariingt-011Heightsv.Metropolit,1n Housing
Dev. Corp. . . . ( I977).
In thiscase,appellees' motion forsummary judgment rested on the
plain language of the Creationism Act, the legislative history and his-
torical context of the Act. the specific sequence of events leading to
the passage of the Act. the State Board's report on a survey of school
supcrintcndcnrs,and thecorrespondence between the Act's legislative
sponsor anditskeywitnesses. Appellants contend that affidavits made by
twoscientists, cwo the(l)ogiansa, nd an education adn1inistn1tor raise a
genuine issueof material factand thatsununary judgment was therefore
barred. The affidavits define creati()n science as "origin through abrupt
appearance in complex form"and allege thatsuch aviewpoint constitutse
a truescientific theory. See App. ro Brief for Appellants A-7 to A-40.
\Xie agree with rhe lower courts that these affidavits do nor raise a
genuine issueof material fact.Theexistence of"uncontrovenedaffidavits"
does not bar summary judgment (17). Moreover, the postenacrment
testimony ofoutside expertS is oflircle use in determining theLouisiana
Legislature's purpose in enacting thisstatute., n e Louisiana Legislature
did hearand rely on scientificexpcrtS in passing the bill(18), but none of
the persons makingtheaffidavitS produced by the appellants participated
in orcontributed cotheenactment of thelaw or itSilnpkmentation(I 9).
The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Mon-
day-morning"battle of theexperts" over possible technical meanings of
cern1Sin thestaturewould not illuminate cl1econremporaneouspurpose
of the LouisianaLegislature when it made the law (20 ). We therefore
conclude that the District Court did nor err in finding that appellants
failed co raisea genuine issue of material fact,and in grantingsununary
judgment ( 21).

V
The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by re-
quiring either the banishment of rhe theory of evolution from public
schoolclassroomsor the presentation ofa religions viewpoint that rejectS
evolution in itsentirety. The Aceviolates the Establishn1encClause of the
f irstAmendment because it seeks coemployrhesymbolicandfinancial
 Creation and the C(lurts

supportofgovernment toachieve a religious purpose.n,e judgmentof

theCourt of Appeals thereforeis Affirmed.

Notes:
I JUSTICE O'CO NNO R joins all but Parr II oft.his op inion.
2 Appellants, the Louisiana Governor, the Attorney General,the State
Superintendent, the State Depart ment of Education and the St.ran1-
many Parish School Board, agreed not to implement che C reationism
Act pending the 6nal outcome of thislitigation. The LouisianaBoard
ofElenientar)' andSecondarv, Education> and theOrleans ParishSchool
Board wereamongthe original defendants in the suit but both later
realignedas plaintiffs.
3 1he District Court initiallystayed the action pending the resolution
ofa separate lawsuit brought by t heAce's legislativesponsor and ochers
fordeclaratory and injunctiverelief.,\Jter theseparacesuitwasdismissed
on judsdictionalgrounds, Keith v.lo1tisia11a Department of Ed1tcation
. . . (198 2), the District Court lifted its stay in this case and held t.hat
the Creationism Act violated the Louisiana Co nstitution.The court
ruled thatthe StateConstitution grantsauthorityover the publicschool
sysre,n to the Board of Elementary a nd Secondary Education rather
than thestatelegislature. On appeal, the Court of Appealscertified the
question to the LouisianaSupreme Court, which found the C reation-
ism Act did not violate theStace Const.itution, Aguilln,dv. Treen ...
(1983 ). The Court of Appeals then remanded the case co the District
Court to determine whether the CreationismAct violates che Federal
C onstitution. Agttil!ard v. Treen . . . (1983).
4 The First Amend1nenc states: "Congress shall make nolaw respecting
an establishment of religion... ." Under the Fourteenth Amendment,
this "fundamental concept ofliberty"appliesto the States. C,uitwell v.
Connecticut . . . ( I940).
5n,eLen,on test hasbeen applied in all cases sinceitsadoption in1971,
except in A1arsh v. Cha,nbers . . . ( 1983), where the Courr held that the
NebraskaLegislature'spractice of opening a session with a prayer bya
chaplainpaidby theStatedid notviolate theEstablislunentClaus.eThe
Court based its conclusion in that case on the historicalacceptanceof
the practice. Such a historical approachis not useful in determining
the proper rolesof murch and state in publicschools,since free public
education was virtually nonexistentat che rimeche Constitution was
'Th,c Edw,11'd.>S uprcme.Co urt Ruling(1987) 197
adopted. Sec /{lace v.Jaffiee... (1985) (O'CONNO R,]., concur-
ring in judgment) (citingAbington School Dist. v. Srhempp ... (1963)
(BRENNAN,J..concurring)).
6 The potential for undue inAuence is far less significant wirh regard
to college stud entswho voluntarily enroll in courses. "This distinction
warrantsa difference in constitutio nal results." Abington School Dist.v.
Schen,pp . . . (BRENN AN,).,concurring). Thus,for instance,theCourt
has not questionedthe authorityof state colleges and universities to
offer courses on religionor rheolog.ySec Widmar v. Vincent . . . (1981)
(POWELL,).); ... (STEVENS],.,concurring in judg1nent).
7 The Court of Appeals stated chat "academic freedom embodies the
principle that individual inscructors are ac libertyco ccach that which
they dee,nco beappropriate in the exercise of their professional judg-
ment." . . . Bue, in the Scare of Louisiana, courses in publicschools arc
prescribed by the Stare Board of Educarion and teachers arc not free,
abscnc permis sion, to teachcourses different from whac is required.
. . . "Academic freedom; at least as it is co mmonly understood, is not
a relevant concept in this context. N!orcover, as the Court of Appeals
explained, the Act "requires,presun1ably upon risk of sanction or dis-
missal for failure to comply,the reaching of creation-science whenever
evolution is caught. Although statesmay prescribe public school cur-
riculum concerning scienceinstruction under ordinary circumstances,
the compulsion inherenc in the Balanced Treacment Act is,on its face,
inconsistent with the idea of academicfreedom as it is universally un-
derstood." . . . TheAct acrually serves to diminish academicfreedom by
removing theflexibility to teach evolutionwithout also teachingcreation
science, even if teachers determine that such curriculum results in less
efleccive and comprehensivescience instruccion.
8Creationisn1Act'sprovisionsappear amongother provisions prescribing
thecoursesofstudyin Louisiana's publicschools'. Theseother provisions,
similar co those in other States, prescribecoursesofstud yinsuch copies
as driver training, civics, theConstitution, and freeenterprise.None of
theseotherproviisons,apart fron1those associated with theCreationis111
Act, nominaUy mandates "equal ti,ne" for opposing opinions within a
specific area of learning. Sec, e. g., La. Rev. Stat.Ann. . . . ( I987).
9 lliedissent [ofScalia] concludes that cheAct'spurposewas to protect
theacademic freedo,n ofstudents.and not thatof teachers. Post,at628.
Sucha viewis not at odds withour conclusion that if the Act's purpose
 Cn..-arion and rhe Courts

was to pro,ide comprehensivescientificeducation (a concerns haredby

s mdents and teachersa,s well asparenrs), that purpose was notadvanced
by the statute'sprovisions. . . .
l\1oreover, it is astonishingthat thedissent, to proveits assertion, relies
on a sectit)n of the legislation that \\ "dS eventually deleted by thelegis-
lature....The dissent contends that this deleted section- which was
explici tly rejected by theLouisiana Legislature- revealsthelegislature's
"obviouslyintended meaningof thestatutory terms'acade,nic freedom.'"
Post, at628.
ite to the contrary,Boudreaux, the main expert relied on by the
sponsor of t he Act, cautionedthe legislature that the words"academic
freedon1" meant "freedo1n to teach science." ... His testimony,vdsgiven
at the time the legislature was deciding whether to delete this sec t ion
of the Act.
IO Sec1\1clea11 v.Arkan sasBd.ofEd. . . . (1982)( reviewing historical and
contemporary antagonisms between the theory of evolution and reli-
gious movcmenrs).
11 The Court evaluated the statute in light of aseriesof anticvolution
statutesadopted bystatelegislatures datingbackto theTennessee
statute that was the focus of the celebrated Scopes trial in 1925.
Epperson v. Arkansas. . . . The Court found the Arkansas statute
comparable to this 'Tennessee",nonkcylaw;'
sincebothgavepreference to"'religiousescab- lishn1entswhich
haveasoneof their tenetsor dogmastheinstantaneous creation of
man:" ... (quoting Scopes v. State . . . (1927)(Chambliss,J ,
concurring)).
12\Xfhile the belief in the instantaneous creation of humankind by a
supernatural creator may require the rejectio n of every aspect of the
theory ()f evolution, an individual instead,nay ch()Ose to accept some
or all of this scientific theory as compat ible with his or her spiritual
outlook....
13Boudreaux repeatedlydefined creation sciencein terms ofa theory
that supports the existenceof a supernaturalcreator....(equatingcre-
ation science with a theory pointing"to conditions of a creator );...
("Creation... requires the direct involvc1ncnt of a supernatural intel-
ligence".)The lead witness at the hearini,>s int roducingthe original
bill, LutherSunderland, describedcreationscience as postulating"that
everyth ing was created by some intelligence or power external to the
u.niverse."
The Edward.sSu prcmc Court Ruling (1987) 199
I4Senator Keith believed that creation science enibodied this view:
"One concept is that a creator howeveyrou definea creator was respon-
sible foreverything that is in thisworld.n1e ochereonecpc ischat it jusc
evolved.".. . Besides Senator Keith,several of che most vocal legislators
also revealed their religious n1otives forsupporting thebillin theofficial
legislativehistory. . . . (Sen.Saundersnotingthat bill wasamendedso that
teachers could referto che Biblea nd ocherreligious rexescosupport che
creation-sciencteheory);. . . (Rep.Jenkinsconccnding that theexistence
of God was ascientific fact).
I5See,e.g.,... (noting thatevolution iscontrary to hisfamily's religious
beliefs);. . . (contending chatevolutionadvances religions contrary to his
own}; ... (stating char evoluiton is "al1nost a religio n" to science teach-
ers);. . . (arguingthat evolutioniscornerstone ofsome religionscontrary
to hisown);... (author of model bill, from which Act isderived,sent
copy of the model bill to Senator Keith and advised char "I viewchis
whole battle as one between God and anti-God forces....lfevolution
is permitted to continue. . . it will continue to be made to appear chat
a SupremeBeing isunnecessary .. .").
16 Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals found a clear
secular purpose, while both agreedchat che C reationism Acts primary
purpose was to advance religion. "\Xfhen bothcourts below arc unable
todiscernan arguablyvalidsccular purpose, thisCourt normally should
hesitate co find one." lllacev.Jaffeee. . . (PQ\XfLL,J.,concurring).
17 Thereis"no express or implied requirementin Ruic56that the mov-
ing party support its motion with affidavits or othersimilar materials
negating the opponents claim:Cdgtex Corp. v. Catrett . . . (1986).
18 Theexperts,who were relied upon by thesponsorof the bill and the
legislation'sothersupporters, testified that creationscienceembodiesthe
religious view tl1ac there is asupernatural creator of che universe. . . .
I9 Appellants contend that theaffidavits are relevantbecause the term
"creation science" is a technical term sim ilar co chat found in Statutes
that regulate certain scientific or technologicaldevelopments. Even as-
suming, arguendo, that"creationscience" isa term ofart as represented
byappellants, thedefinition provided by the rclev-dnt agency provides a
better insight than theaffidavitss ubmittedby appellants in thiscase. '11
a 198I survey conducted by the Louisiana Department of Education,
thescl1ool sup erintendentsincharge ofimple,ncntingdieprovisions of
the Crearionism Act were asked co interpret the meaning of "creation
200 Creation and the Co urts

science" as used in thestatute. About 75percent of Louisiana'ssuperin-

tendentsstated that they understood"creationscienceto bea religious
doctrine....Of this group, the largestproportionof superintendents
interpretedcreation science, as de6ncd by the Act, to mean the literal
interpretation of the Book of Genesis. The remainiugsuperintendcnts
believed that the Actrequired teachingtheview that"the universe was
made bya creator.. . .
20The Co urchaspreviouslyfound the postenacrmentelucidation of rhe
meaning of a statute to be of litde rdevance in dctennining the intent
of the legislaturecontemporaneous to the passage of the statute. Sec
i vaLlacev.J11(frec . . . (O'CONNOR,]., concurring in judgment).
21Nun1eruos ocher Establish1nenr Clausecases that found statestatutes
co beunconstit11ti onal havebeen disposed ofwirhouc trial.E.g.,Lfl,kin v.
Gre11del'J Den, Inc....(I982); lemon v. Kurtz,nan. . . ( I 971);Engd v.
Vitale,. . . (1962)s.

Comments on the Edwards Court Decision

Acareful readingof che high court's decision revealssorne irnpo rcanc

things abouc die creation/ evolution issue in che courts.111e follo,ving
is asummary.It secs the srage for die Duver court decision (2005) and
for ti.,n,re battlesin rhe courcs.
Firsr ofall,precedenr playsan irnporranc role indieCourc's decision.
Appeal was111ade, as feared, ro rhe Eppersun case (1968) as well as rhe
McLean decision (1982). Bue boch of cl1ese decisions were seriously
fla,ved (see chapeers 2 and 3).
Second, as in McLean, the ce>tch ingof cre>tcion is considered inher-
ently religious. Any references ro a "creator;' even as a firsc cause or
explanation of scientific evidence,see,11 co be taboo for ch e Court. To
quote, "(b)111e Acr irnp e nn issibly endorses religion by advancing the
religious belief thaca supen1atural being creaced h un1ankind."6
]bird, che reference to chelegicin1acyofteachingocher viewsoforigins
see1ns c,o n ea n in context only ocher naturalistic vie,vs, since reference
S.&/w,,rdi v. Ag11i//,1rd, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
6. Ibid.
The.EdwardsSupreme Court Ruling{1987} 201

to a "creator" is considered inherently religious. Hence,it is a shain to

clain1, as the Court does, that "wedo not iniply that alegislaturecould
never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theo ries
be caught."n1ere is no odier vie,v chan evolurionexcept creation, and
rhac is rhe one rhe Court is nor allo,ving. Further, if the legislature has
rhe right co "req uire" sorne"sciendfic critiques" of"prevailingsciencific
rheories",7 then ,vhy are chey forbiddingcreation, which does precisely
diis by,vay of conrrasr?
Fourdi, irisludicrous roclai1n diat"rhe reachingof'crearion-science'
md 'crearionis,n:asconternplated bydiestatute, involves teaching'tai-
lored ro rhe principles' ofa particular religious sect or group ofseccs."8
How can ala,v iliacforbids teaching bocli vie,vs (ifeither one isdenied
a hearing) be considered favorable co on!)' one ser of religious beliefs ?
Just rheopposite ischecase. In face, ceachingonlyevolution isfavorable
co nonrheiscic religions.
Fifth, che religious history and niocivacionbehind che la,v are, for
die Court, celling argurnencs against its conscicucionalicy.Here again,
the Court overlooks the nature and legislative purpose of che law and
divines religious1nocives it deemssufficient rodiscard iton First Amend-
n1enc grounds.
Sixth, me rulingscaresa very positive thing in a very negative,vay: le
says, ,..01e Creacionisui Ace forbids rhe reachingof rhe d1eory of evolu -
tion in public schools unless acconipmied by insuucrion in 'creation
science.'"9 First ofa!J, it is noc a"Crearionisn1 Acr." le is an act ro reach
bocli crearion and evolution, ifeidier are caughc. Second, icis niislead-
ing co say it "forbids teaching die dieor)' ofevolution". le does not; it
encourages reaching ir along ,vich creacion in a balanced ,vay. To put it
positively, it is an Ace rhac encourages teaching evolution, along,vidi
creation, in a,vay chat enhances srudenc understanding and choices.
Sevendi, ic is also absurd co clai111cliac "die Louisiana Legislature's
actual intent was 'co discredit evolucion by counterbalancing its ceach-
7. ll, ;d.
8. 11,;d .
9. [b; d.
202. Creation and the Courts

ingac every turn ,vich che ceachingofcreationis1n,a religious belief?"'0

For one thing, creationis1n is noca "religiousbelief." le is just as1nuch
a scientific theory about origins as is evolution. Further, it is no 1nore a
"discredit" coevolution than isceachingevoluriona discredit toteaching
creation. It is, ho,vever, a discredit to acade1nic freedo1n, educarional
excellence, and constitutional rights nor co allo,v creation a place in
die curriculu1n.
Eighth, it is also ,vrongheaded co argue char "the Courc has been
parricularly vigilant in1nonicoring con1pliance ,vith che Escablishn1ent
Clause in elen1entary and secondary schools" because"students insuch
institutions are in1pressionable and d1eir accendance is involtuuary."11
If this isso, d1en ic iseven ,vorse coexpose these i1npressionable n1inds
ro onlyone theory oforigins, one whid1conAicrs acso111e poinrs wid1
111ost parencs' beliefs! For surveys show d1at chevase n1ajoricy of parencs
believe rhere isa creator of the universe and of life.12
Ninth, ic1nisappropriates and 1nisapplies die Lernon test for con-
scicutionalicy.n1e cesc is not really an appropriate cest, and che ,vay it.
is applied co chis (and 1nany orher) cases is illegicilnace, as even so1ne
Suprerne Court justices have observed (see d1apters 6 and 9).
Tench, it is either concradiccory or a shan1 for the Court co speak of
"a reacher's 8exibility"13 rhat the read1ers allegedly had ,virhouc this
law. In face, rhere was no real " Aex ibilicy" co teach creation, asisevident
fro1n die face char creation was ruled inherencly religious by vircue of
ics ilnplication char there,vas a creacor.
Finally, it isincredible thacdie Courccould clain1 d1ac d1is balanced
rrearn1ent ace, which ,vould haveallowed borh creationandevolution co
becaughc,"advances a religious doccrine by requiringeirher the b-anish-
nient of rhe rheoryofevolurion fron1publicschool classroo1ns or thepre-
sentation ofa religious viewpoint d1at rejectsevolution in itsent irety."14
Perhaps che besc \vay co unnvisc rhis discorced logic is co change only
one \vord, which I have highlighted in what follows, and insist that d1e
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. . S01ne 9 5 perc<'1U of Americ uu s:;l )'that th<:)' bd icvc:- Ui God {:.cc '<.haptt'r 9. note J7).
13. . Ed w,ird;v. 482 U.S. S78(1987).
/lg11iU,i,rd
I4. Ibid.
Thc /.;,dwardsS uprcmcCourt Ruling (1987} 203

present la\v (via Epperson) rhat protects only the teaching ofevolurion
"advances a religious doctrine by requ.iring eid1er die banish111ent of the
theory ofcreation fro1n publicschool classroon1s or thepresentation of
a religious viewpoint that rejects creation in itsentiret y."
 6
Scalia's Dissenting Opinion
in the Edwards Case (1987)

Excerpts from Scalia's Dissent'

Justice Anr.onin Scalia issueda penetrating dissent in the Edwards

case. Onecan o nly regret char it was nor the niajoricy ruling. Following
are sorne excerpts along with con11nenrs.
Fi,rst Scalia noces correcdy char ir is aaq uesrionableprernise char
legislation can be invalidared under die EsrablislunentClause on die
basis ofirs niotivarion alone." And chis is precisely, vhat rhe Courr.did
here and has done elsewhere in rhe crearion/ evolurion issue.
Second , Scalia isalso right insaying ir isinsufficient for die Courrto
invalidate lawson the basis ofa its visceral knowledge regardingwhat
niusr have rno rivaced rhe legislators." Ir is dangerous to discard a law
siniply on die basis of whac one iniagines die rnotives tor rhe law co
have been.
I. Allc.xe<-rpu arcquotedfrom f;t/word,v.Aguilbtrd, 4S2 U.S. S78 ( 1987).

205
206 Creation and the Co urts

Third, he points out chat, since che expert creationist ,vicnesses

clai1ned chat "creacion science isascricdy sciencific concept diat can be
presented without religious reference. . . . rhen, we niuscassunie diat rhe
Balanced Treacn1ent Acedoes not require die presencarion of religious
doctrine."
Fourdi, Scalia insightfully notes diac '\ve surely ,vould not strike
do,vn a law providing 111oney co feed die hungry or shelter che ho,ne
less ific could be de1nonstraced ch at, but for the religiousbeliefsofche
legislators, che funds ,vould not have been approved. Also, political
activis1nby die religiously n1ocivated isp,u-t of our heritage."He adds,
"Today's religious accivis111 r11ay give us che Balanced Treatn1ent Ace,
but yesterday's resulted in theabolition ofslavery, and rornorro,v's rnay
bring relief for furuine vicri,ns."
Fifth, "sitnilarly, ,ve ,vill nor presu1ne that a Ja,v's purpose is to ad
vance religion nierely because it 'happens ro coincide or hannonize
widi die cenecs of sonie or all religions.'" After all, teaching evolution
harn1onizes , vith die religious beliefs of all noncheiscic religions chat
beHeve in evolution.
Sixth, he adds, "111e witnessesrepeatedly assured co nun ittee 111e 111
bers ch at 'hundreds and hundreds' of highly respected, internationally
reno,vned scientists believed in creation science and ,vould support
their cestiniony."1liisshould besufficient rosho,v rhar creacion science
is a scientific reaching.
Sevenrn, "rhere are cwo and only nvo scientific explanations for die
beginning of life- evolution and creation science. . . . Boch are bona
fide'sciences.'" Forbidding one and allowing only rheocher is favoring
diose religions ,vich ,vhich evolution is con1pacible .
Eighth, "since there areonly cwo possible explanationsof rhe origin
ofl ife, anyevidence chat rends todisprovedie theory ofevolution neces-
sarily tends co prove rhe rneory ofcreation science, and vice versa. For
exa1nple, dieabrupt appearance in rhe fossil record ofcornplex life, and
che extreme rarityof transitional life fo rmsin d1ar record, are evidence
for creation science." So, disallo,ving crearion science is in effect disal
lowing che priniary objections co evolution and establishing it and its
religious ilnplications.
 207

Nincl1, "creation science iseducationally valuable. Students exposed

coit better understand thecurrent stateofscientificevidence abouc the
origin of life....Those students even have a beccer underscanding of
evolution....Creation science can and should be presented tochildren
\vichouc any religious concenr."
Tencl1, cesriniony sho,vs char "ceachershave been brainwashed by
anentrenchedscientificestablishnient co,nposed al1nost exclusively of
scientistsco who1n evolution islike a'religion:Thesescientistsdiscri1ni-
nace against creation scientists so as co prevent evolution's ,veaknesses
fron1 being exposed."
Eleventh, "even wich nothing n1ore than this legislative history to
go on, I chink ir would be excraordi.nary co invalidace d1e Balanced
Treaunenc Ace for lack of a valid secular purpose. Seri.king do,vn a la,v
approved by the den1ocracicallyelected represencacivesof the people is

no n unor n1acrer.
T,velfi:h, "th e Louisiana Legislature explicitly sec ford1 its secular
purpose ("protecting acaden1ic freedon1") in rhe very r.excof rhe Act.
. . . \Xie have in che pasc repeatedly relied upon or deferred co sucl1 ex-
pressions. . . ." Bue, "111e Court seeks co evade die force of d1is expres-
sion of purpose bysrubbornly 1nisincerpretingit,and chen finding that
the provisions of the Act do noc advance that 1nisinrerpreced purpose,
cherebysho,ving ic co be ashan1."
n1irceend1,"rhe Ace's reference co 'creation' is not convincing evi-
denceof religious purpose.n1eAce defines creacionscience as'sciencific
evidenc(e]; ... andSenator Keirh and his,vitnesses repeatedly scressed
chat diesubjectcan and should bepresented wid1out religious content.
. . . \'v'e have no basis on d1e record co conclude chac creacion science
need be anyching ocher than a collection of scientific data supporting
rhe theory diatlife abrupdy appeared on earth....Creation science, ics
proponents insist, no n1ore 1nusc explain whence life can1e than evolu-
cion u1usc explain whence ca1ne the inaniinace n1acerials fro1n,vhicll it
says lifeevolved."
Fourreenrh, "co posit a past creacor is not to posit rhe eternal and
personal God,vho is dieobjectof religiousveneration.Indeed, ic isnot
even co posit the \uunoved n1over' hypodiesized byAriscode and odier
208 Creation and the Courts

notably nonfundarnentaliscphilosophers."Thisisd1esa111e point l n1ade

in 111y suppressed cesti1nony in the Arkansas case (see chapter 4).
Fifreend1, "che legislative history gives aniple evidence of d1e sin -
cerity of die Balanced Treannenc Ace's arriculaced purpose. \Vicness
after witness urged the legislators co support the Ace so chat students
would not be 'indoctrinated' but would instead be free co decide for
die,nselves, based upon a fair presentation of d1e scientific evidence,
about the origin oflife."
Sixteenth, Scalia noted rhac "even appellees concede chat a valid
secular ptu-pose is not renderedin1pern1issilbesi,nply because its pur-
suit is pro1npced by concern for religious sensitivities. . . . If a history
reacher falsely cold her srudenrs thac che bonesofJesus Christ had been
discovered, or a physics reacher chat theShroud ofTurin had been con-
clusivelyestablished co be inexplicable on the basis of natural causes, I
cannot believe (despite the ,najoricy's i1nplicacion co thecontrary . . .)
char legislators or school board ,ne,nbers would be conscicucionally
prohibited fro,n caking correct ive action, simply because chat action
was pro,npred by concern for the religious beliefsof the n1isinsrrucred
students."
Seventeenth, "In su111, even ifoneconcedes, for chesake ofargu1nent,
that a 111ajoriry of me Louisiana Legislature voted for d1e Balanced
Treaonent Aceparcly inorder cofoster (rad1er chan nierelyelinlinaced is-
crin1inacion against) Christian fundamencalisc beliefs,our casesestablish
d1ac macalone would nor suffice co invalidate the Ace, so long as there
was a genuine secular purpose as ,veil."
Eighceenrh, "I have co rhis point assunied the valid.icy of die Lernon
'purpose' cesc. In face, however, I chink die pessi1niscic evaluation chat
THE CHIEF JUSTICE niade of die coralicy ofLernon is particularly
applicable co the 'purpose' prong: it is 'a conscicucional cheory [d1ar]
has no basis in me history of the a1nendu1enc it seeks to interpret, is
difficult co apply and yields unprincipled results .. .' Wallace v.Ja.ffeee
... (REHNQYIS'T,J.,dissenting).Ourcases interprecingand applying
the purpose cesc have n1ade such a 1naze of the Establish,nent Clause
diaceven rhe nioscconscientious governn1encal officials can only guess
what rno cives wiU be held unconstitutional."
 209

Concluding Comments
Scalia'sdissenr needs noelaboration.He hirson n1osr of thekeypoints
inchecontroversy and backs ir up,virhcase referencesand sound judicial
reasoning. Since only one ocher justice joined ,vich hin1 (Rehnquist)
and since, while chey are conservarive, we do nor kno,v ho,v rhe nvo
recently appointed Supre111e Court justices (Roberts and Alico) would
vote on such issues, it is reasonable coassun1e chat tl1ehigh courr isnot
yet prepared co overturn chis decision.1hus, it is very i111porcanc co
gee me info nn acion contained in chis book ouc co rhe general public,
scholars, la,vyers,and courts.

Notes [forScaJia's Dissent ):'

1. Article VI, cl. 3,of the Constirution provides that "the N!cmbcrs of
theseveral Stace Legislatures . . . shall be bound by Oath or Affirmat ion,
tosupporc this Co nstitution."
2. Thus the popular dictionarydefinitions cited by JUSTICE PO\V-
ELL, ante,at 598-599 (concurring o pinion), and appellees, see Brief
for Appellees 25. 26; . . . are utterly irrelevant, as are the views of the
schoolsuperintendentscitedby the majority....Three-quartersof those
surveyed had "no"or"limited"knowledge of "creation-sciencetheory,"
and not a single superintendentclaimed "extensive"knowledge of the
subjec.t...
3. Although creationscientistsand evolutionists also disagree about
the origin of the physical universe. both proponcncs and opponents of
Senator Keith's bill focused on the question of the beginningof life.
4. Although appellecs andamicidismiss the
testimonyofSenatorKeith andhiswitnessesas purefantasy, theydid not
bother tosubmitevidence of that to the District Coun, making it d
ifficu lt for us co agree with them.TheSeate. by co
ntrast,sub,nittedtheaf!idavics of twoscientists,a philosopher,a
theologian,andan educator, whose academiccredentials are rather
impressive. . . . Like Senator Keith and his witnesses, theaffi-
antsswear that evolutionand creationscience are theonly twoscientific
explanationsfor the origin of lile. . . . chat c reation science is strictly
2. Mon of dtc:: specific re'<t of Sc:alia's dissnlt to which these notes refer is noc i.nduded in
theyarc interening in their own
the forego ing. l have included the notes, howeve-.r, beca use
right.' ll1<yalsoarequoted from ,dwmds u. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
2,)0 Cn..-arion and rhe Courts

scientific ... ; that creation science is simply a collection of scientific

daca that supporrs the hypothesis that lifeappeared on earth suddenly
and haschanged little ... ; diat hundreds of respected scientistsbelieve
in creation science . . . ; that evidenceforcreationscience is asstrong as
evidenceforevoultion... ; that creationscienceiseduc.-itionally valuable
... ; d1at creation science can be presentedwithout religious content
... ; and that creationscience is now censored from classrooms while
evolu tion is misrepresentedas proven fact.. . . It is difficult toconclude
on the basis of these affidavits- the onl,vsubstantiveevidence in the
record-that thelaymenserving in theLouisianaLegislaturemust have
disbelievedSenator Keithor his witnesses.
5. n1e majority finds it "astonishing" that I would cite a portion of
Senator Keith'soriginal bill that ,vas later deleted as evidenceof the
legislature's understand ingof thephrase"academicfreedom."... \\'lhat is
astonishing isthemajoritysimplic-ationthat thedeletion of thatsection
deprivesit ofvalueasa clear indicationofwhat the phrase n1eant- thcrc
and in theother,retained.sectionsof thebill.TheSenate Co1nmitteeon
Educationdeletedmostofthelengthy" purpose"sectionof thebill(with
SenatorKeith'sconsent) because it resc.mbled legislative"findingsofface,"
which,committeeme,nbersfclt,s houldgeneralyl not be incorporated in
legislation.The deletion hadabsolutely nothing codo wich the manner
in whicll thesection described "academicfreedoni." ...
6. As the majority recognizes . . . Senator Keith sincerely believed chat
"secular humanism is a bona fide religion" . . . and chat "evolution ische
cornerstone of that religion:....The Senator even told his colleagues
chat d1is Court had"held" thatsecular huma nism wasa religion....(In
Turcaso v. 1#1tki11s . . . ( 1961), we did indeed refer co"Secular Humanism"
as a"rcligio(n).") Senator Keith and hissupporters raised the "religion"
ofsecular humanism not,as the majoritys uggests, t() explain thesource
of cheir "disdain for the theory of evoluiton:. . . but to convince che
legislature chat che Seate of Louisiana was violating che Establishment
Clausebecause ics teachers were misrepresenting evolution as face and
deprivingscudenrsof the informationnecessary toquestio n thactheory.
. . . "Jhc Senator repeatedly urged hiscolleaguesco pass his bill co rem-
edy this Establishment Clauseviolation byensuringscatc neutrality in
religiousmatters ... , surely a permissible purposeunder L etnon. Sena-
to r Keith's a rgun1ent may be questionable,but nothing in che scacuce
ScaJias Dissenting Opinio n in the Edw,,rd.i Case(1987) 2.11

or its legislative history gives us reason to doubt his sincerit)' or that of

his supporters.
7. Professor Choper summarized ourschool aid cases thusly:
"[A)provision for therapeuticanddiagnostichealthservices toparochial
schoo l pupils bypublicemployees is invalid if provided in the parochial
school,but not ifoffered at a neutral site,even ifin a mobile unitadjacent
to the parochial school. Reimbursement to parochial schools for the
expense ofadministeringteacher-prepared tests required byState lawis
invalid,but thestate mayreimburse parochialschoolsfor theexpenseof
administeringsrate-prepared tests.Thestate maylendschool textbooks
co parochialschool pupils because, the Court hasexplained, the books
can be checked in advance for religious content and arc 'self-policing;'
but the state may not lend other seeminglyself-policinginstructional
items such as tape recorders and maps. The state may pay the cost of
bus transportation co parochialschools,which the Court has ruled arc
'penneatcd' with religion; but thestate is forbidden co pay for fidd trip
transportationvisits' togovernmetnal, industrial,cultural,and scientific
centers designed coenrich chcsecular studiesofstudents."' Choper,' lhe
Religion Clauses of the First Amendment: Reconciling the Conflict
... (1980).
Since chat waswritten,moredecisionson thesubject havebeen rendered,
butthey leave the d1emeofchaossecurely unimpaired. Sec,e.g.,Aguil.arv.
Fekon ... (1985 ); Grand Rapid; School Diltrict v. B,i/1... (1985).
 '7

The Dover Case {2005)

Introduction
1be plaintiff in d1e2005 Dover case, vasTan1n1y Kirzn1iUer and the
defondanc,vas die Dover AreaSchool Disrricr, in Dover, Pennsylvania.
On Ocrober 18, 2004, che defendanr Dover Area School Board of Di-
rectors passed bya 6-3voce the following resolution:

SrudcntS will be made aware ofgaps/ problemsin Darwin's theory and

of other cheoriesof evolution including, buc not limited to, incdligenc
design. Note: Origins of Life will not be taught.1

On Noven1ber 19, 2004, diedefendant Dover Area School Dirst ict

announced by press release cha.t, beginning in January 2005, teachers
I. K i1zmi/k,v. Dr,ve,Ar,,, SrhoolDistriCI, 400 I'.Su pp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).

2.1 3
2,14 Creation and the Co urts

,vould be required co read che following scace1nenc co st.udencs in che

ninth -gradebiology class at Dover High School:

n,e Pennsylvania Academic Standa,ds require studenis to lean,about

Darwin's11,eoryofEvolution andeventuallyto takeasrandardized testof
which evoul tionisapan.BecauseDarwin'sTheoryisa theory, it continues
to be tc.sted as newevidence isdiscovered. TheTheory is not afact. Gaps
in then,eory exist fo1 which there is no evidence. A theory is defined
as a well-tested explanation that uni.lies a broad range of observtaions.
Intelligent Design isan explanationof theorigin of life that differs from
Darwin's view.ll1e reference book,OfPandasand People,isavailable for
studentswho might be interested in gaining an understanding of what
Intelligent Design actuallyinvolves. \Xiithrespect toany theory,studecns
areencouraged to keepanopen n1ind.Theschoolleaves thediscussion of
the Origins of Life to individual students and their families.As a Stan-
dards-driven district,class instruction focuses upon preparing studcncs
to achieve pro6ciency on Standards-based asscssmcnts.2

The Court Ruling

S11r11rt1ary ofthe R11/ing

On Dece1nber 20,2005, the United$racesDistrictCoun fortheMiddle

District of Pennsylvania ruled d1ac:{I) The DoverSchool District policy
was unconscicucional; (2) intelligentdesign andcreation irsprogenitor were
nor scienceand should nor becaughtin Doverscienceclasses;and (3) intd-
ligent design and ocher loons ofcreation areessentially religious and are,
dierefore, a violation of the First Ainendtnenc establish1nencclause.
In rhe,vords ofche court, "For the reasons chat follow, we hold chat
die ID (intelligentdesign) Policy is unconscicurional pursuant to che
Esrablisl11nenc Clause of che First An1end1nenc of the United States
Constitution and Arr. I, 3 of die Pennsylvania Consrirucion."3
2. lbicl.
3. Ibid.
The D,>ver Case (20 0 5} 2.IS

History of the Ruling

1l1e Dover trial began Sepcernber 26, 2005, and continued chrough
Novernber 4.111e rulingwas not expected unti.learly2006, but a surpris-
i11gly long(139-page) rulingcan1e very quickly on Decen1ber 20, 2005,
in liccle over a n1oncl1. Coniing as it did on cl1ac dace, cl1e announce-
rne nc, ,vhich could have been expected co cause ,videspread reaccion,
was overshado,ved by rhe holiday season.

Evidential Basis of the Ruling

According rothecourc,"This Me1norandun1 Opinion constitutes the

Court's findings of face and conclusions of law ,vhich are based upon
che Courc's revie,v of cl1e evidence presented ac trial, che cesciinony of
rhe,virnesses ar rrial, cl1e parries' proposed findings offact and conclu-
sions of la,v with supporting briefs, ocher docun1enrs and evidence in
rhe record, and applicable law. Further orders and judgrnents will be in
confonniry ,vith chis opinion."4

The Tests Used for the Ruling

' D1eDovercourr acknowledged thac clie "Constirucion provides

rhac 'Congress shall u1ake no la,v respecting an escablishrnent of re-
ligion, or prohibiting me free exercise thereof"1l1ey go on co note
cl1ac "cl1e prohibition against che escablishnienc of religion applies
to rhe states through the Fourteenth Au1end1nent" as is evident in
Mod,ovich v.Alleghet(Y Coun y (2004) and Wallacev.jaffree (1985).
1l1e court concluded: "Afi:er a searching revie,v of Supren1e Court
and1l1ird Circuit Courc of Appeals precedent , it is apparent co rhis
Court that both theendorsernent test and the Lentontest should be
ernployed in thiscase roanalyze checonscicutionalityof the ID Policy
under che EscablishniencClause. . . . We will therefore initiallyanalyze
d1econstitutionalityof cl1e ID Policy under cheendorsen1ent test and
will dien proceed co che Lentoncesc as it applies co rhis case."S
4. . Ib id.
s. [bid.
2,16 Creat ion and the Co urt$

A PP LYI NG THE ENDORSEMENT TEST

TO THE DOVER I D P OLI CY

First, the courc applied the endorsement test co the Dover school
policy. \Ve will examine the nature of the endorsen1enccest and ics ap-
plication co teaching ID in public school science classes.
The natu1eoftheendorseinent testitself According codie Dovercourt,
"'TI1e endorse1nenc cesc recognizeschat when governnienc transgresses
the liuiits of neucralicy and aces in ways chac sho,v religious favoricis1n
or sponsorship, it violates die Esrablish1nenr Clause." ... "'TI1e ce ntral
issuein chis case is whether [the govenunenc) has endorsed (religion)
by irs [actions].ro answer chat quest ion, we 11111st exan1ine both whar
[che governn1enc) intended to conununicace ... and ,vhat n1essage [its
conduct] actually conveyed. The purpose and effect prongsof the Le,non
tesc represent d1ese C\VO aspects of che1neaning of the [govenunent's)
action. . . . n1e test consisr.s of rhe reviewing court derern1ining whar
n1essage a challenged govern1nenral policy or enacnnenc conveys co a
reasonable,objective observer who kno,vs the policy's language,odgins,
and legislative history, as,veilas the history of rhe co,nniunicy and die
broader social andhistoricalconcexcin which d1e policyarose." To niake
thisdetenninarion,ahypothetical"objective observer",vho is"fa1niliar
wirh the origins and context of die govern,nenr.-sponsored 1nessageat
issue and che history of rheconununity where d1e niessage isdisplayed"
is posited. This "reasonableobserver is [assumed co be] an info n ned
citizen ,vho is niore knowledgeable d1an die average passerby." So,"die
observer looks co chat evidence toascerrain ,vhemer the policy 'in fact
conveys a message of en dorsemen.ror disapprovla' of religion, irrespec-
rive of,vhat che govern1nenr 1nighc have intended by ic."6
Theapplication oftheendorsement policy.niecourc rulinglisted several
reasonswhy rhe Doverschool board policy violated chiscesc. Irconcluded
chat,"An ObjectiveObserver Would Know diac1Dand TeachingAbout
'Gaps' and'Proble1ns' in Evolutionarynieory are Creationist, Religious
Strategies that Evolved fi:0111Earlier Fonnsof Creacionisn.i"7
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
The D,>ver Case (20 05} 217

'TI1isconclusion , vassupported byappealing both colegislative history

sho,ving religious 1notivarion behind d1e Dover la,v and to precedent
caseslike Epperson (1968), McLean (1982), and Edwartu (1987). Fro1n
these earlier cases rhe court noted that, "'I11e Suprerne Court funher
held cliar rhe belief rhac a supernatural creator was responsible for rhe
creation ofhtunan kind isa religious vie,vpoint and diat die Aceat issue
'advances a religiousdoctrine by requiringeirher the banish1nent of die
theory ofevolucion frorn public school classroon1s or d1e presencation
ofa religious vie,vpoinc diac rejectsevolution inics encirecy: Id. Ac 591,
596.' llierefo re., as nored, che iniporr of Edwards (1987) is chat die Su-
pren1e Court 1nade national d1e prohibition against reaching creation
science in die publicschool systeni."8
' llie courc chen noted,"'J11e concept of intelligent design ( hereinafier
'ID'), in ics current fonn, can1e into existence afi:er d1e Edwards case
was decided in 1987. For rlle reasons d1ac follow, ,ve conclude d1ac
the religious nature of ID ,vould be readily apparent to an objective
observer, adulc or child."9
The courr cited John Haught, a rheologian ,vho testified rhac che
ID argu1nent "traced this argu1nent back to at least 11101nas Aquinas
in the l3rll cencury, ,vho fra1ned rhe argu1nent as a syllogisn1: \Vher -
ever co1n plex design exisrs, rllere n1us.t have been a designer; nature is
co1.nplex;ilierefore nature rnust have had an intelligent designer," not-
ing d1ac Aquinas added, "Everyone understands [rhis) co be God."1l1e
court observed through testi,nony that this is the san1e argurnent that
\ViU.iarn Paley advanced early in rlle nineceenm century and mac ID
proponents adniic diac Paley's argu1nenc is basicallyd1e sarne as d1eir
arguu1enc, na1nelym , at."purposeful arrangernenc of parts" is evidence
ofa designe.r' 0
1lieonly apparent difference between dieargwnenc111ade by Paleyand
theargumencfor ID,asexpressed bydefenseexpert witnesses Michael Behe
and Minnich, isd1acID's"official position" does nocacknow-ledge char die
designer isGod."However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone fan1iliar \Vid1
s.n,;d.
9. ]b,;d
I 0. tb;d.
 Creation and the Courts

\Vescern religious thought would in1rne diacelyn1ake cheassociation chat

the tactically unna,ned designer is God." Further, the coun argued chat
even cheproposed ID cexc, OfPandasandPeople,11 described thedesigner
as'"n1aster intellect;scrongly suggesting asupernatural deity as opposed
coanyintelligent actor known co exist in the nacunu , vorld."12
Funherrnore, checourt noted chat"ic isnotable that both Professors
Behe and Minnich adrnicced cheir personal view is char che designer is
God and Professor Minnich testified d1at he understands rnany lead-
ingadvocates of ID to believeche designer co be God." And "ald1ough
proponents of the IDM [lntelligencDesign Moven1enc) occasionally
suggest d1ac die designer could bea space alien or a tirne -cravd ing cell
biologist, noserious alcernacive coGod aschedes igner has been proposed
by rnern bersofche IDM, including Defendants'expert,vicnesses....In
face,an explicit concession chat che inrelligenr designer ,vorks outside
thelawsof natureand scienceand adirect reference to religion is Pandas'
rhetoricalscac.ernenc,'what kind of incelligencagent wasit [thedesigner]'
and ans,ve:r'On its o,vn science cannot ans,ver chis question. It rnusc
leave it to religion and philosophy:u For furthersupport thecourt cited
ID leaders PhillipJohnson and \Villian1Den1bskis religious beliefs char
che inc.elligent designer is a "d1eiscic" type of"God." n1enthey went
back to the McLean case and pointed out that Duane Gish and Henry
Morris, earlier creationists,also idenrify God wid1a d1eistic God.
'The courc also concluded chat "drarnacic evidence of ID's religious
nature and aspirations is found in ,vhat is referred ro as rhe '\Vedge
Docun1ent'"14 when theauthors of chisdocun1ent scate their"Governing
Goals" are co "defeat scientific rnacerialisrn and its destructive rnoral,
cultural, and political legacies"and "co replacern acerialiscicexplanations
with che theistic understanding chat nature and human beings arecreated
by God." Inaddition, "!D's religious nature isevidenc because icinvolves
a supernatural designer. 111e courts in Edt1Jartli and 1\1cLeanexpressly
11 . Pcrci;a( Davis and De:an 1-f. K c1\y0t1, a.od Ch arles B. Ihaxco,-.,Of Pnnd11.s ,mi l Peopk:
l l1t C.rJllml Qfu .,1oin ofBiologit11l Origin.<( Dalla<c Haughton, 1993).
I 2. Ki1:unil/er v. Dover AreaSd,ool.DiS1ric1, 400 E Supp. 2d 707(M.D.Pa.2005).
I3. Ibid.
14. See Phillip E. Joh,,so,,, 7be W.dg,ofTru1h: Spli11i11g1he Fuu11d111iomof Na1u rnli.,m
(Do\vncrs Grow, lll.: LucrV1..rsicy Pre ts 2002 ) fo r daborarior'I.
The Dover Case (20 05)

found d1at this characteristic re1noved creacionis1n fron, che reahn of

scienceand niade ica religious proposition. . . . Pron1inenc ID proponents
have n1ade abundandy clear that the designer is supernatural
Defendant'sexpert ,vicness ID proponents confinned char che ex-
istence of a supernarural designer is a hall,nark of ID. First, Professor
Behe has ,vriccenchac by ID he rneans 'noc designed by che la,vs of
nature; and chat ic is 'i,nplausible chac chedesigner is a natural encicy:"
"The court noted that "Professor Minnich testified rhac for ID co be
considered science, the grolu1d rules of science have co be broadened
so char supernatural forcescan beconsidered. . . . Professor Steven \VU-
Ha,n FuUer cescified chat it is!D's project co cl1angeche ground rules
ofscience co include thesupernatui.tl.. . ." Indeed,one of che "leading
ID proponents.Johnson,hasconcluded thacscience n1usc be redefined
to include the supernatural if religious challenges co evolution are co
get a hearing. . . . Additionally, De,nbski agrees chac science is ruled by
n1erhodologicalnaturalis,n and argues d1ar chisrule ,nust beoverturned
if ID is co prosper."s'
Further, die courc seated rhac "support for che proposition d1ac ID
requires supernatural creation is found in the book Pandas, to ,vhich
scudenrs in Dover's ninth grade biologyclassare directed. Pandasindi-
cates chac there are cwo kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, whicl1
dernon scracechat incelligenc causes are beyond nature.... Professor
Haught, ,vho as noced ,vas rhe only theologian co cescify in d1is case,
explained that in \Vestern incelleccual tradition, non-natural causes
occupy a space reserved for u!ti,nace religious explanations....Robert
Pennock, Plaintiff's'expert in che ph ilosophyofscience,concurredwid1
Professor Haught and concluded cl1ac because ir.s basic proposition is
rhac che feacures of che natural world are produced bya cranscendenc,
in1n1acerial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless
of ,vhed1er thac religions proposirion is given a recognized religious
label ... le is notable chat noc one defense expert was able co explain
ho,v che supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything ocher
than an inherendy religiousproposition.Accordingly,,vefind diac! D's
IS. Kiwnilln v. D011n Ar, t1Sd1ool Di.mic1,400 F. S upp. 2d707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
2,20 Creation and the Co urts

religious nature ,vould be further evident co our objective observer

because it djrectly involves a supernarurnl designer."16
Finally,"by co,nparing rhe pre and pose Edwa1d; drafi:s of Pandas,
duee astonishing points enierge: (I) diedefinition for creation science
in early drafts is identicalco the definition of ID; (2) cognates of che
word creation (creacionisni and creationist), ,vhidi appeared approxi-
niarely l SO ti1nes,vere deliberately and systeniatically replaced ,vich the
phrase ID." And "(3) the changes occurred shortly afi:er rhe Supre,ne
Courr held d1at creation science is religious and cannot be taught in
public school science classes inEdwa.rds."'fl1us,"chis word substituiton
is celling, significant, and reveals chat a purposeful change of words
,vas effected ,vid1out any corresponding change in content.... This
"direccly rehlCes FTE's [Foundation for Thought and Erhics] argunienc
that by rnerely disregarding rhe words'creation' and 'creationisu1; FTE
expressly rejected creacionisni in Panda..,''11 For " in early pre-Edwards
drafi:sof Pandas, rhe tenn 'creation' wasdefined as'various fonnsoflife
char began abn1pdy through an intelligent agency with d1eir distinctive
features incacr- fish,vith finsand scales, birds,virh feathers, beaks,and
,vings,ere.; the very saine,vay in ,vhich ID is defined in thesubsequent
published versions."18
The court also noted d1at "the sole argu1nenr Defendants 1nade co
discingwsh creacionis1n froni ID , vascheir asserrion chat die cenn 'cre-
ationisu1' applies only co arguu1ents based on the Book of Genesis, a
young eardi, and a catastrophic Noaich Aood; however, substantia l
evidenceescablished char chis isonly oneforu1ofcreacionisn1, including
the chart chat,vasdiscribut.ed co die Board Curriculwn Co1nn1iccee, as
will be described belo,v."19
Responding co the Dover school board's disdai1ner of che religious
nature ofdieir resolution, die Dovercourt noted diat d1eSupre1ne Court
(in Edwards)scared d1at:"Fa1nilies encrust publicschoolswirJ1d1eeduca-
tion ofd1eirchildren, burcondition dieir cruse o n me underscandingchat.
I6. Ibid.
17. . Da,isand Ke1l yo1 , 0/Pall(lasam/ People(se.e note9. above).
18. Kirv niUer v. /JO'IJer /{ r,; 11School Dimia . 400 ESupp. 2d 707(M. D. Pa.2005).
19. Ibid.
 221

che classroom will not purposely be used coadvance religiousviewschat

niay conflict with die private beliefsofdiestudent and hisor her fiuuily,"
and added, "Studencs in such institutionsare in1pressionable and their
attendance isinvolunrarY:' Furd1er, mecourt noced,"d1eoverwhe!tning
evidence accrial established d1ac ID isa religious view,a niere re-labeling
of creacionisn1, and noc a scientific theory. As die Fifth Circuic Court
ofAppeals held in Freile1; aneducators 'readingofadisclai1ner d1ar nor
only disavo,vs endorse1nenr ofeduC'acional uiarerials but also juxcaposes
that disavo,val ,virh an urging co co nte1nplar.e alternative religious con -
cepts irnplies Scliool Board approval of religious principles:" Furrher,
"encouragingscudencs co keepan open1nind and explore alcernacives co
evolution, it ofters no scientificalternative; instead,cheonlyalternative
offered isan inherentlyreligious one, naniely, ID."So,"a rhorough review
of the disclaio1er'splainlanguagetherefore conveys a strong1nessage of
religio usendorseruent co an objective Dover ninth grade scudenc." In
sununary, rhe court clain1ed char "d1e disdailuer singles out die cheory
ofevolution for special creanneuc, rniscepresencs its scacus in d1e scien-
tific conununiry, causes scudencs co doubc ics validity without scientific
jusrificarion,presentsscudenrs,vid1a religious alcernative niasquerading
asa scientific clieory, directs the111 coco nsultacreationist cexcasthough
it werea science resource, and insccuccs students to forego scientific in-
quiry in rhe public school classrooni and instead co seek ouc religious
inscruccion elsewhere: Furthermore, "as Drs.Altersandl',,!iller cescified,
introducing ID necessarily invitesreligion into d1escienceclassrooniasic
sets up whac willbe perceived bystudents asa'God-friendly'science, the
one cliat explicitly rn en rions an inreUigent designer, and chat the 'ocher
science;evolution, rakes no position on religion."20 n ie sanie logic ,vas
applied co ,vhacan objective Dover parent or citizen n1ight believe, and
che conclusion , vas che same- ID is religion.

"INTELLIGENT 0ESIGN THEORY IS NOT SCIENCE"

Noconly did che Dovercourtconclude thacIDwas religion, chey also
insistedchat it was nocscience. n1ey,vrote,"Afterasearching reviewof
20. Ibid.
2..22. Creation and the Co urts

the recordand applicable caselaw, we find chat while IDargu1nencs may

be r.r ue,a proposition on which die Courr cakes no position, ID is not
science."\Vhy?"\Ve find d1at ID failson d1ree different levels,any one
of which is sufiicienc co preclude a decenninarion d1ar ID is science."
Firsr,"ID violates diecenturies-oldground rulesofscience by invoking
and penn itring supernatural causation." Second,"dieargunient of irre-
ducibleconiplexity,central toID,eniploys diesaine Aawed and illogical
contrived dualis111 that doo,ned creationscience in the I980's." 'Third,
"! D's negative attackson evolution have been refuted by d1e scientific
conununicy. As ,ve ,viii discuss in niore derail belo,v, ic is addicionally
iniporranc co noced1ac ID hasfailed cogain accepcance in d1esciencific
co1nrnuniry, it has not generated peer-revie,vedpublications, norhasit
been d1esubject of resting and research."21

"SCIENCE ls LtilfITED TO NATURAL CAUSES"

Insupport of theirfirst conclusion, thecourt depended on nacuraliscic
evolucionist restiniony char clainied "diacsince chesciencific revolucion
of che16th and l7di centuries, science hasbeen!united co rhesearch for
naturalcauses coexplain natural phenoniena....niis revolucion entailed
me rejection of dieappeal to audiority, and by extension, revelation, in
favor ofe,npiricalevidence. . . . Since chat ti,ne period,sciencehasbeen
a discipUne in,vhich rescabilicy, ramer than any ecclesiasticalaumoricy
or philosophical coherence, has been rhe n1easure of a scienrific idea's
,vorm."niey added, "In deliberarely oniiccing dieological or 'ulcin1are'
explanations for die existence or characteristics of the natural world,
sciencedoes notconsider issuesof',neaning'and'purpose' in rheworld.
. . ." And "while supernatural explaiiacions ,nay be in1portant and have
,nerir., rhey are not pare of scienc.e"22

"SCIENCE [S E,'dPIRICAL AND TESTABLE"

' The courc ad,nicced mac "mis self-unposed convencion of science,
which liniics u1quiry co cescable, natural explanacions about die nacural
world, is referred co by philosophers as '1nerhodological nacuralisni'
2 L Ibid.
22, Ibid,
The Dover Case ( 20 0 5} 2.23

and is so,net i,nes kno,vn as che scientific 1ned1od. ... Med1odolog ical
naruralisn1 is a 'ground rule' of science today which requires scientists
co seek explanationsin the ,vorld arotuid us based upon what ,ve can
observe, cesr, replicate, and verify."23
11iey deed die National Acade1ny of Sciences (NAS) as"in agree-
n1ent that science is litnited co eni pirical,obser vable and ultiniately
testable data." le is restricted co , vhat "can be inferred from die con-
firn1able data- die resultsobtai ned duo ugh observations and experi-
1nencs cliac can be substantiated by oilier scientists. Anycliing that
can be observed or 1neasured is an1enalbe to scientific investigation.
Explanations cliat cannot be based upon en1pirical evidence are noc
part of science."24

"INTELLIGENT [)SIGN IS A 'SCIENCE STOPPER'"

1l1ecourt concluded :"'TI1isrigorousattach,nent to'natural' explana-
tions isan essential attributeto science bydefinition and by convention.
. . .\Ve are in agreen1enr with Plaintiffs' leadexpert Dr. Miller,d1acfrom
a practical perspective, accribucing unsolved proble,nsabour nature co
causesand forces rhat lieoutside che nattual world isa'sciencestopper."
For "once you attribuce a cause to an unrescable supernacural force, a
proposicion iliac cannot be disproven, cliere is no reason to continue
seeking nacural explanations as,ve haveour ans,ver. . . .
"ID is p redicated on supernatural causation, as,ve previously ex-
plained and asvariousexpert tesriniony revealed....IDtakesa natural
pheno,nenon and, insreadofaccepting or seekinga naruraJexplanarion,
argues chat die explanation is supernatural. Furdier support for che
conclusion diar ID is predicated on supernatural causation is found in
(rhe ID reference book OfPandasand People, whichscares): 'Danviniscs
objecc co che view ofincelligenr design becauseit does notgi,vea natural
cause explanation of ho,v me various fonns of life scarred in che first
place. Incelligenc design ,neanschatvariousfonnsoflifo began abr updy,
d1rough an incelligenr agency.' . . . Sr.aced anocher way, ID posies rhac
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
2,24 Creation and the Courts

anilnals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary rneans but were
created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designe.r"21

"JD ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE GROUND RULES

OF SCIENCE"
n1e courrscared:"Ir isnotable char [che)defense expercs' own1nission,
which ,nirrors char of cl1e IDM icself, is to change die ground rules of
science co allow supernatural causation ofr:he natural world, ,vhich the
Supreme Court in Edward, and r:he court in lvfcLcan correctly recog-
nizedasan i nl1erenclyreligiousconcept." And"Professor Behe adniicced
that his broadened definition ofscience, which encornpasses ID,would
alsoembrace astrology...."Also ID Professor Minnich acknov,ledged,
"rhac for ID to be considered science, the ground rulesof science bave
to be broadened to allowco nsiderationofsupernau1ral forces." \Villian1
De1nbski,an ID leade,r"prodai,ns chat science isruled by111erhodologi-
cal naturalis1J1 and argues that this rule 01usc be overturned if ID is co
prosper." Indeed, theID "Ml'et('(e Docurnentacknowledgesas'Governing
Goals'co'defeat scientific 111arerialisn1and itsdescrucrive n1oral,culrural
and political legacies' and to 'replace n1acerialiscic explanations ,vith
rhe cl1eistic understanding chat nature and hu,nan beings are created
by God.'"26

"ALL 1'-1AJOR S C IE NT I FIC 0RCANIZATl0NS DENY

THAT ID Is SCIENCE"
"Notably, every1najor scientific association cliar hascaken a position
on the issue of,vheclier ID isscience hasconcluded char ID is not, and
cannot be considered as such."1l1e n1osc prestigious one (NAS) vie,vs
ID asfollo,vs: "Crearionisn1, incelligenc design,and ocher claitns ofsu-
pernatural interventionin cl1eorigin oflifo or ofspecies are notscience
because d1ey are not testable by rhe niechods of science.111ese clai,ns
subordinateobserved data to starenients based onauthority, revelation,
or religious belief." NASgoeson co clai111 that"docLunenration oflered
insupport ofchese clauns istypically Ii.inired co diespecial publicarions
2S. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
 n. c. Dover Case(2005) 2.2.s

of their advocate.s'lbese publications do noc offer hypotheses subject

co change in light of new data, ne,v inre rpretations, or den1onsrrarion
of error.' !h is contrasrs with science, ,vhere any hypothesis or theory
always ren1ains subjecc co d1e possibiliry of rejeccion or 1nodificacion
in the lighc of ne,v knowledge."27

"II) ls BASED o,v A .FA L S E D1cHOT0,11Y"

n,e court concended d1at "ID is ac boc.con1 pre1nised upon a false
dichoton1y, n:unely, thaccod1eexcencevolucionary d1eory isdiscrediced,
IDisconfinn ed. (5:41(Pem1ock)).n , isargtunenc isnot brought co d1is
Courc ane,v, and in facr, the san1e argun1enr, cern1ed 'concrived d ual-
isn1' inMcLean, wasen1ployed bycreacionisrs in che I980's co support
'creation science:n1e courc in McLean noced the'fallaciouspedagogy
ofd1e cwo n1odd approach' and d1ac'in efforts co escablish "evidence"
in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the san1e
false pre,n iseas che nvo n1odel approach . . . all evidence which criti-
cized evolutionary rheory ,vas proofin supporc ofcreacion science:"...
"However, we believe chat argun1ents against evolution are not argu-
1nentsfor design. Expert tesci1nony revealed d1ac just becausescientists
c:u1nocexplain today how biologicalsysten1sevolved doesnot,nean d1at
diey cannot, and will not, be ablecoexplain che1n con1on ow. (2:36-37
(Milier)). As Dr. Padian aptly noted,'.Absence ofevidence isnor evidence
of absence: TI1e court added, "Jusr because scienrists cannot explain
every evolutionary derail does noc undern1ine ics validicyas asciencific
theory as no cheory inscience is fully understood."28

"IRREDUCIBLE CO,'dPLEX IT Y ])OES JVOT PROVE JD"

111e court d1en accacked che very heart of d1e ID move,nent - rhe
argu1ne nt fro,n irreducible con1plexicy. It clai1ned chac Behe ad1nics
,naking a1niscake in reasoning chac he has nor yec correcred . And Drs.
Miller and Padian resrified, "Professor Behe's concepr of irreducible
co1nplexicy depends on ignoring ways in which evolution iskno,vn co
occur." Jusr because an organisn1does not h1nccion in die san1e way
27. Ibid.
28. lbi<l
 Creation and the Couru

,vid1out all the pares does not n1ean it cannot operate in another way.
"For exainple, in the case of the bacterial flagellu111, re,noval of a pare
n1ay prevent it fron1acringasa rotary motor. However, Professor Behe
excludes, by definition, rhe possibility that a precursor co the bacterial
flagellun1 fi1nctioned not as a rotary n1ocor, but in son1e ocher way,
for exa1nple as a secretory systen1." So,"the qualification on ,vhat is
n1eant by 'irredu cible con1plexiry' renders ir n1eaningless as acriricis1n
of evolution. . . . In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as
a ,veil-recognized, ,vell-docu1nented explanation for howsysten1s,vith
multiple pares could have evolved chro1igh natural 1neans.Exaptation
n1eans that so1.neprecursor of the subject systen1had a different, select-
able function before experiencing rhechange or addition rl1at resulted
in rl1esubject systen1wirh ics present fi1ncrion....The NAShas rejected
Professor Behe'sclaun for irreduciblecon1plexity by usingthefollowing
cogent reasoning:

'"Structures and processes that areclaimed to be "irreducibly" complex

typically arc not on closer inspection....The evolutio n of complex
molecularsystemscan occur in several ways. Naturalselection can bring
togetl1er pans of a system for one function at one time and then, at a
later time, recombine tl1ose parts with othersystems of componencs to
produce a systen1 tl1at hasa different function. Genes can beduplicated,
altered, and then amplified through natural selectio n. The complex
biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in
thisfashion."2'9

"THE ALLEGED POSITIVE ARGU,lfENT FOR DESIC,V

FAILS"
As tor rl1e alleged "pos itiveargwnent" for design in which die"pur-
poseful arrangemnetof pares" isalleged co prove an intelligent designer,
che court retorted: "Expert cestin1ony revealed rl1ac chis inductive ar-
g1unenc is not scientific and as adn1itted by Professor Behe, (a natural
cause) can never be ruled our." Indeed, diearguinenc is based upon an
analogy co h u,nan design.
29. Ibid.
The D,>ver Case (20 05} 22 7

Bue "Professor Behe cescified chat the screngch of the analogy de-
pends upon the degree ofsin1ilarity entailed in the nvo propositions;
ho,vever, if rhisis the rest, IDcompletely fails." For,"Unlike biological
syscc1ns, hu1nan arcifaccs do not liveand reproduce over cirne.n1ey are
non-replicable, they do nor undergo generic reco1nbinacion, and d1ey
are noc driven by natural selection." Furd1er, in "hun1anarcifaccs, we
know che designer's identit y,hun1an, and die n1echanis1n of design,
as ,ve have experience based upon en1pirical evidence rhar hu1nans
can 1nake such things, as ,veil as 1nany ocher attributes including the
designer's abilities, needs, and desires."n1c court concluded "that rhc
only acrtibute of design rhac biologic-al sysre1ns appear co share wirh
hu1nan arcifacts is thei r con1plex appearance, i.e. if ic looks co1nplex
or designed, it n1ust have been designed. . . .This inference to design
based upon che appearance of a 'purposeful arrangen1enc of pans' is a
con1pletely subjective proposition, decerinined in rhe eye of each be-
holder and his/ hervie,vpoinc concerning die con1plexicy ofa sysce1n."
Accordingly, "die purporced positive argun1enc for ID does nor satisfy
the ground rules of science ,vhich require cescable hypotheses based
upon natural explanatio ns. . . . ID is reliant upon forcesacting outside
of che natural world, forces that ,ve cannot see, replicate, control or
test, which have produced changes in this ,vorld. \Vhile ,ve take no
position on whedier such forces exist, d1ey are sin1ply nor testable by
scientific nieans and therefore a nnocqualify as pare of d1e scientific
process or as a scientific dieo ry."30

"GAPS IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY D ON 'T HELJ> JD"

' Il1ecourc concluded char proponents supported their assertion
d1at evolutionary d1eory cannot account for "realg-aps in scientific
knowledge,,vhich indisputably exist in a!J scientific theories," but also
rhat d1ey "[n1isrepersentcd] well-establishedscientific propositions."
Beside chis , "an overwhehning ntunber o fscienciscs, asrefleeced byevery
sciencific associacion rhat has spoken on rhe n1accer, have rejected rhe
ID proponents' challenge to evolution. Moreover, ... Dr. Miller ...
30. Ibid.
 C reation and the Co urts

provided unrebucced tesci,nony d1ac evolution, includ ing conuno n

descentand natural selection, is 'overwhelniinglyaccepted' by die sci-
entific co1111n u11icy and chat every 1najor scientific association agrees.
( I:94- I00 (Mille r))." What is niore, die court clai,ned d1ac the ID
cexc Of Pandas and People contained several discoreions ofevolution.
"First, (it] ,nisrepresencs the 'do111inanc fonn of understanding rela-
tionships' between organis1ns, na111ely,d1e cree of life, represented by
classification decern1ined viathe1nethod ofcladiscics. . . ."Second, [ it]
"n1isrepresents 'ho,nology;die'cenaalconcept of con1pararivebiology;
chat allowed scientists coevaluate conipara ble pares an1ongorganis111s
fo r classificacion p urposesfor hundreds ofyears.111ird, Pandas fails co
address che well-established biological concept of exaptacion, , vhich
involvesascruccure changing function, such as fish finsevolving fingers
and bones co beco1ne legs for weight-bearingland anin1als. . . . Finally,
D r. Padian's tmrebucced cesci,no nyden1onsrraces d1ac Pandas distorts
and tnisrepresencsevidence in che fossil record about pre-Ca,nbrian-
era fo ssils, die evolution offish co a1nphibians,die evolution of sn1all
carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, d1e evolution of d1e nianunalian
n1iddle ear, and me evolution of whales fron1land anin1als.
"In addition to Dr. Padian, Dr. Miller also testified that [ID's] treat-
n1enc ofbioche1nical si1nilaricies ben veenorganisn1s is'inacctu-aceand
do,vnright false' and explainedho,v Pandas 1nisrepresenrsbasic 1110 -
lecular biology concepts co advance design d1eory. . . . In addition,
Dr. Miller refuted Pandas' clai1n rhac evolut io n cannot account tor
new genetic infonnacion and pointed co niore dian three dozen peer-
revie,ved scientific publications sho,ving die origin of ne,v generic
info n nacion by evolutionary processe s.
"Afinal indicacor of how ID has failed co denionscrarescientific , var-
rancisdieconiplece absence ofpeer-revie,ved publications supportingdie
theory. Expert resriniony revealed diat thepeer revei w process is'exqui-
sicely ilnportanc' in diescientific process. It isa way forscientists to write
up dieir en1pirical research and co share rhe ,vork with fello,v experts in
die field, opening up die hypothesesroscudy, cescing, and criticisni."31
31. Ibid.
The D,>ver Case (20 05} ll9

The Co urt'sConclusion

Finally, rhe Dovercourr concluded: "Afi:er rhissearchingand careful

review of ID asespoused by ics proponenrs, aselaborared upon insub-
n1issions co the Courc, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find
rhacIDisnocscienceand cannoc beadjudged avalid,accepced scienrific
rheory as it has fai.led co publish in peer-revie,vedjournals,engage in
research and resring, and gain acceptance in che sciencific conununiry.
ID, as noced, is grounded in rheology, noc science. Accepcing for rhe
sake ofargun1enc irs proponencs:as weU as Defendants' arglunencchat
ro inr.roduce ID coscudencs will encourage critical chinking, it still has
uccedy no place in a science curriculu,n."32

Applicati-0n of theLe1non Test to the ID Policy

lhe court continued, "Although ,ve have found chat Defendants'

conduce conveys astrong1nessageofendorsen1encofche Board n1en1bes'r
parcicular religious vie,v, pursuanr ro dieendorsen1enc resr, the bercer
pracrice in chis Circuit is for chisCourc co also evaluace diediallenged
conduce separately under che Lonon cesc."33

THE THREE PRONGS OF THE LEMON TEST

Asarciculaced bydieSupre,ne Court, the Lemon cescdetercni nes char
so,nediing"violacesdieEsc-ablislunencClause ofdieFirscAn1end1nenc
if: (I) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principal or priu1ary
effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive en-
cangle,nent of d1e govern,nent wid1 religion. . . . As the Leinon cest is
disjuncrive, eicher an i1nproper purpose or an iniproper elfecc renders
rhe ID Policy invalid under rhe Esrablishn1enc C lause."34
Afi:er going over ,nuch of die sanie niaceria.l and argun1encacion, che
court concluded char "Defendants Presented No Convincing Evidence
chat 1liey were Motived [sic] by Any Valid Secular Purpose." Indeed,
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
2..30 Creation and the Court$

"theirasserted purposes are asha1n,and rhey areaccordingly unavailing,

for rhe reasons char follow.
"We initially nore diac rhe Supre1ne Court has instructed diac,vhile
courcsare'nom1allydeferential coaScace'sarticulation ofasecular purpose,
irisrequired diacdiesrace1nenr ofsuch purpose besincereand nora shani:
(Edward,). . . . "Moreover, Defendants' assertedsecular purposeofi1nprov-
ingscience educaiion isbelied by rhe face d1ar ,no stif nocallof the Board
1ne1nbers ,vho voted in favorof the biology curriculUJ1i change conceded
chat they stilldo not kno,v, nor have they ever known, precisely ,vhat ID
is. To assert asecular purpose against chis backdrop isludicrous.
"Finally, aldiough Defendants have unceasingly acce,npced in vain co
distance d1e1nsleves fron1 their own actions and scat.e1nencs, which cul-
1ninated in repetitious, tmtruchful cesciJnony, such a strategy constitutes
additional strongevidence of i.Jnproper purpose under diefirst prong of
die Lernqn t.est:'
1hus,"any asserted secular purposes by die Board are a shan1and are
,nerely secondary roa religious objective:'
Accordingly, '\vefind chat the secularpurposesclaiu1ed bydie Board
a1nounc co apretext for che Board's real purpose,,vhich ,vasco pronioce
religion in rhe public school classroon1, in violationof rhe Escablish-
n1ent Claus.e"s3

T H E COURT'S C ON CLlJSI ON
niecourc concluded: "Although Defendants' actions havefailed co
passconscicucional1nuscer under dieendorse1nenc rest and pursuant co
die purpose prongofLen,on, thus n1aking further inqu iry w1necessary,
,ve will briefly address the final Le111on prong relevant to our inquir y,
,vhich is effect, in die interest of con1pleceness....Moreover, because
die Lemon efiecc rest largely covers die sa1ne grotuid as die endorse-
1nenc test, ,ve will incorporateour extensive factual findings and legal
conclusions n1ade under dieendorsen1enc analysis by reference here,in
accordance with' U1irdCircuit practice.". . .
3S. Ibid.
The D,>ver Case (20 05} 231

"Since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only

real effect of the ID Policy is the advanceinent of religion....Second,
the disclai1ner read to studenrs 'has the effect of in1plicidy bolstering
alrernarive religious theories oforigin by suggesting diar evolution isa
probleniaric theory even in rhe field ofscience.'" So,"die eftecr of De-
fendants' actions in adopting the curriculuni change ,vas to inipose a
religious view of biological origins into the biologycourse, in violation
of the Esrablishn1ent C lause."'6
In an aggressive, ,vide-reacliing, and final conclusion die court de-
clared that, "TI1e proper application of both the endorsen1ent and
Lernon rests co the facesofdiiscase1nakes icabundandy clear diac die
Board's ID Policy violaces che Escablislunent Clause. In niaking this
detenninarion,we haveaddressed rhesern inalquesrion of whether ID is
science. We haveconcluded char it isnot, and rnoreover that ID cannot
uncouple it.self frorn its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
"Both Defendants and1na11y of the leading proponents of!D n1ake
a bedrock assu111pcio11 which is ucrerly false. 'Their presupposition is
char evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in che existence of a
supre1ne beingand to religion ingeneral. Repeatedly indiistrial, Plain-
tiffs' scientific expercs resrified chat the d1eory of evolution represents
good science, isovenvhelrningly accepted by the scientific conununity,
and mac it in no ,vay conflicts ,vim, nor does it deny, me existence of
a divine creator.
"To besure, Darwin's theory ofevolurion is in1perfecc. Ho, veve,rdie
fact d1at a scientific d1eory cannot yet render an explanation on every
point should noc be used as a pretext co thruse an untestable alterna-
tive hypod1esis grounded in religion into the science classroon1or to
n1isrepresent well-escablishedscientific propositions.
"'fl1ecitizens of the Dover area ,vere poorly served by the 1ne111bers
of rhe Board who vored for die ID Policy. le is ironic chat several of
diese individuals, \Vho so scaunchly and proudly couced their religious
convicrions in public, would rirneand again lie rocover dieir rracksand
disguise the real purpose behind die ID Policy."37
36. (hid.
37. Ibid.
232 Creation and the Co urts

'TI1ecourt added, "\X'ith that said, \ve do not question that 1nany of
theleadingadvocatesof ID have bona fideanddeeply held beliefs which
drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do \Ve controvert that ID should
continue t.o be studied, debated,and discussed. As seated, our conclu-
sion roday is char it is unconsticurional co reach ID asan alren1aciveco
evolutio n in a public school science classroon1."
1l1ey added, "1l1osewho disagree with our holding ,vilJ likely 111ark
it as the produce of an activist judge. If so, rhey \YUi have erred as chis
is111anitesdy not an activist Court. Rad1er, d1is case can1e to us as die
resulr of rheactivisn1ofan ill-inforn1edfaction onaschool board, aided
bya nacionaJ public interestla\v firn1eager co find aconsricucional test
case on ID, who in conibinacion drove die Board to adopt an in1pru-
dent and ulcin1ately unconstitutionalpolicy. The breathtaking inanity
of die Board's decision is evident when considered against die factual
backdrop\vhich has no\v been ft1llyrevealed through d1is rrial.n1e sru-
denrs, parents, and ceachers of rhe Dover AreaSchool Discricc deserved
bec.cer than co be dragged into chis legal n1aelscro n1, with its resulting
utter ,vasce of1nonetary and personal resources."
And "co preserve the separation ofchurch and scace 1nandated by the
Esc-ablislunencClauseof d1e FirscAn1endn1entcodie UnitedSraces Co n-
sricucion, and Arr. I, 3 of me Pennsylvania Conscirurion, ,ve ,vUI enrer
an order pennanendy enjoining Defendants fro111 n1aintaining che ID
Policy in anyschoolwithin theDover AreaSchool District,fron1requiring
teachers codenigrate or disparage mescientific theory ofevolution, and
fron1requiringteachersco refercoa religious, alternative theory known as
ID. We wWalso issueadeclaratoryjudg1nenc char Plainciffs' righcs unde r
theConstitutionsofthe United States and the Con1111onwealth of Penn-
sylvania have been violaced by Defendants' actions. Defendancs' actions
in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights as guaranteed to che1n by me Con-
stirurio n of me Unirecl $races and 42 U.S.C. 1983subject Defendants
co liability wid1 respect co injunctiv e and declaratory relief; but also for
non1inalda.n1agesand die reasonable vaJueofPlaintiffs' acrorneys' services
and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs constitutional righcs.''38
38. Ibid.
The D,>ver Case(2005} 23

A Response to the Dover Co urt's Ruling

Refutation of the ruling is lefi: for the next chapter. Here it will suf-
fice co sununarize the major points ofdie rulingand to challengeso1ne
n1ajor prem ises.First,son1e general conunents.

Genea
r l Co111r11ents

(1) TI1is 139-pageruling (book?) is a cour de force for evolucion.>9

(2) le is wide-ranging, going well beyond whar ,vas necessary for rhe
court co do in chis particular case. (3) Ir ruled nor only d1ac rhe Dover
school board policy as n1andaced was w1conscin1tional, bur char reach-
ing ID in any forn1 is a violationof the First An1endn1enc. (4) le also
ruled, unlike the Supreme Court EdttJards case, d1at ID and so-called
"scientific creation" is inherently religious and, mereby, forbidden to be
taught by any science teacher ina pubHcschool science class. le is in face
an ID creationist's ,vorst nightn1are. Iflefi:standing, rhe Dover ruling
will foreversquelch the teachingofcreation in any forn1in publicschool
science classes.40

Specific Co1nr11ents

Son1especific poincs also need co be briefly stared. Again, noacte1npc

will be n1ade here to refute any of d1ese clain1s. For rhis, see cl1aprer 8.
39. Ar:cord i.ngto a report in 1-Vorld maga:Unt. thewordingofcht: Dwer ruling re-lied he:.w
ily oil a document submitted to the court by the ACLU (see Ma.rk Bergin. "Aped Decisio1l:..
Vm,id De<:<mher 23, 2006).
40. '"Mca.ilwhik. back in Ohio, the Darw1 ilisti: had not given up U1 their relentlessefforts
coeliminate the critical analy isof e,olutio11from dt.1t sta te 's scic1 cc curric.ulum.fo February
2006, the OhioState Board of E<lucation hnallv caved in to the Darwinists and ddeted it.
The movewasspearheaded by board member Ma tha \'\Ii,!:('. who rc:"po rt cdl') ooced aimt:.d tha t
God told her that critir:al analysisof evolution was wroog. On 1: bruary 2.2, 2006. she wrote:
' Ibelieve in God thecreator. I hdicvcin freedom. I bdie\'e in America. and the stateof Ohio,
and the Republir:a r1 Parcy,fiscal collS<:rvatism. fairness. aJ1d honesty. These values guided me
last week to lead the Ohio Board of Edu<":lti o 11 to re-move crcat io1 i m fromo ur state 's Sc ie11ce
St.anc.fards"' (Jo nathan\'?dis. 1be Pd/;'1ti11!lylm:o,-rta G"ide II) Darwinismtnullmdligeus De1;g,1
(\V."lting co n. D.C.:R<gnery. 2006). 153- 154).
2,34 C reat ion and the Co urts

First,theDo er court defined science instriccly naturalistic terrns.Any

reference to or itnplication ofasupernatural cause issn:icdy unsciencific
asdefined by d1e courc.1he only,vay inceligenc design could possibly
bejustified iscochange chevery ground rulesofscience, which de,nan d
chat only nat.uralcauses be considered. Ano e.lie r point, co beexplained
in chapter 8, is rhac one and che san1e object- d1efirsc cause- can be
cl1e object ofboch religious devorion and sciencific explorat ion. If ic
is presented exclusively as che laccer,ic is not a violation of the First
A1nendn1enc. By not recognizing chis distinction, rl1e Dover coun has
in eflecc establishednaturalistic religions.
Second, che Dover court consideredme ID proponents' use ofinore
neutral sounding cennslike "cause,""fusecause,""inceUigenc cause,"and
"designer co be n1erely a guise for d1e niore obviously religious cenn
"God."Given chis,and che historic useof"Creacor," d1ere isnoreason we
should forsake d1is venerable cenn,,vhich has been pareofournational
legal heritage fron1chebeginning.
Third,che Doverdecision forces chesupernatural/natwal debaceintoche
open.Supernaturalismisconsidered cheene1nyofscience.Ir isin rheirwords
a"science-stopper.1l1us, for the Do ercourt:, any arcenipc co pro1noce ID
isan acrack on science. This,ofcourse, isnot crue, bur isaconfusion of me
r,vo kinds ofscience, e1npitical and forensic (seechapter 8).
Fourth, diecourr dain1s char IDcannot beseparated fron1irs n1od1er
"scientific creationiso1," which repeatedly has been found unconscin.1-
tional in me conrcs (Epperson [1968].McLean (1982], and Edwards
[1987]). Boch have been pronounced "itu1erenr[ly] religious"because
of their inferenceof a supernarw-al creator into rhe natural do,nain of
science.As ,ve shall see (chapcer 8), even if crue, d1is does noc n1ean
chat either one or both of rhese approaches co o rigins should not be
caught. Ho,vever, scientificcreationism and ID arenot identical,as,vas
shown earlier (introduction) and will be deu1onstrated in the section
in1n1ediarely follo,ving (in che FTE response).
Filth, meconcept of irreduciblecon1plxeicy,which isat the very heart
of rhe ID pcoposal,,vaschallenged by rhe courr, whicl1 agreed ,virh rhe
evolucio niscs' argwnencs chatapparent con1plexdesigncanbeexplained
on purely nacuraliscic growids.
The. Dov.r Case(,0 0 5) i.35

Sixth, the ,videly used ID book Of Pandas and People ,vas singled
out for conde,nnation on the grounds that it ,vas not only bad science
but also inherendy religious.'This would s,ee n co mean its use would be
forbidden under any conditions in a publicschool science class.11iank-
fully, this ,vas only a local decision and has not been ratified by the
Suprenie Court.
Sevenrh, there is nothingcontrived about positing only nvo basic
vie,vsof origins.11iereareonly nvo vie,vs on each point of origin (see
appendix 6),and what argues for one, argues against the other. Besides
th is, there is positive evidence for creation (seechapter 8).
In shore, irishard to conceive of how things could have gone,vorse
for die crearionist cause in public school science classes than it did in
the Dover case.

Responseof the Foundation for 1boughtand Ethics(FTE)

11ie publishers of die book Of Pandas and People acte1npced unsuc -

cessfully by ,vay ofana1nicus (friend of the court) brief to salvage their
rexc fro111 the wrath of the Dovercourt. Here is their own sun11nary of
dieir brief:

Plaintiffs atrack the theoryofintelligentdesign asa form ofcreationism.

and urge this C()urt to proscribe even its menti()n in public schoolsci-
ence classes. Theydo so based in part on a false characterizationof the
earlyintelligent desig11 textbo()kOfPandas11ndPeople("Pand,is"), which
has been designated asa resource forstudents in the Dover Area School
District. Plaintiffs' claims against Pandas rest on ( I) a falseequivalence
ofintelligent design and"creati()nism";(2) a relianceon chcposthoc, ergo
propter hoc fallacy, assuming chat because Pandas followed Edwards it
wasa result of it;and (3) an abandonment of()rdinary textual interpre-
tation in favor of languagethat was abandoned in the final draft of che
book.Moreover, thefixation on Pandasignores t her.ip id progress in the
scholarship of intelligent design theorists since its publication.
f irst,intelligent design, as presented in Pandas, differs from "cre-
ationism" in methodology and propositional content. \Xlith regard to
111etl1odolog',)courts have recognized that creationism bases its clain1s
236 Creation and the Co urts

upon faith,doctrine,o r religious scripture.Yet Pand,1soffersascientific

theoryofintelligent design which makes itsclaimsbased on e1 11piricalevi-
dence andscientific methods.\Xfith regard to propos itionalcontent, the
SupremeCourc has recognizedchat creationism entails religious beliefs
ina "supernatural creator." Yet Pa11das a d vocatesa t.heoryof intelligent
design which is conceptually distinct from creationism in chat it docs
not address religiousquestiorn,such as the identity of thedesigner, no r
docs it speculate about the existence ofa supernatural creator. Pa11das'
claimsarcempiricallybaseda nd do notgo beyond what can be inferred
through scientific investigation.
Seco n d, plaintiffs present a misleadingportraitof thehistorical record
bysuggesting that thescientific de bare over design in nature o rigina red
wit.h Biblical "creat.io nis 111" o r as an ef!orc co circumvent the ruling in
Edwards v. Aguillard. The debate over whether design isempiricallyde-
tectable began withancient Greekand Roman philosophers. Moreover,
scientists and natural ph ilosopherscontemporary with Darwin debated
whether nature displayesvidence of design.Insteadof being considered
thedescendant ofcwcnciech-ccntury Biblical "creationism,"thecurrent
theoryof "intcUigcntdesign" is most accuratelyunderstood asthe revival
and extension of a longstanding intellecur al tradition within Western
science and natural ph ilosophy.
Third, plaintiffs place inappropriate reliance on what they claim
is creationist language in earlyd mfi:s o f Pandas to establish che "r rue
meaning" of the book. \Xfith regard to chis case, o nly actions of the
school board or perceptions of the students are relevant to the con-
stitutionalityof the school board'spolicy. and pre-publication drafrs
of P,u,das arc irrelevant to either question. Additionally, early d rafts
ofPandas which used rhe tenn "creation" made clear that "there is no
basisin unifonn experience forgoingfrom nature ro thesupernatural."
Pa11das authors evencu all y concluded ch at che term "creacio n" did
nor accuratelyconvey their meaning, and therefore utilized the term,
" intelligentdesign; cha t did.
Final])', Amieusobserves chat the modern theoryofintelligentdesign
docs nor rely upon Pandas as authoritative.\Xfrittcn on a high school
level and published in ics first edition more than 15 years ago, Rindas
has been superseded by a hoseofsignificant academic monographs and
science journalarticlesexplicating thecontemporary theoryofintelligent
design. Accordingly,the substantivecontent of intelligentdesign roday
The D,>ver Case (20 0 5} 2.37
shouldbe ascertained primarily through the scholarship produced by
scientists and other scholars supportive of inteUigent design, not the
conterlt ofan early textbook, or its unpublished drafi:s.41

Clearly, the noble acren1pt ofFTE to putdistance between then1selves

and their forerunner, "crearion science;' did not work.111ere areseveral
reasons for rhis: historical,legal, and logical. Historic,1.lly,cheID rn o ve-
n1ent is seen in continuity ,vith rhe creation n1oven1ent. Legall.y, che
courts havedepended heavilyon precedentcases (staredecisis). Logicall.y,
creation ilnplies acreacor and design in1pliesa designer.So, it isdifficult
tototallydisassociate die rwo.1l1ere isalsoaproble,n tactically. Byn1ak-
ing ID more general and devoid of any implication of a supernatural
creator, IDproponents risk a hollow victory,ifany,and fall prey co die
long-standingevolutionists'clain1 d1at only natural causes ( i.e.,d1ose
inside rhe universe) count as scient.ific. But rhis kind of metaphysical
and/or mechodological naturalisrn is che very ching che ID n1oven1enc
was designed to avoid fro,n che beginning4.2As ,ve testified inMcLean
(see chapte r 3) and show below (see cl1apter 8), chere is no justifiable
reason co avoid useof tenns like"creacor" orad1nissio n of rhe irn plic a-
cions of a "supernatural" creator, if die evidence calls tor it.n1ese are
not inherently religiousconcepts, asexpert cesrin1ony,legalh isrory,and
constitutional analysis reveal (see chapter 6).

IsThere Any Lightat the Endof theTunnel?

In thelight of Dove,; isthere any hope forgerringcourt approval for
reaching creation science or ID in public scl1ools? Yes, there is hope,
bur it is di1n in vie,v of die long series of court cases against creation
and ID.' ll1erearesignificant obstacles cooverco1ne inorder to pave die
way for fucure viccories for creation in thecourts.Justho,vco do this is
diesubjecc ofour next cwo chapters.

41. See http:/ /www.d$iCOvcry.o rg/s<.'r-ip r / viewDB/ filcsDB-download.php

?coounand=
download&id=648.
42. See Ph.illipJohn ro,n Darwin onTrial (\'shingron, D.C.: Regncry,199 1).
 8
Should Creation Be Taught
as Science in Public Schools?

Introduction
T,vo rn a in reasons have bee n given by che courts for not allo,ving
the teaching of creation alongside evolucio n in public school sci-
ence classes:{1) C reat ion is nor scienceand, therefore, has no rnore
place in a science class than does astrology, the flat earth view,1 or
the derno n theory of sickness. (2) Creation and intelligent design
{hereafcer ID)2 are essentially religious and, therefore, violate the
First An1endrnent prohibitio n against establishing religion. Before
these objectio nscan be addre.ssed,, ve rn ust definesoniecrucial rerrns
of the debate.
1. For acorrec tivetochc myth that most mcdie\'al peoplebclic.,c:.d io a"flat earth; secJef
frey Burton Russell, bNJem ingthe FM, l:,'mth: G,!umhu s and 1\1oder11 f l iJtor ilmi ( \ Xc'sr port,
Conn.: J>r;1<;1cr, 1997).
2. (I) proponent,: add dlt: \\'Ord "'intd ligc'. nt " to '"dsc. ign " to indicate th-<..y arc not referring to
apparent dcsi.gn caused by natural procem .s( like wavesmak e in the nd) hut tOreal de.sign
thatcan be made.onl>' by an iordligcrucaus<...

239
240 Creation and the Couru

Definitions
Creation: For che purposes of this discussion "creation" or "ID,"3 as
n1any no,v call it, ,vill be defined as it was in d1e McLean(1982) case:
"'C reation science' n1eans iliescientific evidences forcreation and infer-
ences fro1n these scientific evidences" (McLean,Section 4).
More specifically, ID has been described as follo,vs:

1. n1e infonnarion needed for lifeiscontained ina111oleculeknown

as DNA.1l1is infonnarion can beanalyzed wid1afield of science
called infonnation d1eory.
2. 111econ1plexity oflife isa rne asureof rl1einfo n nationin itsDNA.
Infonnacion and con1plexityare synony1ns.
3. Natural selection does not create intonnation. It only rnodifies
existing infonnation .' TI1us, new info nn ation 11111st becreated by
genetic drirr-rando111changes co DNA.
4. 111e odds associated wid1 [d1e occurrence of ] events in me pasc
(like theorigin and evolution oflife)can beaccurately dete rn1ined
using infonnacion and probability theory.
S. lf the odds associated ,virh [the occurrence of ] che origin and
evolution of life are coo sn1all, d1en design is in1plicated, and it
n1ay be inferred4.

In rhis chapter ,ve ,vill discuss ,vhemer me reasons given for rejecting
the reachingof me scientific evidence for creation in public schools in
McLean (1982), Edwards (1987), and Dover (2005)are insufficient
and whether, d1erefore, creation or ID should be peru1icted in public
scl1ools.
3. Of <.'Ourst:, i1ttd ligent design advocates have defined ID more broadly than c reatio 11
advocates have typically dcfint.'d creation, avoiding refer<:n ce s to a C rl -a t o r, c.;reation, the age
of d,e ca.rth, a1,da flood.'Thty prefer terms like de$ign. Designer.alld Lm::Uigrnt Cause.n,c
'<.Ouru, no,,er.heles.s, se.c this asa thinly disguised formof Cr(.ltionism (see chapter 7). Also.
k>me erc.1tionists distinguish their views from ID. s Stephen C. Meyer, tnrelligent Design
ls No rCreationism Da& i Tekgmp/J,Ja1)uary28. 2006;aod Henry Motris."lnrdligenrOes ig1)
a nd/ or Stia lt ific Crt-ario ni:-01; at http:// www.icr.org/ artidt"/2708 / .
4. St u ar t Pul len , 'OJe 1"i!ne 1st?flmdlig em D ign(Jan. I, 2001), at http:// \Vw\v.thcory-of-
evolutioo.org/ Lltrocluction /de"$ign.hem.
Should Creation UcTaughtasScicnc.:c in PublicSchools? 241

leshould be noted here that d1ecerni "creation"isused asashorthand

for presenting che scientific evidences for and reasonable inferences
fro1n creation, and rhe tenn "school" refers co its being presenred in
public school science classes. Fiircher, "creation" does not iniply that
any relig,io us iniplicacions should be dra\vn fro1n chis in these classes
nor chat anydi ing but scientific evidence and reasonable inferences
should bediscussed.Like,vise, privace schools are not in vie,v here, nor
any ocher classes than science classes in public schools. \Vhether and
ho,vcreacion n1aybe discussed inocherclasses and inoilier man public
schools is not the topic under discussion heres. Ir. is assunied also chat
cenns like cause, first cause, priniary cause, intelligentcause, designer,
and creator are appropriate co use in connection ,vich chis discussion6,
however references co religion, religioussources, prayer, devotion, co1n-
n1itn1ent, and worship are not alio,ved since rhe latter have clear and
direct religious connotations.
Further, "creation" is used ,virh reference to incelligenc inter ven-
tion ac any one or 1nore of three points: (I) the origin of die universe,
(2) che o rigin of firsc lite, (3) die origin of new lite fonns. TI1ose who
hold an intelligent cause tor only the first of these n1ay be called "n1ere
creation ists,"and chose,vho hold all duee niay be called "full creacion-
iscs," but allarecreationists. And all should be able co provide sciencific
and rational argwnencs for d1eir views.
Evolution: By "evolution" is 1ueanr the vie,v of con1n1on ancesrry
whereby all higher forn1s of life evolved by purely natural processes,
widiout intelligent incervencion, fron1lo,ver forn1s ,vhich can1e ulti-
n1acely fron1one sin1ple fonn oflifo. Naturalistic evolutionists also be-
lievechat diis first life can1e into existence by spontaneousgeneration
S. It is wlscl)'ag.reed by both sides that rd igiou l'vi ws of origi1H, properly balanced and
objecci..-c.-Jy di usscd, m,,y he presc:Jlced il'l noosciencedasses such as h istory. philosophy. o,
sociolog y.
6. As I pointedout in my testimony {sccch:tpter4),C'\'en the use of terms like"God" and
"Supreme Hcins...neednocviolatethe FirstAmcndme-Jlt unlessoneiscalled on togivereligious
devotion or worshiptohim. However, admittedly, theSt termscarry more rdigiousbaggage.
Hence, roctically, it 1n.1)' be adv!ilahle ma\oid them in theconte.xt of referrinSto an intdligcnt
<auseof the univetse:and first life in a science class.
242 Creation and the Co urts

fro1n nonliving rnaterial. As Richard Dawkins put it, naturalselection

is a "Blind \Varch,naker."7
"Evolution"is understood hereas rn acroor large-scaleevolution be-
tween differenc basic cypesor forrnsoflife.ln concrasc cocreation, which
affirn1s a con1n1on creator of all basic forn1s of life, rnacroevolut.io nists
believe in aconunon ancestor of all forrnsoflife. Dar,vin's five tenetsof
evolution areaccepted by,nose evolutionists:(l) Variation exiscs,vithin
n1en1bersofchesan1e species, which isagroup of incer breedinganirn als
or planes.(2)Vaciacioncan beinherited byparentspassingon cheir a-aics
cotheir offspring. (3) Ani rnalsand planescon1pece forlin1itedresources
likefood, water,and shd cer. (4) Nacural selection isadirect result ofche
firsc chree tenets. Since natural resources are lirniced, individuals ,vith
favorable traitsare niore likely tosurvive and reproduce. Because chese
individual(s)passon favorable traitscotheirdescendants, nature selects
chose ,vich favorable characteristicsand preserves chen1.'Il1is process is
called natural seleccion or survival of die ficcest. (S) Under die guid-
ance of natural selection, sin1ple lifeevolved inco con1plex life. Darwin
excrapolaced diac ifsrnall changes could occur by natural selection over
shore ci1ne, then largechanges couldoccur over longcin1e. C reacioniscs
object co che fifi:h cenec, noting chat it is based on speculation and no c
observation.
O pposition by creacioniscsco evolution in chis genera l sense does
not elirninace rnicroevolution, which both vie,vs affirn1. Microevolu-
cion refers co changeswirhin basic forrns of life on a srnall scale, such
as dieexiscence ofa couple luuidred differenc kinds of dogs, frorn die
liccle Ch ihualllta co che Great Dane, ,vhich are all part of the canine
farnilyofaninials.1l1iskindofsrn all-scale"evolution" is observable and
repeatable and, hence,cornes within che dornain of ernpiricaJscience
in che present and, chus, is not pare of die dispute; it is acceptable co
boch crearionisrs and niacroevolucioniscs. Creationisn1, d1erefore, as
a theory is opposed only co rn acroevolurion, or large-scaleevolution
7. Sec Richard Dawkins., 1he Blind #J u rh m 11k er: 1'Vhy 1!,e Evidenu ofE l){)/111fo11 Reveals ff
Universe lVithout Dtsig11 { N e w York: Norton, 1996 ). S0 1ne the istit'e\olutionists , re \\illing
to posit God as the c reato r of l)rst life b ut agret! that naturalistic m3croe vo lutio n rook place
frorn that poim on.
Shou ld Crc.arion 13c TaughtasSciencejn PublicSchools? 243
frorn n1icrobe co n1an. Hence, che te rn1"evolution" in the follo,ving
discussion is co be understood as n1acroevolcuion.
n1ecenn "evolution covers n1ore than just biological evolution . A
naturalistic vie,v of che ocigin of the universe is C'dlled "cos u1icevolu-
tion." A naturalistic view of rhe origin of first life is called "che111ical
evolution." And the naturalistic vie,v of rhe origin of ne,v life fonns is
called "biological evolution." Again, scientific and rational argun1ents
for all three of these kinds ofevolucjon should be peru1itted in public
schools, provided the evidence for rhe opposing view is also allowed.

A Response to Reasons Given for Not Teaching Creation

As ,ve haveseen inea rlier chapc.ers, che n,o basic reasons given by the
courts for nor allo,ving che teaching ofcreation are chat iris nocscience
and that it is religious. Boch ofd1ese reasons have been used to exclude
creation fron1thescience curriculu111 in public schools. McLean (1982)
tLsed both, Edwardr ( 198 7 ) used only thelatter, andD/Jver{2005) used
boch, though it defined science rufferencly.

A Resp(Jnsetothe Scientific Arg1111Jents Against Teaching Creation

1l1e McLean (1982) courc argued chat creation is not science,8 as did
Dover(2005), though theydefined "science"differencly. Thissenri1nent that
creation is not science isconunonlyecl1oed in thescientific conuuuniry.

"CREATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF

SCIENCE"
n1edifficulty with chisobjection is in gajninga w1iversally agreeable
definition of science. Even Dover (2005) and McLean (1982) do nor
agree on rhe definition, and Edwards (1987) declined defining science
in rulingon chis point. Dover and McLean agree chat science isobserv-
able and repeatable, and involves only natural causes. McLean added
chat it n1usc also be tentative and falsifiable, but these latter two tesr.s
8. Se<: chapter 3abovefor cl,e de rails.
244 Creation and the Co urts

aredearly problen1aticsince n1any evolutionists dain1 that evolution is

a face, and facesare not falsifiable. Yeeevolutionists at McLean argued
char allsciencific vie,vs n1usr befalsifiable (seed1aprer 3). Furthern1ore,
both Doverand McLean are wronginassunlingthatscienceabout origin
events n1ust be observable and repeatable.Origin events are by nature
unobserved and unrepeated past events.1hey can be approad1ed only
by ,vay of forensic science, which uses the principles of causality and
uniforrnity to reconstruct events wecannot observe. Likewise, chisdefi-
nition wrongly assu1nes, as so1ne courrs have, chat only natural causes
counr as scienrific explanations ofevents. H o,vever, n1any sciences use
intelligentcauses,for exan1ple cryptology, ard,aeology, and rhe SET l
("Search forExrra-cerresrriallnceUigence") progra1n. Why chen should
an intelligent cause be ruled out in origin science? Only an incurable
con1mirment to nacuralisn1 (anri-supernaur ralisn1) can account for this
arbitrary u1isdefinition ofa scientific approach to origins.
Even if son1e broad criterion like "cestability" or confinnabilicy is
used, this objection fa res no better since the sword cuts both ,vays. In
the broad senseofan origin (forensic) science both creation and evolu-
tion are testable by wherher rhey 1neer rhe principles of causality and
unifonniry. In a narrow sense of current ern pirical testability (d1at is,
observable and repeatable), neither evolution nor creation is testable.
Also, in d1is connecrion, d1ere is a logical irony in d1e evolutionist's
argu1nent. Many contend d1at d1e cre ation or ID view is not testable,
but d1ey also d airn co have tested it and found it false!9

"NOTHING MAK$ SENS IN $CINCE APART FROM

EVOLUTION"
A conuuon refrain in die courcs is die dain1 by evolurionists chac
norhing n1akessense inscience apart fron1 the theory of macroevolution.
But ifchis,vere true rhen ho,v did it happen rhac u1osr 111ajor biological
disciplines,vere begun either before Darw inor byscientists,vho rejected
his d1eory? AsJonad1an \Veils aptly put it,"\Vhy do Darwinists clain1
9. faolurio nistsJerryC O)'ll C, Russell Doolitde,and KennethMillermake- thiskindof dai,n
abouttheIDargum(:nt&omirreducible comple.rity.SeeJonathan\X1d ls, 1b e PoLilicililJ lncorrea
c,,,,;d ID D11rtui11ism 111,d b, rdlig<>lf De.<ig11{ \'u1.<h;ngcon, D.C.: Rcgncry. 2006). 139.
Should Creation UcTaughta:1oScicncc in PublicSchools? 245
that their hypothesisisindispensable coagriculture, when it was Darwin
,vhoneeded farn1ers-noc farn1ers ,vho needed Danvin? ... In what,vay
is Darwinism indispensable co n1edicine, when che n1odern decline in
infectious diseases resulted fro1n public health 111easures and scientific
disciplines chat o,ve nothing to Darwin'scheo ry?"10
bi fucc, a highly wider-advertsied face is chat Darwin opposed giving
vaccinations, saying: "\'Vich savages, the ,veak in body or 1nind are soon
elin1inaecd; and chose chat sur viveconunonly exhibit a vigorous scace of
health. We civilized n1en,on cheother hand, do our ucn1osc cocheck the
process ofeli1nincaion [bynatural selectio]n; we build asylu1ns for che i1n-
becile, cl1e1nai1ned, and me sick; weinsciruce poor laws; and our1nedical
1nen exert their uunoscskillcosave cl1elifeofeveryone tochelase1no1nenc.
'There is reason co believe cl1ac vaccination has preserved cl1ousands, ,vho
fron1a ,veak conscin1tion ,vould fonnetl)' have succuo1bed co srnaU-pox .
n1uscl1e weak1ne1nbersofcivilizedsocietiespropagate cl1eirkind."11 Hence,
Danvin hi1nself adnlined chat histheory ,vas opposed co public health.
n1ecruch ischat biology asan e1npiricalscience,vich allof ics laws fro1n
which predictionscan be n1ade iscon1plecely undersrandableassuch wicl1-
oucan)'direct reference cospeculations about howlifen1ayor n1ay nothave
originated. Likecl1elawsofphysicsru1dd 1en1irsry, thingsoperate1u1iot nnly
in biology and life goeson regardless of whetherone isa theist, atheist, or
pancheisc. Speculacions about worldview or origin do nocchange rhela,v
ofgraviry nor the lawsof how life operates. A11d biological speculations
d1acdeal wicl1origins (likeevolutionor creation) are notane1npirical sci-
ence.n1ey,vork n1orelikea forensicscience andspeak only co ho1U lifegot
here, noc how it operatsein rhe present.n1e presen.toperation oflifo is die
objecc ofobservacion and repecicion in d1ebiological ,vo rld. Thestudy of
chis realtn is chesao1e no n1atter,vhac theory oforigins onehas.
Ifanything, onecan argue die reverse, nainely, chacasstuninglife was
designed n1akes1nore sense in biology chan asstm1ing it isan accidental
result ofa " blind,vacd unaker ." For as microbiology hassho,vn, incelli-
I0. \Vei,l. Politti11IIJ /11t on et:tOt<id,, 82.
1. C harles Darwin.'/he De;re. m of ,'vlan.in On 1be OJ'igill (!{Sptdes11ml 1l1t Deu em ef
i\1111.1 vol. 49of Great !looks of the \Vcstcr11 \V o rld (Chicago, University of Chicago t>rc,s,
1952),323.
 Creation and the Cc.luru

gene design isreRected in theirreducible and specifiedcon1plexityin the

naturalworld.TI1is kind oforder in che biological,vorld is bescexplained
by d1ere beinga1nind behind it all. Ir can beargued rhac,vich chis kind
of assun1ption one can 1nake n1ore sense out of the biological ,vorld
than without it. One exa111ple of this is the so-called vescigial organs,
of ,vhich nearly nvo hundred ,vere posited in Darwin's day. Assuining
there ,vas design tor the111, even when it was noc known, had a greater
heuristic value than assun1ing they were merely die produces ofchance.
le pron1pced scientific invescigacions chac haveled co chediscover yof a
purpose forvirtually allofd1ese o nce-d1ough-cuselessorganssupposedly
lefi:over fron1our evolutionary pasc.12

"CREATION ls REJECTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC

C01'{1'{UNITY"

Another reason son1ecin1es given for nocceachingcreationinschools

ischat it is rejected by the1najority in thescientific conununiry. Bur it is
also true chat evolurio n wasonce rejected by the n1ajority in thescientific
conu111u1icy. Ifnlinoricy viewswere not allowed a hearing, then students
,vould never have heard abouc evolution in d1eir schools. In face, chis
is precisely ,vhac ,vas argued ac che 1925 Scopes trial (see chapter 1),
,vhen evolurionisr.s' views were being excluded. Further, using current
n1ajoriry opinion to define science is ranra1no1uu co saying "science is
" 'hat current scientists say it is." But this issilnply todecennine what is
right by,najorit y voce, and it ,villonly add co an already painful history
of w1acceprable consequences. Science, ofall disciplines, should have
learned by no,v rotolerate1ninorityvie,vs.In face, vinuallyall scientific
vie,vs no,v accepted by the 1najoricy of scientists ,vere once 1ninoricy
vie,vs_l3 To do othenvise is co resort co son1e fonn ofche fullacy of"cre-
2.1 . SeeJerry lkrgrnan and George Howe. .,Vt:S1igit1i Orgam Arr Full.y Frmclional- A His
tory111ul ::1,,11/uationof tbe VestigiALOrgmt Origins Conupt (Kansas Ciry: Cn-at io1\ Resc:t h
Sociy Books. 1993).
13. . l l ,e ab ncc of pee r review fo r cr('atio nistl lite rature. is som<:times gi.,.en a s evidenc e
rhat ctcatioo ists'viewsare 1"10 t credible scie,, ce, but rhis is groundless for m a11y tcasoni:, First.
1',irtuallyall the majorscience journalsare biasedagai1utcrd tioniia:s' views.Second,
creationists ha\'e published i 1l peer'' journalsthatare open to creationists' views.' Tllird,)1.0mc (D
literature (like ch ac of Bd,c and D, mbski) isfound in pccr journals.
Shou ld Crc.ation BeTaughtas Science in Puhl_ic Schools? 2.47
dentialism" or "experrisrn." But real science does not have co do this; it
can always provide evidence.
\Vhat is,nore, virtually all rhe rotuiders of ,nodern science werecre-
acionists.'This includes Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, Agassiz,
Maxwell, Pasceur, and Kelvin. If creation is disallowed in our schools,
then we havedisregarded alarge pareof our intellectual heritage.Surely
rhere is son1eching incongruou s about clain1ing chat Kepler, Newton,
and Pasteur were notscientific ind1eir viewsaboucorigins. It isa twisted
logic for the children of111odern science co disclai1n the legirilnacy of
their o,vii parentage. And ir leads to die patent absurdity chat, when it
conies to scientific vie,vs about origins, the great founders of modern
science v.rould be barred fro,n speaking in American public school sci-
ence classes!
Inaddition, thekindred argu1nenr char nioscexpercsin thefield rejecc
creationand ID only reAecrs the weaknessof rheevolutionists'position.
1l1is resort ro"credenrialis111" or "expercisn1" is nor science; irissociol-
ogy. Realscience never had co resort to rhis; ic provides good evidence
and good reasons for its vie,vs. As Orson Scocr Card said, "expercisn1
is 'che "cruse us, you poor fools" defense.'"14 Besides chis, chere are an
increasing nuniber of scientific scholars who reject Darwinian evolu-
tion. \Vhacis1nore,given theopposi.tio n roand suppressinoofcreation
by che evolution don1inaced scientific escablislunenc, it is no surprise
chat creation is only a rni nority view.\Velis liscs nurnerous exa,nplesof
suppression ofcreationiscs:

11,e Darwinists who harassed Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian;

president Timothy\Vhire of the University of Idaho; Hector Avalos at
Iowa Scare University; theschool administrators whodrove our Roger
DeHarr;Brian Leiterar rhe Universityof'Texas; PaulZ.Myersat rhe Uni-
versityof Minnesota; Brian McEnnis, Steve Rissing, andJeffrey NlcKcc
at Ohio State University; and the lVlississippi University for Women
Darwinisi:swho dismissedNancy Bryson- all publicemployees."
14. . O rson Scott C.'.ard,. c ited in \\;!dis. />olit k, ,Llylncon-er1. 200.
Gui,dL
IS. lbid.. 190- 19 1.
 Creation and the Courts

The truth is rhat articles attacking evolution are regularly rejected

by the science journals, and articles defending evolution are regularly
accepted. Unril chis biaschanges \Vecannot expect creation co becon1e
n1ore widely accepted in die scientific con11nw1icy.
Finally, allowing n1inoricy vie,vs is che very key coscienrific progress.
For science progresses by new ideas.1l1us, co disbar n1inoricy scientific
creationisr,s fron1havingavoice inschool scienceclassroon1sisanrirheci-
cal toche best procedure forscientific progress. lfposicingan intelligent
cause was fruitful in che origin of science, why should it be barred in
che develop1nenc of science?

"CREATION ls NOT OBSERVABLE OR REPEATABLE"

Evolutionists ofi:en insist chat crearion is not science because it is
not observable or repeatable.n1ey believe chat allo,ving creation to be
caught in scliools islike pennitting rhe Aat earth view to be caught. But
chisargu,nenr isbased on a1nisunderscandingof cwo different kindsof
science:en1pirical scienceand origin science. Adn1iccedly, c reationor ID
is nor an e1npirical science, whicl1 is based on rhe two basic principles
ofobservation and repetition; but neither is1nacroevolucione1npirical
science. The criterion ofen1pirical science is that one's theories c.1n be
1neasured over against so1ne observable and recurring panern ofevenrs
in chee,npirical ,vorld.Bursince both creation and n1acroevolucionare
unobserved events rhar would haveoccurred in thepast and are not being
repeated in the present, it follo,vs char neirher of rhen1 is ane1npirical
science. So, if evolurioniscs insist on narro,vly defining all science as
en1pirical science, then they haveelin1inated 1nacroevolucion fron1 rhe
realin of science as well
Ho,vever, rhere isa widely used and broader sense of che word "sci-
ence" which includes forensicscience and othersciences dealing,vith che
pasr. In origin science, as opposed to eo1pirical science, we are dealing
with past unobserved and unrepeated eventsforwhich we haveevidence
re,naining in the present by which we can build a plausible scenario of
whar probably happened. Indeed,so1.nerjn1esrheforensic evidence (like
fingerprints and DNA) isstrongenough coconvict a person of1nurder.
And it is in th is sense of che tenu "science" chat both ,nacroevolurion
Shou ld Crc.arion Be Taught as Science in PublicSchools? 249
and creation qualify asexplanations of past events relating to origins.
Dealing ,virh past events has long been given the nan1e "science" by
scientist s, as is evident fron1 the sciences o f paleo nrology, archaeol-
ogy, and astrophysics. \Xlhat is 1no re,so,ne of these sciencesdeal with
incelligenrcauses-for exa,nple archaeology, cryptology, co,upucer sci-
ence, inforn1ation theory, and SETI. If naruraliscic evolution ists wish
coeli1ninare all incelligenc causes fron1science, then chey n1usc disavo,v
these sciences as well.
1he principles of origin science (like forensic science) cannot be
based on direct observacion and repericion of pasc evencs. Rather,
they operate on nvo reasonable scientific preniises: (1) the pi'inciple
ofcausality, char every event 1nusc havean adequate cause; and (2) the
principle of uniforn1ity, which, applied co causes, affinns chat causes
of parricular evenrs in rhe past are like causes of like evencs in ch e
present. For exa,nple, repeated observation infonns us that it. takes
an intelligent being to produce an arro,vhead fron1 a piece of flint
in die present. Hence,archaeologists do not hesitate t.o postulate an
intelligent cause of si,n ilar arrowheads fro,n the past. Likewise,when
scientistslook at rhe evidence that a single-cellorganis1nhas enough
specified co,nplexity in the genetic code to fill a thousand con1plete
sets of encyclopedias,16 rhey can reasonably posrulace (by,vay of rhe
principleof unifonnity)17 d1at an intelligent cause produced the first
livingcell.Theinsiscenc.e char onecan allo,v an inference onlyconacural
(non-intelligent) causes is like clai1uing char all those encyclopedia
vohunes n1ust have happened by son1eching like an explosion in a
print shop! To insisc on a nacural cause in the face of evident 1narks
of incelligence, is as absurd asageology reacher insiscing char herclass
n1usc explainche presidencial faceson Mr. Rushn1ore byso1ne process
of natural erosion!
Contrary cocritics, rhe DNA argtunenc isnor an illegici1nace or false
analogy. For chere is a111ache111aticallyidenticalletcer sequence in borh
16 . A ccordingto Richar<l Da wkin-s, some5pe.<.ie s o f theunjustlycalled 'prirnitin amoeb'.ts
ha'\Casmuch informationin their DNA as t,000 E11q d opt 1li11 Brit,'1lmic11s,"ea.ch o f which has
30 m lumcs( Blind H&1Ch m aker.116).
l 7. Unifurmiry is not the same as uniformitnrfanism, for the larcer be g s the q ues tio n by
assuming thatall causes :ut naruralQusts.
2,50 C reation and the Co urts

ONA and written language. fn both cases, the effects have the sa,ne
basiccharacteristics,nan1ely, the obvious signs of being che produce of
a 111ind, such as irreducible co1nple:dty (e.g., the hu111an eye), specified
coinplexicy (asin the DNA), or anricipacory design (such as revealed in
theanthropic principle,,vhich states that che universe has been purposed
for rhee,nergence of life in general and hu,nan life in particular since
ics inception). ro rule chisour aslegici1nare signs ofinrelligenr.causal-
ity is co rule out such things as archaeology, cryptology, and the SETI
prognun. In face, ic is co deny the scientific principle of unifonnicy by
which alone we can know the past.

"CREATION THEORY MAKES No PREDICTIONS AS

SCIENTIFIC THEORIES Do"
One of die characcerisricsof a scientific rheory is chat it 111akes veri-
fiable predictions. But evolutionists clai1n d1ac creation rheory n1akes
no such verifiable predict ions. Hence, chey insist chat creation is nor
scientific. However, d1isconclusion is faulty forseveral reasons.First of
all, it applies only co e111piricalscience,which can be en1pirically tested
byobservacion andrepecition. Bueas,ve haveseen, bod1n1acroevolurion
and creation are noc en1pirical sciences. Hence, we should not expect
verifiable observation and repetition co confinn eid1er d1eory. Second,
bod1n1acroevloucionand crearionist vie,vsoforigins are not predictive
viewsassucli bur retrodictive views.' I11acis, d1ey are rheories about the
past origin of the universeand life, nor d1eoriesabout d1e presentopera-
tion of the unive rseorlifeon which you can111ake predictions about che
furure. Rather rhan speakingabout theoperation of thecurrent en1piri-
cal ,vorld, they work like a forensic science, using evidence ren,aining
in die present by 1neans of rhe principles of causaliry and unifonnicy
to retrodict (projecc back\v.uds) and speculate on ,vhac kind of cause
produced rhe unobserved and w1repeared evencs of origi n.
Of course, there is a sense in ,vhich origin scienriscs use present
regularities co detennine what kind of cause {natural or intelligent)
is regularly associaced wid1 what kind of efiecc.18 So, regularity serves
18. . SQ!hc <.Teat:ionists speak t'lfprlic-ti11g what should be the caseif the theQry t'lf evo)u.
tiol'1 were cru(', suchas fi1\di.ng ino r<:m i $i1,g liHks. Howcv("f. sei<'1)tiflc prediction s about the
Shou ld Crc.atio n BeTaughtas Science in PublicSchools?

as the basis for their understandingof unifonniry, but the objectof the
inquiry oforigin science, unlike in the case ofe111pirical science, is not
a regularity in che present but asingularity in d1e past (like the origin
of rhe universe or che origin of life). For exan1ple, if repeatedly in rhe
present only intelligent causes are known to produce d1e kind ofletter
sequence found in the genetic code, d1en it is reasonable co posculace
an intelligent cause for rhegenetic codein che first livingcell. TI1esa111e
is true of pottery and arrowheads. Since no natural causes (only intel-
ligent ones) are k.t10,vn by repeated observacion co produce specified
co,n plexit y and irreducibleco1nplexicy,19 rhen ic is nor reasonableto
posit natural causes of rhe origin oflife or of ne,v life fonns.

" C REAT I O N Is A ' G o o - OF-T H E- G APS ' V1Ew"

Nacuraliscic scientists often appeal co ,vhat they call a "God -ot:d1e
gaps" fallacy in creacioniscs' ch inking. 1hey argue d1ac d1e n1ere fact
rhat we cannot no,v explain the origin of the eye or of blood-clotting
111echanis111sinascriccly naruraliscic, step -by-seepfashion does not1nean
chat weshould invoke aGod co fill in rhegap wid1a111iracle.1l1eypoinc
to nu1nerous things for which science once had no natural explanarjon
buc now does, including1neteors, eclipses, earrhqua.kes, and theflight of
the bun1blebee. Hence, they believe that, given enough ti,ne, chey ,viii
eventually be able toexplain diegaps benveen non-life and life and rhe
n1isisnglinksberween lower forms oflife and higher ones.
Bur here again chere is a serious ffa,v in their chinking, for several
reasons.
Firsr of all, ir is nor rhe absence of evidence char is rhe occasion of
creationists inferring an intelligent cause of first life. Rad1er, it is the
bchaviotof oarutc iri:dfatepossible Ol"1ly if rherc isa re.c urrif1g pat.tern &orn which scicotii:u
c u 1 make proc jc-tio1u .
19. . Sec Michael J. Bdu.. Dmwin BlackBox: 1Ju Bioc/Jemic,dCht11lenge. 10 EtJ()L111io11 ( Ne w
York: Free Pres$, 1996): "No oneat H.arval'd Universit)'no onC"ac thC" National Lu citutes of
Health, no cne1nber of the National Academr)of Sciences,1\0 Nobel prize winner- no one at
all cangiYe a <ktailedaccount of how thecilium, or vii:ion, orblooddotting, or anyc:omp lc.".I'.
biocherni<.'.'ll process might hav< developed ina lr.trwi1\ianfushio1l. Butweare hcte. All these
chi1\gs gotheresomd\ow; if 1lot ina Danvi1lian fui:hio11, rhe1l how;,-'' ( 187). HeaddC"d, "O ther
examplesof irreducible compk:xiry abound, ind udi11g aspectsof DNArluplication,d cctron
trailspo,rt tdomerc synthesis, phocosynthei:is. tta1ucription regulation, and mo re ( l60).
 Creation and the Co urts

presenceofevidence- verystrongevidence- d1accallsfor anintelligent

cause. To use an analogy, iris nor me absence of evidence for a natural
cause for rhe Lincoln Men1orial rhar leads visitors co believe d1ere ,vas
a sculptor ,vho fushioned it, but the presence of clear evidence chat
it was sculpted by so,neone (,vhich is based in t.urn onm eir uniforrn
experience d1at only inrelligenc beingscan produce d1ac kind ofeffect).
Likewise, even casual exarnination of che Mona Lisaleadsone co believe
there ,vasan artist who painted it.
Ar di.is point it is i1nportant to note d1ac David Htune's principle of
unifonnit.y (based on cuscon1ary conjunction) is thegrounds for Paley's
ai-gun1enc for design. Foronly the repeated connection of certain kinds
of causes wich cerrain kinds of effects leads us to posit an intelligent
cause for chern . By d1is n1eans we can kno,v char chis san1e kind of ef-
fect in rhe past rnust have had an intelligent cause.So, che principle of
unifonniry leads us by positive evidence co infer an intelligenr cause
for first lifo, since it is the only kind of cause known in d1e present co
produce d1ese kinds ofeffects.
Second, while naturalistic evolutio nistswrongly criticize creationists
ofa"God-o-f rhe-gaps"fallacy when posicingacrearorof me universe or
oflife, theyareche1nselvesguilty ofa"Nacure-of d1e-gap"view.Foreven
,vhen there is n1ore man sufiicienr evidence chat son1erhing isdesigned
by an incelligenc being, d1ey assun1e d1ac a narural cause (like "a blind
,vacclin1aker") u1usc have produced it.
Again, it is not theabsence ofevidence about an assurned natural cause
d1ar leads us co conclude chat an arrowhead or a sculpture of Lincoln
had an incelligenc cause. Rather, it is rhe presence ofstrong evidence chat
d1ey weredesigned d1at leads us to posit an inrelligenr cause. Likewise,
it is not rhe absence of evidence chat a living cell had a natural cause
bur the presence ofscrongevidence diac its uniquespecified co1nplexicy
points co a designer that leads us to posit ar1 intelligent cause. \Vhen
sucl1 evidence is presen,rsuch as it is in rhe irreducible co1nplexicy of
the hu1nan eye and other highly con1plexsysce1ns in livingthings, iris
nor a "God -of the-gaps" fallacy co infer an incelligenc cause. On che
concrary, ic isa"Nacure-of-d1e-gaps"fallacy charscubbornly resistsdivine
involvernent in creation.
Shou ld Crc.arion Be Taught as Science in PublicSchools? 2.53
\'v'hacabout checlear casesof "God-of: tl1e-gap"chinkingainong cre-
ationistsofche past? Even thegreatSir IsaacNe,vton1nade such an error
when heassu1ned rharcerrain ellipricalorbirs needed a directsupernatural
intervention co acco11ucfor che111. Others ass1uned divine intervention
r.o expl ain nier.eo rs,eclipses, and earthquakes. n1eseindeed ,vere erro rs
because rheydealt,virh regularly observable pheno1nena in chee1npirical
world. As such, sciencisrs have every right co conrinue co seek a natural
cause for chen1 because they are pareofoperacional or en1piricalscience,
which is explainable only by natural la,v. So, in chis einpirical sense of
science, both evolutionistsa11dcreationists agree char only natural causes
apply. However, origin evencs are nocpart ofen1pirical science.n1ey are
w1observed and unrepeated past events and, assuch, are not thesubject
of en1pirical science, ,vhich is lin1i.ced co natural la,vs.Just as ,vhen a
dececcive investigates a gunshot ,vound (,vhicl1 no one observed a11d
which cannot be repeated), unrepeated origin evencs call for a forensic
scienrific approach based on rhe principles of causality and unifocn1iry.
And if, basedon rheseprinciples,rheevenrssho,vevidence ofincelligenc
design, chen ic isan unreasonable "Nacure-of-che-gap"fullacy to ass1une
against theevidence chat they n1uschavehad a natural cause.
The san1e is rrue of irregular and unrepeated events in the present
such assky,vricing, a sand casde, or acode. Noen1pirical scientist has a
right to clain1 for rhese kindsofevencs a natural cause, for ac lease cwo
reasons. Firsr., they are not regular, observable, repea.tableevents in che
natural,vorld. Second, they show evidence ofan intelligent cause, noca
nan1ral one.Thedomain ofe111piricalsciencedealsonly,vichobservable,
repeatable, and regular events in the present. 'fhese events have only
natural causes. Inro chissphere nosupernarural or incelligenc causesare
pennirced. En1pirical science is kingof chis do111ain. But neither 1nac-
roevolucionaryspeculadon abouc 1u1observedand unrepeated events
oforigin nor creation is part of en1pirical science.

"CREATION PtACES 'No T RESPASSING' SIGNS

ON SCI E NT I F I C RESEARCH"
1l1is leads co rhe next charge chat nacuraliscic evolutionists level
against creation, na1nely,char positingan intelligent causeof any event
254 Creation and the Co urts

in tl1e natural world isin effect postinga"NoTrespassnig"sign warning

scientists not co investigate chat area. In ocher words, they claini that
positingan intelligent cause isa"science-stopper."It istheeneniyof sci-
ence, in chat it forbids science co invesc.igace and ana.lyze events such as
the origin of the universe,dieoriginoflife, and new life fonns.Several
iniporca.rit points1nusc be n1adein response to tl1is o bjecdon.
First, scientists are not being stopped front observing or analyzing
anyming. niey can exaniine or analyze anydting diey wish. However,
unless it is an observable, regular, and repeatable event, diey have no
right to consider it an object ofenipirical science. And ifit is an unob-
served, unrepeated event of che past, d1en it does not qualify ase1upirical
science. In chat case, it n1usc be created as forensic science- for which
boch n1acroevolution and creation qualify.
Second, scientists are absolutely right in insisting char all observ-
ableand repeatableevents in die natural,vorld are che proper object of
e1npirical science, which posies only narural causes. Failure co observe
d1is has resulted in en1barrassing errors in die pasr. Creacionisrs have
no right co assun1e tl1ac regularly recurring bur unexplained events have
a supernatural cause. Indeed, scientists have every righr co assun1e me
contrary, na1nely, d1ar tl1ey have an unkno,vn natural cause. En1pirical
science is kingof chis natural don1ain. Bur neither 1nacroevolurio n-
aryspeculation about unobserved and unrepeated evenrsof origin nor
creation is pare ofeu1pirical science. So positing an intelligent cause of
pas.tevenrs of origin is not a science-sto pper- for nvo reasons. First,
ernpirical science deals only,vim observdble events in me present, nor
unobservable events of tl1e past. Second,ernpirical science deals only
with repeatable events ,vhich tonn a pa ttern (law) and fro,n ,vh ich
predictions can be n1ade about die fi.1ture. Singular events as such are
not the object ofempirical science.So, positingan intelligent cause for
diem is not a science-stopper.
1l1ird, scientists, however, have no right co assun1e chat every unre-
peated singularity in nature, past or present, n1usc have a natural cause.
1l1isis d1eerrorof nierhodological naturalisni. Anon1alies andsingulari-
ties ,nay or niay not havea naturalcause. In face, anano1nalyassuch has
Should Crc.ation HeTaughtas Science in Public Schools? 255
noscientific stand ing.An event 1nusc recur (or be recurrable20 ) inorder
to besubject co naturalexplanation. Unrepeated events of the past1nay
noc be assU1ned ipso facto ro have a natural explanation.
Fourth, if d1ere is srrong evidence of design (such as specified or ir-
reducible con1plexity) in these unobserved past singularities, d1en chey
should nor beassun1ed tohave had a naturalcause. Forexainple, as,vehave
nored, weobserve maconeprilnirivecell hasenough genetic info1macion
co filla d1ousand con1plece secs ofencyclopedias, and d1erefore we can
conclude that me veryfirst one-celled orgmisrn ,vassin1liarlycon1plexmd
d1erefor,esi1nilarly, wasdesigned and should nor beassu1ned to have had
a narural cause2.1ro disallow creationasa possible scientificexplanation
is contrary to rhe very nature ofscience. Science asa n1ethod should be
open to all viable explanations.To refuse alrernarive explmations based
onscientificevidence, sin1ply because d1ey represent a1ninorityview, isto
srulcify rhe progressofscience.Indeed,aswe have nored,allgreatscientific
discoveries,vere1ninoriyropinionswhen theyfuseappeare.dSoco reject
thepossibilityofcreationiscexplanations oforigins isconcrnry co thevery
openness co which science asa n1erhod is conunicred.

"SCIENCE ALLOWS ONLY NATURAL CAUSES"

A n1ore frank way to srare me basic sciencific objection co crearion
and ID is mat science allows only nacurnl causes. For example, in 1999
Nature1nagazine published a letter fro1n Scott Todd,an inununologisrat
KansasSeate Universiry,,vho said, "even ifall thedata point roan intel-
ligent designer,such an hypothesis isexcluded fron1science because ic is
not naturaliscic."22 Noonestacedchis nacnrn.liscic presnmpcion ofscience
n1ore clearly man Haivard's Richard Le,vonrin when he wrote:

Ourwillingnesstoacceptscientificclain1sthat arcagainst common sense

is the key to understanding the real str uggle between science and the

20. S01nee,e1\LS, like ed ipses. recuronlyafterlongperiods of rime. butthey are predictable

and recurrableno ll t."lttcr the length of the int('fval.
21. Mi<'robiologisuh:t'\Cshown a 1nachematic-aUyiden6c-aJ lcna sequencieoahu1n.-tn la.il
gua.gc( knowntohave:l J\ inrdligciu <"ausc) to thatin DNA which is. therefor(', rightlyassumed
to have an intelligentcause. SeeH<.:rbertYoe:keyJournnlof 1heorrticaiRiology9 1 (1981).
22. Scott Todd. letter to r.hc c<lirot, N11m re40I/67S2(September30.1999):423.
 C reat io n and the Co urts

supernatural.\ Xfc take thesideofscience inspiteof the patent absurdity

of some of itsconstructs, ... becausetuehavea priorcomn1itn1e11r . . . f()
niate,ialisn,.Icis not that the methods andinstitutionsofscience some-
how compel ustoaccept a 1naterialisticexplanationof the phenomenal
world, but,on thecontrary, that we arcfan:ed kY ou,11 priori 11dhcrc11cc
to 1n11teri11L causes . . . . i\1oreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
c,11111or ,dlow II Divine Footin the doo1:2j

Ofcourse, chere isasense in,vhich chis nacuralisticcriterion ofscience

iscorrecc. Fore1npirical science, unlike origin science, isli1nired to on ly
narural causesbecause it deals,vich rheobservable and repeacable in che
presenc. However, neicher creacion nor1nacroevolurion isanen1pirical
science since both deal ,vich unobserved and unrepeated events of the
pasc. Hence, it is a serious 1nethodological1niscake to li1uit causes of
rhe past co nacural on es.24 Archaeology is a dear exan1ple of a science
about d1e past rhar posies an incelligent cause. Bue present events in
d1e natural world chat involve a regular paccern d1ac is observable and
repeacablealwayshave natural causes. Hence, chis objeccion chac "sci-
enceallows only narural causes" does nocapply co origin evencssuch as
boch creacionists and evolutionistsposit.
n1ereare1nany reasonsfor rejecting chisobjection. Firstofall, ic begs
die question in tavor of nacuraliscic evolucion by assiun ing chac every
event n1ust havea natural cause.Thisisprecisely,vhacisco be proven,and
it cannot beass1U11ed co betrue upfront.Second, ifby d1ecenn "science"
an intelligenr cause is excluded, rhen, as ,ve have seen, ic is contrary
co 1nany accepced disciplines of science. For arcl1aeology, crypcology,
con1puter science, and the SETI progra1n all allow incelligenc causes
as explanations. n1ird, if"science" is n1eanc co exclude a supernatural
23. Richard Lc wo 1\t in, "BiUionsand Billionsof Demo11s;'NewYorkRevitwtf Boo'S ( ja1\U
ar y9,1997).28 (empha,i, ad,kcl).
24. EveJl c\'eJ\tS observed ill the pres<."Jlt that:ire not regularma)' not be naturally c lused.
For the domai1\ of empiri c.al science is only the obi.ervable :ind 1t g u" 1r e\ents in the present.
A singular, unrepeate d eventc:,fthe present docsnot provide a pattern (be ing on l)'one event)
on which S<'i<.ncc can pl'Oject a law or make predictions. le must remain a 1"I ano1naly (no-law)
u1\ til either the naturalist can show it is part of a broade-r patten) or the :ruptrr)aturalist c".a1\ p
rovide cvid<.":ntc it h :u a :-upe .rnatural cau:ie. But it $imply begs the q uestion to assun1c e ither
ki.od of <ause without furtherevidc::nce.
Should Crc-.arion Be TaughtasScience in PuhHcSchools? 2.57
cause, rhen it is contrary co history,logic, and che scientific evidence.
For co exclude supernatural causarion is at best circular reasoning and
ac,vorsc incelleccual dog,nacis,n.
(I) Ir is contrary co the history ofscience,since chis isexacrly what
mosr of the founders of niodern science did, narn ely,they held chat a
creato r of rhe universe and first life was a reasonable inference fro,n
die scientific evidence. TI1is includes ,nen like Galileo (asrronorny),
Newton (physics), Andreas Vesalius (anatoniy), \X'illian1 Harvey
(physiology), Francesco Redi (1nicrobiology),John Ray (botany),
Ancon van Leeu\venhoek (n1icrobiology), Robert Hooke (1nicro-
biology), Carolus Linnaeus (sysceruacics), Lazzaro Spallanzani (re-
productive biology), Caspar Friedrich \XfolJf(en1bryology), Georges
Cuvier (paleo ncology), Karl Ernsc von Baer (en1bryology), Richard
Owen (coruparacive biology), Louis Agassiz (zoology), and Gregor
Mendel (genetics).
(2) le is contrary co sound logic, for rhere are only cwo basic kinds
ofexplanarion, narural orsupernatura,al ndeliininaringany reasonable
possibiliry is unscienrilic by ics very narure since scienrisrs should be
open co ,vhacever explanation rheevidence suggests.
(3) le is also contrary co theevidence of n1oden1 astrophysics,,vhich
ainrn1s {in rhe Big Bang theory) rhac rhe universe had a beginning.
'D1is is based on r.n ulciplelines ofevidence, sucli as rhe Second La,v of
'I11ern1odynan1ics,an expandinguniverse, the radiation echoof rhesan1e
,vavelengrh of chat expected frou1 a gigantic explosion, and Einstein's
general theory of relativity. All of rhese evidences point co a beginning
of the enrire material space-ci1neuniverse at a definite 1no1nenc in the
past. If d1is is so, then die universe n1usc have had a supernautral cause
(since it was beyond the natural universe). n1e reasoningbehind mis
conclusion is fundarne nral logic: (a) Every event has a cause. (b) n, e
wholephysical universe had a beginning.(c) n1erefore,die whole phys-
ical universehad a cause. And di iscause cai1not bea natural cause,since
it is diecauseof diewhole natural world andhence is beyond die natural
and is therefore by definition supernatural. As agnosric asrrononier
RobertJastrow pur it:
 Creation and the Courts

Astronomers now find they havepainted themeslvesintoacorner because

they have proven, by their own methods,that the world beganabruptly
in 1111 actofcreation to which you c-an trace tl1eseeds of every star, every
planet, every living thiog in this cosmos and on the earth. And they
have found that all this happened as II produt:t offarces they cannothope
tod cove,:"

Indeed,Jasuo,v, venron cosay,"char chere are,vhar I or anyone wouldcall

supemarural forces at,vork is no,v, I chink, ascientifically proven facc."26
ro rule out a supernacural cause of the universe is concrary to whar
Jascro,v called "a scienrificallyproven face." Even granring forson1e hy-
perbole in Jastro,v's scace1nenc,,vhy should the courts refuse co allo,v
this kind ofevidence to be presenced in public school science classes?
1he evidence for che supernacural origin of che narural ,vorld is scrong
enough and theinference fro111ic reasonable enough rhac it clearlyquali-
fiesas the kind ofevidence for creation that should beallowedin public
school.sRe111en1ber, "science"asapplied roorigin evencswasdefined by
ArkansasAcr 590as"thescientific evidences for creation and inferences
fron1 chose scientific evidences" (Section 4 [al).

"To POSIT A CAUSE BEYOND THE NATURAL WORLD

ls NOT SCIENCE BUT PHILOSOPHY"
Scill,somescienciscson bothsidesofchisdebate insist rhaconce one infers
acause bevond the naturalworld, he hasleft the reahnofscienceand entered
'
into the real1n ofphUosophy. In response, we note sever-al things.
First, he certainly has lefi: the real1n of en1pirical science, but as we
haveshown, neithercreation nor1nacroevolution is anobject ofe,npiri-
cal science. Ife1npirical science alone qualifies asscience, d1en neither
is,nacroevolutionscience.
Second, it is not tu1scientific to ask the causal question wherever it
n1ay lead, aslongasit isabout what caused thephysical world and phys-
ical life. 1he principle of <..-ausality has been at rhe basis ofscience fi:on1
die very beginning . Francis Bacon, olten called me facher of n1odern
2 5. Robert Jast row."A Scientist Caught Between Two Fai ths; interview b)' Bill Durbin, in
Cl1riJitn11i1y1od"J ( August 6, 1982), IS (emphasisadded ).
26. Ibid.
Shou ld Crc.atio n Be Taught as Science in Public Schools? 2.59
science, declared that true knowledge is"kno,vledge by causes."27 Pierre
Laplacespokeof"theevident principlethata thingca1u1otoccur without
a cause whicl1 produces it."28 Even d1egreat British skepcic David Hun1e
declared: "I n,e,er asserted so absurd a proposicion as chat a thingcould
arise1vithouc a cause."29So, there isnothing unscientificabout pursuing
d1ecausalquestion asfarasicwillgo.Indeed,asah-eady noted, chefound -
ers ofaln1ost every area of n1odern science felc chat posicinga creator of
d1e ,vorld involved nocontradicrion1vith meic respective discipline.
Furcher, nacuraHstic scienciscs do not hesitate co speak of a natu
ral cause of che whole universe.Hence, they cannot legicin1acely reject
crcacioniscs speaking of a non-nacuralcause of it, if this is where che
evidence po incs.
' fl1ird, if positing a supernacural cause of che universe goes beyond
che realin ofscience, d1en so does naturalisticevolucion when it insists
chere isno such supernatural cause, for mac coo is ascaceinenc chat goes
beyond rhe natural world. In shore, if die affin nation ofasupernatural
cause is noc science, dien che deni al of a supernatural cause is not sci-
ence. Ifone vie,v is philosophical, chen so is the od1er. And ifchis is d1e
case, naturalistic evolution 1vould have co be taken fron1 the science
class and put in the phi.losophy class. If this is che case, dien creacion-
iscs would happily acco111pany d1e evolurionists do,vn the hall co die
philosophy class. In thefinal analysis,irisa nioot question1vhed1er one
should call chis reasonable inference frotn theevidence "originscience"
or "philosophy." Eidier conclusion-diat rhere is a supernaturalcause,
or that rhere is no ne- isalegitiniate inference if one has dieevidence,
and 1veshould not be forbidden die right codraw legiciniate inferences
inscience class. Whatever one wishes co call ic-origin science or phi-
losophy-creation is not religion and should not be forbidden a place
in our public schools. Or, if ir is religion, then so is niacroevolurion
religion and, hence, ic roo should beeli1nniaced.
27. FrancisBacon, NM111.mOrg111111m ( NewYork:C.'olonial, 1 899 ), 12 1.
28 . Pierre Laplace, A Philosopbiml EiJlJl on l'rob11bil i1ie ,. cran!:. A. 1. Dale (New Yock:
Springa-Vcrbg, 199S ), 4.
29 . David Hulhc,1he I..t!tl eri.of D,wid Hume, 2 vols.,I.J. Y. T. Greig(New York:Garland,
1983), 1:1&7.
260 Creation and the CourtS

" C REAT I O N HAS UNACCEPTABLE T H EO LO G I CA L

AND MORAL IMPLICATIONS"
Few evolut.ioniscs do n1ore chan hinc ac chis objeccion, buc ic n1ay
be the botco1n line in the opposition against teachingcreation in the
publicschools.1he faceis d1ac serious rheological and echical in1plica-
rions have been drawn fron1 bod1vie,vs, however relucranc each side
is ,villing co adn1ir it. As I said forrhrighrly in n1y "Scopes II" rrial
cescin1ony (see chapcer 4), "creacion in1plies a creacor." To which rhe
evolutionist judge replied in his ruling d1at "die concept ofa Creacor
is an inherently religious concept ."30 \Vhile chis is not true, it is true
chac che concepc of a Creacor is con1pacible wirh cercain religions,
and religious in1plicacions can beand have be.endrawn fro1n it.Sonie
evolutionists have been frank coadn1ic chis. To repeat theabove quote
fron1 Harvard arheisr Lewonrin, "\Ve cannoc alJow a Divine Foot in
che door." Why not? Because ifir is a supernatural God who created
the ,vorld and all that is in it, rhen n1ost people recognize chis has
born religious and ethical in1plicacions.1his is why agnostic Robert
Jastro,v spoke of che strange reaction of scientists co me Big Bang
evidence chat points co a supernatural cause of che universe. "1here
is a kind of religion in science. . . . ni is religious faith of the sciencisc
is violated by the discovery chat the world had a beginning under
condicions in which me known laws of physics are noc valid, and as
a produce of forces orcircu1nscances,ve cannot discover. \1Vhen chat
happens, rhesciencisc has losrconcroJ."31' lh issanie reacrion is n1anifesc
in me illogical reaccion ofomerwise rational scienrific1ninds,vhen it
conies co questions of origin.J. \V/. N. Sullivan noces d1ac "it beca1ne
an acceptable doccrine thac lite never arises excepc fro1n life. So far
as che act ual evidencegoesm , is is scill che only possible conclusion .
. . . Bue since chis is a conclusion that see1ns co lead back co son1e su-
pernarural creative ace, it is a conclusion chat scienrific1.nen find very
difficult co accept."32
30.,/11 u an v. Ark ,m sasl!omd ofEducation, 529F.Supp. 1255 (E.D.Ark. 1982).
31. Rober, Jastrow, God 11ntltht! / /;1ro11om n .' {New York: No rton,1978 ), J I3 114.
32. J.\ Y/.N.Sulliva1l, '/Ju Limi111tiOJJJ of Scitncc(New York:New A,neri<:anLibrary,1956),
9 4.
Should Creation Be TaughtasScience in PublicSchools?

So,neatheistsacknowledge the theological i1n pl icationsof rheirview.

Daniel Dennecc calls Danvinisn1a "w1iverseacid" chat "eats chrough
just about every traditionalconcept"-especiallyd1oseofGod. Richard
Dawkins said " Danvin1nade it possible co be an intellectuallyfulfilled
atheist." \Villia1n Provine ca.Us Danvinisn1"thegreatest engine ofarhe-
is,n ever invented" because it sho,vs "nogods worth having exist." Ste-
phen Gould declared char"(evolutionary) Biology cook away our status
as paragons created in rhe i1nage of God." Danvinian paleontologist
George Gaylord Sin1pson ,vrore :"Man isrhe result ofa purposelessand
natural process rhac did nor have hin1 in n1ind. He was nor planned."
Jacques Monod said d1at because "die 1nech anismof Danvinismis at
lase sectuely fowided. . . . Man has ro understand diar he is a niere ac-
cident."" Clearly, before Dar,vin n1ost nien ofscience believed inGod.
Indeed, as noted above, the pioneersof al1nosr ever)' area of 1nodern
sciencebelieved in God.
Moral iniplicacionshave also been drawn fro,n borh creation and
evolution, and neither sidesee,ns willingco befrank about dieiropposi-
tjon co the odier based on d1is for fea r d1ac it ,vould htu-c d1eir cause to
adn1icit. If there is a God who created life and is in control ofic, d1en
rhe inference ,nay bedrawn fro,n this chat ,ve havea n1oral duty t.Ohin1
and co dielife hecreated.Our foundingfathersn1adesuch aconnection.
The Declaration oj1ndependencespeaks of"Nacure's God" and"Nature's
La,vs" char provide "unalienable rights; and d1ar ainong these are che
right to life .. ."Ja1nes Madison, d1efather of theConsticucion, declared
rhac "Before any nian can be considered as a1nen1ber of Civil Society,
he n1usc be considered as a subject of rhe Governor of rhe Universe."' 4
Bueofcourse rhese are n1oraliniplic.ationsdiac naruriliscicevolutio,usrs
are nor willingcodraw, nor willingrohaveotu-children dra,veirher-ac
lease froni anyth ingcaught in a science class in public schools.
Clearly Hider and odiers dre,v 1noral i1nplicarions fro,n evolution.
He spoke of rhe111oral " right" coeli111inaceinterior races of n1en based
33. All quotations in tl1is parngraph citc:d by\X1d ls, />olit it 11IIJ !ntorrt:CJGuith, 95, 137,
17 2.
34. James Madison. li1emort'td mu/ Rt!mbml rm1ce Ag11ins1 Re/jgiousAsuJsm e11ts,
Jw,e 20, 1 785, in Robert Rutland. ed., 7he A1pen efjames 1'1,,diHm (C hicago: U11lvcrsityof
Chicago I' . 1973), 8:299.
 C reation and the CourtS

on Darwinian evolution.,s A recent noteworthy work on Darwinisn1

and Hider by Richard \Veikarc scares it ,veil: "Danvinis,n by itself did
not produce the Holocaus,tbut ,vid1out Darwiniso1. . . neither Hider
nor his Nazi follo,vers ,vottld have had d1e necessary scientific under-
pilu1ings coconvince d1en1selvesand theircollaborators diaconeofdie
,vorld's greatest atrocities was really niorally praisev,ord1y."l6
\Vhac, dien, showd beour response co diis argwnenc against teach-
ingcreation in public school science dasses? Several observatio ns are
relevant ro thisobjection.
First, the object.ion applies equally,veil co tead 1ing naturalisticevo-
lution since ir roo is co1nparible wid1 nacuraliscic religions and n1any
havedrawn religiousand ediical iniplicarions fro1n it. Hence, ifcreation
showd be elin1inaced on rhisground, d1en so should evolution.
Second, neither scientificviewassuch isd1eological oreiliical.Teach-
ingwhat is co,npaciblewith a religion is nor thesa,neasr.eachingreligion.
Ifie,vere, rhen alinostevery ed1ical principleknown co mankind ,vould
thereby be religious and d1us out of bounds ro reach in our scl1ools.
Hence, diere is no reason co eliniinate a scriccly sciencilic presencacion
ofeidier vie,v.
"Third, die niere face rhat certain widesirable iniplicacions niay be
drawn fro,n either view is neither here nor there in tenns of che crurh
of me vie,v. Truili is rrurh ,vhatever me consequences are. If d1ere is
no scientific reason co conclude a creator exists, then so be it. Let the
evidence speakfor itself: On d1e ocher hand, if rhe evidence poinrs co
acreator, dien there is nolegiciniace reason coexclude it fro1n ascience
class. Scientists, of all people, shou ld go where die evidenceleads.
Fourth, as noted earlier, the concept ofa lirsc cause assudi is not re-
ligious. The Greeks did noc , vorship rheir first cause or wci,nace being.
However,callingonstudents co worshipor make an ulrimate commitment
cosucli acause is religious. AsTillich noted, oneand d1esa1ne object can
beapproached objectivelyasrhecesulcofa reasoned process orsubjecrively
asan object of ulci1nace con11nicn1enc.1he laccer has no placeinascience
class, but rhe fonner does- if die scientific evidence leads chere.
3S. Adolf I-Iitier, 1\.fei11K11m pf (New York, Reyna!& 1-litch oock, 1940), 16 I. I62.
36. Richard \'i'cikart,cited in \Xld Js. Poiltica'l, b,co,,tt:1Guitk.164.
Should Crc.ation He Taught asScience in PublicSchools?

Finally, even if it is obvious co students that this "first cause" is the

"God" normally associated ,vith religion, it 111akes no difference. For
creacjonisrs only propose that chis is one of nvo views that should be
presented- not che only one. And presenting boch oppo sing viewsin
no,vay isfavoringor establishing oneor theother.Ho,vever, presenting
only one vie, v with religious in1plications,wherherevolution orcreation,
is canrainounr r.oestablishing religion. And rhisisthedefactosituarion
we no,v have in public schools, ,vith evolution having a 1nonopoly on
che1nindsof our young people in science classes.

" T EAC H I NG C REAT I O N WOULD NECESSITATE

TEACHING OTHER PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC VIE\7\ S
AS \V ELL"
First of all, this begs rhe quesrion. Creacionisrs could say die san1e
about rn acroevolution. No debateis resolved by the fallacy of nan1e-
calling. Further,sorne evolutionists liken creation co che flat earth vie,v
and conclude chat allowing creation into science classes would also
den1and chat ocher oucn1oded and pseudosciencificviews Like flat earth
and alchen1y be allowed as well. However, diis is nocche case because
these vie,vs are d1e subjects of ernpirical science, ,vhere observability
and repeatability are die operating principles, and d1ere is no observ-
able and repeatable evidence co support these vie,vs. Hence, they fail
rhe cest as ernpirical science. Nor are diey unobserved and unrepeated
past pheno1nena like origin events in che physical universe?' Hence,
creationists cai1 agree diat such views have no proper place in a public
school science class except co be noced as nonscientific views chac are
nor supporred bye,npirical evidence,>8 whid, dernands observable and
repeatableevents.And there is nosudi evidence foralchorny or die flac
37. A forotheraJlegt d supe:mo.-malorsupematt1raJ e, c-11ts.their idtntifrtbJiitywouldhaV<: to
be,kterrhined o n ab'.l.sisother than natural L"tws,sincethe.yarenorr<"gularandrepeatable e,cnt.S.
Fora d iscussion of these ph("l)OO\Cll l a.i"ld how co dtcerminc their cause,:.sec my ivlimdesand
,I,,1\fod,r,11\1 i11d {G,and Rapid,, Mich.: Baker. 1992),espeeiallychapters4, S.9 and 11.
38. Of course,crnpirical ienc.:e assuch cannot denythepossibility of mental u$Csbeyond
thematerialworld. sincebyit$vcry nature <"tnpirical scie ,,ce is limit<"d to o b servableandrepeat
ablce\-CJ\t$.lvfakingsta rementsabout theimpos,1ibiliJt of s.uch<:vents is notscience burscie11tls,.n
It is in fuc.ta mctaph)sical position, notone thatsticksstrictly to theobservableandrepeatable
world (s<:e ibid.chapetrs I. 2. aod 3).'JO deoy th u mindexistsapa.rt from n\:lncr iovokes the
 Creation and the Court$

earth view. In rhissense rhey are properly caUed pseudoscience.Nocso,

ho,vever, ,virh 1nacroevolucion or creation science, ,vhichare properly
scientific in rhe forensic sense, as shown above.

"A L L0 \ 1 I NG CREATION NECESSITATES ALLOWING

OTHER VIE\o/S OF ORIGINS"
According to chis objection, once the Judeo-Christianview of cre-
arion isallo,ved, then publicschools ,vould also have co n1ake roou1 for
Buddhist, Hindu, Muslin1, and nun1erous ocher religions'vie,vsoforigin
as well. However, d1is is clearly nor the case, for nvo basic reasons.
First, che publicschoolsshould not allo,v any religious view as such
into rhescience classroon1. n1ere areod1er classes, such ashistory,soci-
ology, con1paracive religion, and literature, ,vhereone can legicin1ately
ceacl1 about religion wirl1out engaging in the teaching of religion (see
below). And die courts have ruled in favor of chis. Bue science classes
should stick co scientific evidences and reasonable inferences dra,vn
frorn rhar evidence.
Second, elsewhere I elabora.te on die point d1at rl1ere are only two
scientific viewson allche,najot pointsoforigin (seeappendix 6). Here,
I note briefly char, concerning che origin of rhe universe, eid1er d1ere
,vasa natural cause or rhere wasa supernatural cause.111ere are no orher
possibilities.Also, with reg-ards cocheorigin oflife,either it had anintel-
ligent cause or ir had a non-intelligent, natural cause."Thisexhausts rhe
logical possibilities. Likewise, concerning die origin of ne,v life torrns,
including humans,eirher it ,vas by natural causesor by intelligent inter-
vention. Eicher,vehaveacornn1on ancestor by nacuralcauses,or else,ve
have a cornrnon crearor (an intelligent cause) d1ac intervened.
Ofcourse, thereare r11anycornbinacionsofand subviews ,vid1in d1ese
categories3,9 but rhere are only two kinds of causes for each point of
reductionistic fulJaC)' ItenraiJs thC"se:lt dcf<..ati l'lg sr:.u<:mt1n o f amif1d a.bout allmatter th.at o l'lly
matetr e.xiscs. lf onlyrnattcrexists, there i.s rlo mind to make this stat<"Ji lent .
39 . For e xample, one may bd icve thereis a <."reator of the uniw..-.rse and e"en of first lifebut
also believe that the creatordesig11:cd muural laws to briogabout newlifeforms.'(his is ca.lied
theisticeYolutio1l . Sucha perSt)1l:holdstoa sup rnatural causeo rl thefirst andpt)ssiblysecond
poi1l t o f o riginand a natural cause of the third point. Still, there are only two kine.ls of <."aus es
fore.tch po intof origi1l.
Shou ld C rc.atio n Be Taughtas Science in Public Schools?

origin. So, it isproper to clain1that there are really only nvo basic vie,vs
on all points oforigin (eirher an intelligent or a natural cause; eirher a
natural or a supernatural cause).
Onecould alsosay chat an intelligent causeoflifeand/or newlifefonns
1nay be eicher ,vicl1in cl1e universe (as in pancheisn1 or panencl1eisn1,)or
beyond cl1e lUliverse (asin rheisn1). Bur srill, there areonly cwo basickinds
ofcauses for each point oforigin. Ifscienrific evidence likethe Big Bang
or che anchropic principle can be used co sho,v d1ar che posited inrel-
ligenr cause offirst life (or ne,v life fonns) is beyond rhe universe, d1en
dieevidence would favor rheisn1B . ur coexclude the useofsuchevidence
and reasonable inferences fron1 science class reveals a philosophical or
religious bias by naturalisticevolutionistswho fulsely clairn robe doing
"pure" science when in face they are violating the First A1nend111encby
establishing d1eir own religiouspoint ofview.Ir isneitherscientific, fuir,
nor consrirurional co allo,v only o ne view co be raughr.

A ResponsetotheReligio11s,Arg,unentsAgainst Teaching Crea tion

rwo federal court decisions, 1\1cLea.n (1982) and Edwards ( 1987),

ruled chat teachingcreation isaviolation of the First Amendment forbid-
dingtheescablislunentof religion. But diese areclearly flawed decisions
for n1any reasons (see chapters 3 and 5). Lee's consider the arg11u1encs
used co pronouncecreation a religiousvie,v and, rhus, coouda,v it fro1n
publicschool science classes.

"A FIRST CAUSE OR CREATOR Is INHERENTLY

A RELIGIOUS OBJECT"
n1ecourrs objected d1ac since creation ilnplies a crearor and since
rhe creator is die object of religion, d1en co reach creation is co reach
religi,on which violares rhe First A1nend1nent. Ho,vever, rhis does not
follo,v, forseveral reasons.
First of all, nor every first cause or creacor is necessarily an objecc
of religion. As I testified in rhe Arkansas McLean case (see chapter 4),
Aristocle's first cause or Unn1oved Mover,vas nocanobjectof religion;
ic was si1nply the resulc of a process of reasoning. He never worshiped
 C reat ion and the Co urts

his Unn1oved Mover. Lacer,Justice Antonin Scalia111ade chissaine point

in his dissent on the Edwards case (see chapter 6).n1esa1ne is true of
Plato'sCreator (Derniurgos); hefunctioned asa,vorld designer bur not
as the object of ultin1ace worth or conunirtnent. Beyond this Creator
,vas,vhac Platocalled dieGood (rhe Agatho)s,but even rheGood never
functioned as God in Plato's sysce1n. Ocher religions, such as Gnosci-
cis1n and n1any prelirer-ace religions, did noc worship che Creator ofche
universe eirher, even rhough rneyacknowledged diere,vasone. So, the
concept of a first cause or Creator need not bea religious one.
Second, one and che sa,ne Creator can be approached eirner in a
scientific, tletachetl way asrhefirst cause ofrhe universe, or asan object
of t1lci1naceco1nlllitme11t or worship4.0 Indeed, in dieTorca.wcase ( I96I),
che high COllrtaccepted PaulriUich's cescilnony chat religion involved a
conuninuenc co an ulci1nace.11iere is nothing religious about positing
a first cause of die ,vorld as an objective object of detached scienrific
or philosophical inquiry. A teacher would overstep his conscicucional
bounds only when heasks che scudencs co consider d1is cause an object
of ulcin1ace co1nmiunenc or worship.
n1ird, alniosc anything has been an object of religion ac so1ne tin1e
co son1e people. Son1e have worshiped rocks. For so1ne Ne,v Agers,
crystals have religioussignificance.Should we forbid scudencs co scudy
rocksor crystals ingeology class sin1ply because diey can have religious
n1eaning? Likewise, if the Court is right, rhen we niusc not present any
historical evidence for che existence of either Buddha or Ch rist in his-
tory classes. For both are rhe object of religious devorion to n1Wions,
and presenting misevidence1nighc have cheefl:eccofencouraging dieir
foUowers co further religious devotion co then1.
Fourm, our nation's founding legal docunienc, The Declaration of
Independence, speaks of a"Creator" and ofhu1nan beings as"created,"
andyet ourfoundingfad1ersneverconsidered declaring t.heDecl.aration
unconstitutionlajusc because d1e Firsr A1uend1nenc of die Consciru-
cion lacer fo rbade che official escab l ish,uencof religion". Indeed, as
40. Sc, Paul Ti llich.U/1im11te Om u 111{ Ne w Yo,k, Harper & Row. 1965), 7- 8, 12.
41. Furthermore, a$ Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed <-'>ut, the s iJn
pie:: belief that there is a God- which wa!> commoHto almost a.ll religio ns before rnodern
Shou ld Crc.arion Be Taught as Science in Public Schools?

Blackstone's Con1111entariessho,v, the belief in the "higherlaw" or "the

la,vsof nacureand of nature's God" is the basic cornerstone of law and
jurisprudence1:2lndeed,even if reference coa "Creacor" is religious, chis
does not rnean ic isexcluded by the First An1endn1ent. As longasit does
not "esrablish" religion by coercing srudenrs co believe it, rad1er man
rnerely exposing d1e1n co it along1vidi d1e opposing view (evolution),
d1en ir does noc favor one religion over anodier. \Xlhac is n1ore, as d1e
courcs have ruled, even religious pre1nises can be presenced, as long as
rhey have a secular purpose.
So, reference co a Crearor as die firsr cause of d1e universe or of life,
oreven as rhegiver of"nacure's laws,"does noc thereby establish religion.
le issilnply che resulr ofa reasoned process beginning wid1d1escienrific
evidence and follo,ving the principles of origin science: d1e principle
of causalicy and die principle of unifonnity. To forbid d1is is co forbid
sciencific inquiry in d1e proper forensic and origin sense of che cenn.
Finally, chere are nacuraliscic religions (like Hinduis1n, Taois1n, and
sorneforn1s ofBuddJ1is1n) and non-naturalistic (i.e., supernatural) reli-
gions. Nacuraliscicevolurion favors naturalistic religions. And creation
favors supernatural religions. Hence, d1ere are only two ways co avoid
favoring one sec of religions over another: (I) reach neidier evolutjon
nor creacion; (2) reach both . One thing is cercain: reaching only one
vie,v (e.g.,evolution) does nocavoid favoring onesec of religious views
over the opposing views. On the conrrary, it esrablishes chose views as
favored.

"CREATION FROM NOTHING ls AN INHERENTLY

RELIGI O US BELIEF"
' ll1eMcLean decision declared: " Indeed, creation of die ,vorld 'ouc
of norhing' isrhe u.lriu1are religious staten1enc because God is che only
accor."43 Bue chisdoes nor follow, for n1any reasons.
timcs-< loes not thcrcby vio latt" rhe First Amendment by csr.ablishing one religion over
o thers (sec chapt<t 6).
42. Sec \ViJliam Blacksco1'\<',C ornmenu,riestm theL111vsof Enghmd (Chicago: Uni.,er iry
of Chicaso Press,2002).
43. /vkl, 1111v. A rk 11m as& rdof Ed1wtrio11.S29F.Supp. I 2SS(E.D.Ark. 1982).
2.68 Creation and the Co urts

First, if che existence of a creator is a reasonable inference fron1 the

scientific evidence chat the universe had abeginning, then ho\V chisrea-
sonable inference froni thescientific evidence violates che First A1nend-
111ent isnorat allclear, unless,ofcourse, one begs thequescion byd ai1n-
ing char only natural causes are allo,ved in science. All proponents of
creation ,vish co do is co draw rhe natural inference fron1 the scientific
evidence that Big Bang astrophysics has provided (see above), naniely,
that if the ,vhole natural universe carne into existence fro1n nothing,
then it is reasonable to posit a supernaturalcause for it. To forbid this
reasonable inference is to insist on die absurd conclusion char "norh-
ingcaused sonieching." But no legal or reasonableprinciple den1ands
char ,ve be driven ro absurdity in order co preserve conscirucionality.
For this reasoning violates the very principle of causality on whim sci-
ence was founded. le is niore scientific co co nclude chat a supernatural
cause beyond che world brought die world intoexistencefro1n nod1ing.
O rherwise, we are reduced co dieabsurdicyofdenying rhe principle of
causalit y and agreeing with the British atheist Anthony Kenny, ,vho
said, ''A proponent of[rhe Big Bang] dieory, at least ifhe isan adieist,
n1ust believe diat rhe ,natter of rhe universe came frorn nothingand by
norhing.''44 Further, since adieists are no,v affirniing rhe origin of rhe
universe fro1n nodiing, rhen by chissa1ne reasoningatheis1n should be
pronounced essenrially religious!
Second, die Arkansas judge deliberately used die 1nore loaded tenu
"God," whid1 rhe law at issue did nor use and ,vhich tenn does have
religious connotations ro niany people. The cestiniony was o nly d1ac
"creation"i1npliesa"creator," asdesign irnpliesa designer (seechaprer 4).
In fact,1nanycreationists and particularly ID proponents prefer tenns
like "first cause or "ulciinacecause," ,vhich areeven niore neutral.
1 hird, even rhe ter111 "God need nor be interpreted in a religious
sense. 1he Declarationof Independenceuses the tenn "God;'and,aswe
have noted, our "national birdi certificate" has never officially been
declared by die courrs co be unconscicurional! Nor have die n1encions
ofGod in the national anthen1,onour coins, or on die front wall of rite
44. Anthony Kenny. Five Hwy, (New York: SdlOcken. 1969). 66.
Shou ld Crc.ation BeTaughtas Science in Public Schools?

House ofRepresenratives. As shown above, rhe sa,ne object (God) can

beapproached inanobjective way asthe ulciniacecauseof theworld and
life without callingon thestudents co1nake a religious co1nniinuenc co
or co ,vorship rhisfirst cause.
Fourch, even[(rhe use of the renn"God" or"Creator" is considered
religious, it does nor n1ean chat public school teachers cannot refer co
itasoneofnvo possible theories oforigins, which sonie people believe.
Forallo,vinga view oforigins, religious or not,which isonl yoneof nvo
possible views on the subjec,tto be taught along,vith itsonly alterna-
tive, does not thereby prefer (or establish) chat vie,v over the ocher. On
the contrary, not to allo,v both possiblevie,vs robe taught is to prefer
oneover the ocher.
Fifth, even if referring ro a creator is held co be religiou,sit does not
necessarily niean irisaviolation of rhe EstablislunenrClause.One n1usr
clai1n rhac it is rhe rrue vie,v in order ro violate che First A1nendn1enr.
For only che teachingofreligion is a violation of rhe First A1nend1nen, c
not1nerely teachingabvut religion ( see Ab i ngtvn, I963). Onecan teacl1
about the theory char there isacreator of the,vorld and oflite., without
engaging in die reaching of religion, for it would not be reaching rhat
one view is die trurh on the n1atter bur siinply offering rhe reaching of
nvo views abour origins. Furdier, asnoced above, ic is a nvisced logic ro
claini chat even the teaching ofone religious view along with the only
ocher view conscicures preferringone view over the ocher.

"CREATION COMES FROM A RELIGIOUS SOURCE

(THE BIBLE) "
1lieessence of diisargwnenc, given by diejudge in die1\1cl ean case,
is rhac if die source of a dieory is religious, rhen che theory is religious
and cannor be allo,ved in publicschool.sHo,veve,rthis logic does nor
follo,v, for a n111nber of reasons.
First, evolution is also tow1d in religious books. Indeed, as we have
seen, ir is part of che "religion" of hu1nanisn14. 5 Does rhac thereby dis
4S.Julian Huxley cal.led it the religionof Evolutionary Hurn.;nism"in his book, Rd.igkm
Vitl,out & ud11tio ,i (New York: I-larp<r. 1957). 203ff.
 Creation and the Courts

qualify evolurion fron1 being raughc asascientific view in public schoo ls?
Certainly not.
Second, the Bible has been the source char pro1npred nun1erous ar-
chaeological findings in che Holy Land, buc chat does not n1ake chese
findings unscienrific or religiousand thereby disqualify the1n as being
parr of the science of archaeology.
'Third, n1any scientific and philosophical pursuits had a religious
source. Socrates wasinspired in his philosophical pursuits by the pagan
OracleofDelphi. n1efounder of1nodernrarionalistic philosophy, Rene
Descarces, began his philosophical pursuits ,vhen inspired by so1ne
dreains.46\"{re would also have co reject Keku.le's 1nodel of rhe benzene
n1olecule, since he got it fron1 a vision of a snake biring irs cail!41 And
\Ve n1usr also consider the alternating current n1otor unscientific be-
cause Nikola Tesla received the idea for ir in a vision ,vhile reading a
pantheistic poet.48Should all these scientific and philosophical views
be rejected n1erely because their source was religious? Indeed, Herberr.
Spencer, ,vhon1 Charles Danvin called "our great philosopher," ca1ne
up ,vith die idea of cosn1ic evolution while he was1neditaring on rhe
ripples in a pond one Sunday 1norning.
Finally, it is widely ackno,vledged char belief in asupernatural cause
played a vical role in che very origin of n1odern science.49Indeed, tor me
first two and a half cenruries of111odernscience (1620- 1860)n1ost of
che leadinglight.sin science believed the universe and lifegave evidence
ofasupernatural creator.0 ne need only recall nan1es like Bacon, Kepler,
Ne,vton, Boyle, Pascal, Mendel, Agassiz, Max,vell, and Kelvin- all of
,vhon1 believed in asupernatural cause ofche universe and life.This wide -
spread beliefofscientiscseven found its way into the very foundational
docu1nent of An1erican freedo1n-1he Declaration of Independence.
Indeed, iris widely ackno,vledged rhac che biblical doccrine ofcreation
played asignificanc role in dieorigin of n1odern science. Ina land1nark
46. . ja<'(JUCS Marit:i.in, 1be Dreamo.fDe.t1111es,trans. Mabelle L.A,-.dison ( London:Editio1\S
Poetry, 1946), 13- 27.
47. Ian Barbour, lstueJ in Sdt nte101d&tigion (NewYork: Harper& Row, 1966), I58.
48. John O' Neill, Prodig,il Genius: 1/,el [{, of Nikoal 1i!.<l11( NewYork,\X,\,shbum. 1944),
48-49.
49. Langdon Gilkey.1\1,ak rofHe11ve11 1111d&wth (Garden Ciry. N.Y., Anchor. 1965). 3S.
Shou ld Crc.atio n Be Taughtas Science in Public Schools?

an icle on chispoint in the presrigiousphilosophy journal Mind (1934),

M. B. Foscer sraced rhat the Chrisrian doctrine ofcreacion isthe source
ofn1odern science.50 le isstrange, indeed, co hear sd1olarsargue that che
foundation of science ,vas based on belief in a supernatural cause, but
science roday allo,vs only narural causes of origin events.

" T EAC H I N G C RE AT I O N IN SCHOOLS IS INSPI RED BY

RELIGIOUS MOTIVES"
n1e above discussion (chapters 1-5) sho,vs repeatedly char both
creation lav,sand the teadi ingof creation are inspiredby religious1no-
rivarion. On chis ground sud1 la,vs have been ruled unconsrirurional.
Bue che fallacy of thiscan be seen by what has already been said.
First, as just noted, n1any scientific vie,vs ,vere inspired by religious
n1ocives, including evolutionary beliefs che1nselve.sBut no evolu-
tionists would elin1inace these views just because they are religiously
n1ocivated.
Second, ch is confusespurpose and n1ocive. It has becon1e a given
in the courts char a law1nusc have a sectrlar p urpose.Bue even religion
icselfhas a secular purpose, asour foundingfachersbelieved. For religion
inspires good conduce, and good conduce111akes for good governn1enc
and good citizens. Hence, even if reaching creation were religious, it
could have a secular purpose.
' TI1ird,the sectrlar purposes for readiing borh views of origins have
been repeatedly seated by creationists (see chap ter 3). TI1ey include
enhancing student choice, encouraging critical chinking, providing a
balanced education, pron1oringscienci6cunderstanding,and pron1pcing
scientific discovery. lhese secular purposes, as Suprerne Court Justice
Antonin Scalia de111onstraced (see d1aprer 6), are sufficient co justify
the lawsproposed. So, ,vhen the Court goes beyond this and judges
cl1ese laws unconsrirurional because chose who proposed and/or vored
for cl1e n1were religiously n1ocivace,dthey go beyond me proper way
co judgea la,v.For n1osc lawsexist in pare because people fron1various
religious backgrounds were religiously 111orivaced to see the111enacced.
SO.SecM. B. Foster, l hc Christian Doc-rrinct'lfCrc-ation and the Rise of Modem Natural
Science;' ilfi11d 43 / 1 7 2 (1934), 448.
 C reation and the Co urts

Certainly all la,vs dealing with 1noral actions- which includes rnosc
la,vs- ,vere religiously,nocivated. But should we get rid of all those
Ja,vs-including chose against perjury, stealing, spouse abuse, child
abuse,pedoph ilia,and murder- just because they are the result, in part
or in,vhole, of religious1notivation? Oneand chesan1e law-including
crearion/evolurion laws- can be religiously motivated and st.ill have a
good secular, non-sectarian, purpose. And whar la,v pron1oces a non-
sectarian secular purpose better thanone that isopen,fair, andbalanced
ro bocl1 opposing points of vie\\1 ? And what la,v fies rhis description
better than creation laws such as those at issuein Jl.1cLean (1982) and
Edwards (1987)?
Finally, the saine courts that point to religiously 1nocivated la,vs as
unconstitutional so111ecin1esargue that religious n1ocivarion is a good
rhing. For exa1nple, rhe McC'ollun,decision (1948) praises the n1ocives
of Horace Mann, a prin1aryforefather ofcurrent secular publicsd1ool
educacion.1\1cCo/l,,m noted with pride that,"Horace Maru1wasa devout
Christian, and diedeep religious feelingsofJa1nes Nladison arestarnped
upon che Ren1onscrance.n1esecualr public school did noc in1plyindif-
ference to rhe basic role of religion in rhe life of the people, nor rejec-
tion of religious educar.ion as a 1neansof fostering ic."51 Apparently it
is ahighr for secularises and evolutionistsco be religiously 111ocivated,
buc not for crearionists.

"CREATION Is PART OF ]UDEO-CHRISTJAN

RELIGIONS"
111e courts arefond of noting the religious beliefsand alleged1nociv a-
rions of those who ,vane creation caughc in publicschools (see chapcet
3). n1is d1ey cons ideran evidenceof ics unconstitutionality.However,
d1is is an unsound conclusion bod1 logically and constiturionally.
First of all, if che courts pronounce a vie\\ religious sin1ply because
1

it is consistent widi son1e religions, then 111o st cosn1loogical and ethi-

cal beliefsever held by n1ankind, includingevolution, are religious and
thereby unconstitutional.For n1ost ofsuch beliefsand lawsinspired by
SI.McCoflumv.Bo,,rdo/ Ed,,c111io n,333 U.S. 203(1948).
Should Crc.ation Be Taught as Science in PublicSchools? 2.73
thern have been part ofso,ne religion. Surely we do not want co forbid
teaching school children char intolerance, rape, n1urder, and cruelty
are ,vrong sin1ply because n1any religions also prohibit these acriviries.
\Vhy, then, should one clain1 chat creation is religious sirnply because
son1e religions believe in it?reaching ,vhac is co111pacible ,vitl1 certain
religious belietsor n1ocivacions does not necessarily con stitute teaching
d1ac religion, lee alone establishing its priority over otlier religions.
Macroevolucion isconip atiblewich die beliefsof religioushu1naniscs
and odier nond1eiscs. But teachingthescientificevidence forbiological
n1acroevolution in origin science does not necessarilyconstitute teach-
ingrhe religion ofsecular hu111anisn1 or thelike. Like,vise, the1nere face
rhaccreationis1n isco1npatible with certain forrnsofChristian and non-
Christian religionsdoes not,neanthat co teach the scientific evidences
for creation in origin science is co read1any of diose religions.
\Vhac is 1nore, it is not che reference co an object chat sonic people
,vorship that n1akes son1eching religious but ,vherher ic is presented
as an object of 1uorship or ulti7nate con17nit7nent. \Ve do not forbid the
study of natural forces in science classes (such as rain, wind, and sun)
just because son1enative religions have , vorsh iped these fo rces. \ Xie
siniply insist diat these forces be studied in an objective way, without
accenipting coevoke a religiotLS respo nseor con1111iunenr co rhe,n fron1
the students. Indeed, as noted above, we don't forbid the cead1ing of
scientificevidence for n1acroevloucionsi,nply because son1e have n1ade
evolution inco a religion or religious objecc52 or because so,ne religions
hold evolucion as pareof their beliefs.
Nordo we forbid thesrudyof checosn10ssiniply becauseCarl Sagan
n1ade ic an object of ,vorship, saying, "O ur ancesto rs ,vorshiped the
Sun, and rhey were tar fron1 foolish. And yec rhe Sun is an ordinary,
even n1ediocrescar. If we n1usr worship a po,ver greacer d1an ou1selves,
does it not ,nake sense co revere the Sun and stars?"S3 He nce, as long
as acreacor isposiced as acausal explanarion for origins, and not asan
objeccof \vorship, thereshould be no religiousobjection co presencing
52. Henri Herg:ton, in Crellfive Evolu1io11, tr.U\$. Arthur Mitchell (New York: Mac1nillan,
l9 1 I), S.'lWevolution3$ a d.ivine Life R>rce within nature.
53.C.'f lSagru,. Cosmo.,( Ncw York: Random. 1980). 243.
274 C reation and the Co urts

creationistviews in publicschool science classes. Likewise, Buddha and

Christ can bestudiedfron1anobjectivehiscoricalvantagepoint without
presenting rhe1nasobjects for rdigious devotion. Indeed,as noted, the
courcs have never ruled thac srudies abouc religion or religious beings
are unconscicurional. Ir is the reaching of religion ,vhich is considered
illegal, not teaching about religion or religious objeccs (see Abington,
1963). Od1erwise,it would be illegal even ro study religiousarc, such
as that ofMicl1elangelo.
As,ve have nored, dieologian Paul Tillich was consulted by rl1eSu-
pren1e Courc in ics derenninacion of the n1eaning of religion in che
Torcaso case ( I96I). Tillich testified as to ho,v a creator (or what he
calledan"Ulcin1ace") n1aybeapproached ina nonreligious way. He noted
rhat studying che ultin1are fro1n adetache,dobjective pointofview is nor
religion; it isphilosophy.However, when weapproach chesan1eultin1ace
fron1 an involved, connnitted perspective, chis is religious. Building on
Tillich's discincciou, as,ve havealso noced, Langdon Gilkey (who cesci-
fied for evolution in the J.1'clean case) said rhac it is like two clinibe rs
scaling a niouncain fron1different sides.1hey are nor approaching c,vo
difrerent peaks. There is only one sununir. But d1ere is lnore rhan one
way diat rhis ulrirnatecan be approached.S4
In vie,v of thisdisrincrion, we would conclude d1ar if oneapproaches
a creator froni rhe objective, detached vantage point of scientific in-
ference, he has nor d1ereby caught religion. Bur chis is exactly what
crearionisrs pro pose should be done ,virh regard to positing a creator
as a possiblescientific explanation of origins. Bur die proper don1ain
for a creacor is origin science. 1ne idea of a cause or designer of rl1e
universeas such is religio uslyinnocuotis when presented as an expla-
nation of origins in origin science. 1his is even n1ore rl1e case ,vhen
creation n1ust be presented asonly oneof nvo possible,vays coexplain
diedaca. How can balanced teachingabout two possible explanations
in origin science be favoring or establishing only one? Indeed, it can
be argued d1ac allo\'1ing only evolution co be caughc is establishing a
religion of naturalistic evolucion. For evolucion isan essential pare of
54.SeeGilk,.y.i\ f1de,1 ef He11venand };,trd,.35.
Shou ld Crc.arion Be Taught as Science in PuhlkSchools? 275
rnany naturalistic (noncheistic ) religions,and by the courcs' disaUo, v-
ingany opposing view co be caught, they have rhereby established the
nacuraliscic, nontheisc religious vie,v.
AsJusriceScalia'sdissent in Ed1vards (1987)noted,adecision respect-
ing thesubject niauer co be caught in public schoolsdoes notviolace che
Escablishn1ent C lause"n1erely becausethe rn:u erial co be caught 'happens
co coincide or hannonize with the cenecs of sonie or all religions."5' 5
le is obviously ,vrong co reject a scientific rnodel n1erely because of
ics source - even if the source is religious in narure. Scientists are not
concerned about rhe source of a rnodel bur rather about its adequacy
in explaining che dara. As ,ve have asked befo re, has any scholar ever
rejecced Socrates' philosophy sirnply becausehisinspirationfor itca1ne
fi-on1aGreek prophetess? Or hasany inforrned ceacherever refused co
aJJo,v Descartes' rarionalis1n intoa public classroon1si1nply because his
inspiration c.une fi-0111three dreains on Novernber 10, 1619?S6Likewise,
no fair-1ninded person should reject dieidea ofspecial creation si.rnply
because it co1nes frorn a religiousso urce.

Summaryand Conclusion

There are C\VO 111ain argurnenrs leveled against allo,ving creacion-

iscs' vie,vs of origins ro be caughr in public school science classes. le is
argued d1at ( I) it is notscience, and (2) ic is religious. 'll1efirstof these
objections against teachingcreation isbased on a failure co distinguish
benveen operacion science and origin science.' Die forrner ise1npirical
science, bur rhelatter is rnore likea forensic science. Operation science
deals widi observed regularicies in diepresent. In diissenseof rhe word,
neicher special crearion nor1nacroevolucion is science. Origin science,
which includes boch special creation and 1nacroevolucion, deals \vich
unobserved singularities i.r1 die pasr. So while only natural (secondary)
causes are to be allowed in operacion science, a pri1nary supeniacural
cause is possiblein origin science.
SS. He cited H ,11, i.<v. 1\1,:R11e ( 1980) and Aft-Gow1111 v. /11,,ryl,md(196I).
S6. Maritain. Dre111n <>fDescmtes, 13 - 27 .
 Creation and the Courts

Second, to insist that r.o posit a prirnary cause ofcreation is religious

because char vie,v is co1nparible or congruent ,vich cercain religious
beliefsabour thesupernatural (such asarefound in cradirional Judaisn1,
Islan1, and Christianity), is no rnor e fair than clairning rn acroevolu-
tion is religious because it is conipatible or co ngruent. ,virh certain
naturalistic cause religions (such asH induisrn, Buddhisrn , and secular
hu1nanisu1). If ,ve insist chat rhe idea of creation should be rejected
because it cornes frorn a religioussource (e.g., che Bible) ,ve rn usr, for
consisrency'ssake,also reject theidea for rhe benzene rnolecule rno del
or chealrernatingcurrenr rnotor because cl1ey coocan1e frorn a religious
source. Ifa priniary cause of theorigin oflife ispresented sirn plyasone
possible (or plausible) explanation of die originof living mings, then
ir has no n1ore religious significance man ,vould presenting natural
forces or even "evolution," ro ,vhich sorne people have given religious
significance.

A Sumn1aryof Reasons Wh y the Teaching of Creation

Should Be Allowed in Public Schools
Mose of rhese reasonshave been scared or irnplied incl1eabove discus-
sion.n1ey will be spelled our here for sinipliciry and clarity.
(1) Creation as defined in rhe McLean (1982),57 Edward, (1987),
and Dover (2005) court cases is properly science in both a historical
and contern po rary sense. le was defined in McLean as "the scientific
evidences for creation and inferences froni mose scientific evidences."
Boch che founders of rnodernscience andconcen1porary scienciscs engage
in science, particularly forensic-typesciences, in missarne ruanner.
(2) Scienceingeneral hasbeen and shouldalways beopen co1ninoriry
vie,vs. In fact, if science had not been open to tninoricy vie,vs auiong
scientists, men evolution would never havegained its present predorn i-
nance, sinceevolution wasoncea1ninorityview. Indeed,1ninoriry views
57. For an c:<ce lle ,u c ritique of che de,rn"lrC'ati o n arguments used in 1Wd.L1111, see David
Dc\Xol lf c t al....T('3ching the C<>nt roversy: Is It Sc:ic:-nce, Religio,n -OrSpeech?'''in D11rtvhiism,
DeJig,n ,11ul PublicEduc,uion, ed. John Angus Campbdland Stephen C. Meyer (Lansing:
Michis>n State Universicy Pres,, 2003), 59- 132.
Should Crc...-ition lle TaughtasScicm:c in PublicSchools? ?.77
are ,vhac ,nake progress in science possible, since all ne,v views are in
the1ninority ,vhen they are first presented.
(3) Forbiddingschools co reach diecreation viewpoint, which isheld
by as1nany as 90 percent of A,nericans,18clearly an1ounrs co a denial
of rhe First A1nend 1ne nr right co freedon1 of speech ro a n1ajoricy of
our citizens. Indeed, in rhe ,vords of our founding fathers, "Taxarion
wirhouc representation is tyranny."
{4) Even an ACLUattorney ar die 1925Scopes trial clai1ned d1ac bod1
viewsshould becaught.Hereare his words fron1die trial transcript: "For
God'ssakeleethechildren have their tnindskepcopen-dose nodoors to
their knowledge; shur nodoorfron1d1en1.Makediediscinccion beC\veen
rheology and science. Let thern have both. Let them bothbetaught.5"9
' 01israisesan in1porcant question: IfdieACLUwanted borh evolucion
andcreation cobecaughtat"ScopesIin 1925,vhen onlycreation wasbeing
taught, then why in I981 ac"Scopes II,"aca citne when onlyevolution was
beingraughr, did rheACLU argued1aconlythatoneviewshould becaught?
!fir was"bigotry"{a word the ACLU used repeatedly ofcreationists ac rhe
Scopes nial) in 1925,vhen only creation ,vas being caught, why,vas it noc
bigotry in 1981 (and coday) when onlyevolution is being caught?
(5)John Scopes, rhe reacher found guilt yofceadiingevolucion con-
trary co the lawsof Tennessee in 1925,declared:"Ifyou li,nit a reacher
co only one side of anything, die whole country ,vill eventually have
58. Multiple surveys and polls rt veal that around 8; - 90 percent of Americans bdievc
in $0fne forrn of cre ation. SeeJerry Bergman, l'eaching Creation -and Evolution in Public
Sd, oo ls"(www.1auwersingencsis.org/docs/ 4 t7S). Also. some 70 pel'C<"l\t o f anoroe)"Sbdie"e
that bod, viewsshouldbe rnught in schools. \'(tells, Paliitcnol/ lnco,nc1Guide, 250.cite these
additional $Qurces:Mid,ad Foust, Gallup Poll L.ates:t to Show American$ Rtjt-.ctSt.-uclarEvolu
tion.' &tptist l't ss(October19, 200S). Availabk online (J une 2006) at http://" " w.bpoews.
net/bpnew$.aspHD:.:2 189 l. ,..Poll: C reationism Ti-wnp:1 Evolution; CBS News, November
22, 2004 . Available Online {June 2006) at htt pd / www.cbsncw.c,om/ storics/ 2004/ 1 1/ 22/
opiHioH/ polls/main657083.$hcmlO . otar io Consultants on Religious 'TOierance,"Religious
Identificationin the U.S.'' ( 200 I). Availableon line Uune 2006) uc http:// www.rdigioustoler
ance.org/ch r_prac2.htfn.
S9. Dudley Field Malonc,quotl in\X' illiamHilleo.ryand Oren \V . Mc!7.g.eds., l be Hf,r /ds
,\10.>1 Famow: Court Trial: Te,mes.ue Eva/utio11 Case (Cincinnat i: National Book Compa l\'),
1925), 187 . Ir matte rs not that the attorney ealle.:It"rcation "'t heolog y." \'(1ha.Ct\'cr the 11ame,
he nilJ wanc'.dt it taught ifi thepublic schoolsaJoogside evolutioJl.
 Creation and the Courts

only one d1oughc, beone ind ividual."60 But is chis not precisely what is
happening by rheexclusion ofcreation fro1nour classroo1ns today? Even
The Secular Hurnanist Declaration (1980) affinned chat "A pluralistic,
open, and de1nocratic society allo,vs all points of vie,v co be heard."61
\Vhy then cannot our children hear about creation in their classes?
(6) If,aseven n1any evolucionisrs adn1ir, iris possible diar creation is
true, d1en by excludingcreatjon are,ve nor diereby declaring, in effect,
d1ac we do noc ,vane our children co be exposed co ,vhat n1ay be true
and ,vhar rhe vasr n1ajority of their rax-payingparents believe is crue?
\Vith rheexception of so1ne vocalzealots for evolucion,62 n1oscserious-
n1inded scientists recognize char ir is ac lease possible chat creation n1ay
be true and evolution n1ay be false. If this is so, then any court decision
d1ar forbids reaching creation ,viii have the consequence oflegislacing
che impossibilityofceachingwhac adn1iccedJy1nay betrue. It is difficult
co believe d1ac fair-1ninded scientists are willing co say in eltecc: " Cre-
ation 1nay be rrue, bur ,ve,viii nor allo,v it co be taughr!" Certainly ,ve
should not,vane colegislaceo ucofchescience dassroon1 the possibility
ofdiscovering che cruch.
(7) Insistingchatonly natural causescount asasciencific explanation
(which narurnliscic evolurioniscs clain1)isakin code rnanding rhatscience
teacllers not allo,v any explanation other d1an physical erosion for the
faceson Nit. Rushn1ore. Or, forbidding the SETI progran1co proclain1
chacan incelljgible rne ssage frorn outer spacecan beanythingocher than
me result of natural la,vs. Or, d1ar the writing on a ne,vly discovered
ancient rnanusccipt n1usr beexplained by natural processes and cannot
beconsidered co be rhe produce of an incelligenc n1ind.
8) LegaJ!y, to insist char only natural causes can be discussed in
science classes dealing with origins is to unconscicucionally favor one
religious point of view- die onee1nbracing a naturalistic cause- over
ocher religions char favor a supernatural cause of origins. 111ar is co
say, by denying a hearing for supernatural causes (such asJudaisn1,
60.JohnScopes.quorcd;n I'. William Dav;e,andEldrn p.,,.,J So lomon.11e, H rld ofBiology
(KewYork, McGraw Hill, 1974), 414.
6 I. Paul Kurtt,. Tiu & tuhnN uma11is1D ,:IAm11i>11 ( Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1980 ). 12-.
62. See, e.g.. ls.acAsimov, Sd enu Dig,st (O cto ber 1981). 85.
Should Cr tion Uc Taughta:1oScie11c:c in PublicSchools? 1.79
Christianity, and Islan1 hold), the courts have favored (and thereby
established che cenecs of) noncheiscic religions such as Hinduisrn,
Buddhisrn, and secular hurn anisrn . By disaUo,ving creation, che courts
haveestablishedantiJudeo-Ch riscianbeliefs. Forexan1ple, aswe have
seen, in 1933 secular huruanisrn declared itself a religion, and then,
several years lacer, theSupr:erne Court noted that secular hurn anisrn is
indeed a religion procecced by che First A1nendn1enc (Torcaso, 196 1).
Bue three of the essential beliefs of the religion of secular hu111anis1n
are: ( I) there is no creator, (2) rhere ,vas no creation, and (3) there
are no supernaturally caused evencs.63 111erefo re, co insist chat only
these pointsof vie,vcan be caught in scliools is co "establish" (char is,
co prefer) chese essential tenets of the religion of secular hu1nanis1n
in the public scliools.
9)1l1e founder of die evolurionary revolution in rno dern science
called evolution onlya"d1eory" alongside che"rheory of crearion."64 Bue
t.o allow only one vie,v co be caught is co treat it likea face, not rne rely
as just one theory. Indeed, in his "lncroduccion" co his fiunous On the
Origin of Species Danvin ,vrote ,vords ,vorth pondering:

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this vol-
ume on which facts cannot be adduced, ofi:en apparently leading to
conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair
result can beobtained only byfullystating and balancing thefactsand
arguments on bothsidesof each que.stion; and thiscannot possibly be
here done.61

n1is is preciselywhar crearioniscs have expressed in d1eir anen1pr co

have creation or incelligenc design presented in our public scliool sci-
ence classroorus!
Insun1n1ation, d1e naturalistic argnrne ntsag-JinscaUo,vingcreacion isc
views in science classes are baseless.' n1eyare in face rooted in a n1ec-a
63. PaulKurt:1'.,flum,mist Afm1iftJt J I,m d /l (Bu(falo,N.Y.:Prometheus,1973 ), 8.
64. Charles Darwi1l . 1h e Desa111of Man. il'1 On 1/,e O ,'igin o/SptdtJ ,mdthe Desttmt
ef
J\,!,t,n \ol. 49 of Gn-ac Rooks of the \Vcncrn World (Chicago: U1li\'ersil)' of Chicago Press,
19 52), chapter IS.
65. lbi<l , 6.
2-80 Creation and the Co urts

ph)'Sically and/or rn e chodologicallynaruralisric assurn p rion. n1us,they

beg the question in favor of nacuralisricexplanations and nan1raliscic
religions. As such, chey are opposed co die history of science and the
nature of science as an open inquiry, rhey fail co distinguishernpiri cal
and forensic science, and d1ey arecontraryco scrongsciencific evidence
ro the conuary.111erefore, there is no basis in die history or narure of
n1odern science co rule ouccreacioniscor inceUigencdesign explanations
oforigins.
 9
Lessons to Be Learned

careful reading of che foregoingchapters on die creation/

evolution conrroversy yields1nany helpful lessons for che
furure. 'l11e battle is nor yer over in me courrs, and mere
is still a chance chat we n1ay \Vin a hearing for cead1ing creation or in-
telligent design in public sdlool science classes. However, che deck is
scacked against us, and ,ve 1nusc lea.rn fro1n past n1iscakes. f urther, ,ve
n1usr profir fron1 a crucial previously unpublishedbit of history fron1
theargwnenrs rhar ,vere presented inche (1982)McLeancase bur \Vere
suppressed fro1n r.he vie,vof the Supre1ne C o urr for over five years (see
d1apters3 and 4).

'Ibe Constitutional Issues

Several legal issuescontinue to plague the creationists'cause. n1ese

n1usr beoverco,ne before wecan bevictorious in thecourtsand reopen
our schools co aeationisr views in science.
28, Creation and the Co urts

Tl,e C.:onfttsion ofMotives antiPurposes

Unfortunately the courts confuse religious niocives and religious

purposes.n111s,when chey detect that son1eproponentsofcreation have
religious n1otives for \Vancingic co becaught, d1ey assu1ne (, Tongly) rhac
dielaw allowingcreation wouldaniounc coanesrablislunencof religion.
1J1ey overlook die face diac sonierning can be religiously 111otivaced, as
niost good lawsare, and srill have a secular purpose. Antonin Scalia
n1ade chis point in his incisive dissent on the Ten Con11nandn1ents
McC,eary (2005) ruling.
le has been con1nion since the Lemon case (1971) for rhe courts
ro use char case's d1ree-fold resr for ,vhed1er a la,v violaresche Firsr
A1nendn1enc EscablishrnencClause: (1) Doesit haveasecular purpose?
(2) Isirs prin1aryeftecccoadvance or inl1ibic religion? (3) Doesir foscer
excessive encangle1nent between governnienr and religion? Bur Scalia
points out in his McCreary dissent that these tests "have been rn anipu-
laced co fie ,vhacever resulc die Court ain1ed co achieve" (Section 2).'
\Vhile all diree cesrs have been 111isapplied, che co rn b ining of die first
rwo cescs inco die nocion ofa "predoniinare"secular ptupose has been
particularly troubleson1e becausecheCourt06:en rnoves frorn theseated
pwpose ofche legislators cotheir alleged religiousn1orivacoin. O rdinar-
ily, stated purpose should be sufficien t, absent corn pelling evidence co
theconrrnry( seeEdwa,ds, l987). Insodoing, the Court wanders frorn
scared purpose ro unstated rnorives, n1aking religious rnocivesa ne,v and
unjuscified cesc for consricucionaliry. Bur altnosc any la,v pro1noced by
adevout person will have religious nioti\dtion,sincehe willsee it as an
accenipt co bring honor co God and good co his fellow hwnan beings.
Religious motives, no ,nore than a religious source (see chapcer 7), do
nocdisqualify a good la,v,otherwise,ve,vould have nolawsagains.tper-
jury, srealing, child abuse, rape, or 1ntirder- allof ,vhich la,vs religious
people,vere 1nocivared co enact. Indeed, in the McColl.urn (1948) case
the Courr praised die religious niotives ofJan1es Madison, the farlier
of theConstitution, and Horace Mann, thefadier ofsecular education,
both of ,vhich helped pro n1ote courr-accepredsecular results. \Vhy,
I. 1\1,Cr, nry Cm m ry11.1 /n,, ric. 11Civi l L ibertie, U11io11 of Ke11tt1d1y. 545 U.S.( 2005 ).
Lessons to.BeLearned

then,should religiousrnot ivationby creationistsvoid chegood secular

purposes they have in bringingabout a better, nrore balanced, n1ore
educationally beneficial scienrific kno,vledge of 011r ,vorld?

Tbe Ne11tr ality Test

So1ne jllfisrs insist chat chestateshould be"neucral" when itco1nes co

religion. This test has its roots in Epperson (1968), which insisted that
"goverrunenr . . . n11rsc be neutral in rnarrers of religious cl1eory, doctrine
and practice. le 1nay nor be hostile to any religion or co rhe advocacy
of nonreligion; and ic n1ay noc aid, fosrer, or pro1noce one religion or
religious d1eoryagainst anorher or even ag-dinsc die rnilicanc oppo site."2
Bur on rhisground onecan easily argue for balanced creatrnenr of both
evolution and creation. For to teach only one theory of origin (evolu-
tion) is to aid a view that is antirnetical to religion in that it favors a
co nt roversial naturalistic rnetaphysics and episten1ology. lo teaching
only a nacuraliscic view {evolution) , che state is not1nerely pro1noring
a vie,v cliac is contrary co die vie,vs of son1e religious people, but it is
pronioting a poinc of vie,v d1ar "occupies in die life of its possessor a
place parallel co thac filled by [rradirional belief in God]."3

TheMisinterpretationoftheFirst A,nend,nent

Another serious problem mat hinders che approvalof creation la,vs

by d1e courts is irs constant n1isreading of rhe First A1nendn1enr as
dern anding"separation of church and scare" (wh ich it does noc). 'This
was applied{or1nisapplied) by the Supren1eCourt in Eve1:ion {! 947)
co include me escablishing of religion by che srate.4
2.T,ppenonv.S1,11eof .4,ltaw,,,, 393 U.S.97 (1968).
3. U11ited SMte.<v. Sugei; 380 U.S. I63 (l96S).
4.1 heorigi1 \I intentof the FirstAmendment was to ke<:pthe federalgo,erMne, r('"Co n
grcss")fron1 establishing one rdigion for the<:ntlfe countryO . f co urse, this was much later
expande<Jin Evel'Son (l 947) by'Ila)'o f the J urteemh Ame11dm eJl t lO applyto alJ the States as
well. Evenso,d,isdoe s normean thatstate$ flllUt()ud:1wan') teachlngtharha rdigious origin,
mo tivation, or implication. (fitdidmean that, then tM ll)' gO()(l laws( including thO$eagain st
trim<.s} wouldalso have to be d imioac<.d
:.
 Creation and the Courts

Notwithstanding, the courtscontinue co1nisunderscand che prohi-

bition of the Constitution against "establishing religion" as1nea11ing
it n1ust 1nai11cain a total "separation of church and srace."1he McLean
ruling is a case in point, where Judge \Villiarn Overton said he would
rule in accordance with "rheseparation ofchurch and scaceguaranteed
under the First An1endn1enc.5"
AsrheMcCollurn case (1948) noted, there isno need roerect "a ,vall
ofseparation" bet\veen chwcl1andstate. Indeed, the First An1endrn e nt
was intended onlycoforbid governrn e ncpreference ofone religion over
another. And yet Evenon (1947) insistschat rhe,vall"rnuscbekept high
and irnp regnable." Furt her,it declares char we n1ust respect rhe"pr inciple
ofeternal separation benveen C hurcl1 and Scace.6"Nocon ly is chis not
rhelanguage ofdieConsricurion, it isan unconsrirurional readingof the
Conscicurion. lt is in fact anoverzealous scacen1enc ofsecularisr zealots
who wish co change rl1e1neaningof rhe Consti tution.
Ofcourse, nocallcases usechis"separation" phrase, preferringco hid e
behind cern1slike"enranglen1enc"irnbedded in d1eso-calledLenwn cesr.
However, d1eeffect isrhesa.in-e. n1eyforger d1at rhefounders' inrenr was
clearly not tocreate hostility coreligion, asdie very next"Free Exercise"
clause st.aces (see below).
There are nun1erous,vays we know rhac theoriginal incenc of rhe First
Arne ndrn e nr was not what rhecourts haveofi:en taken it to rn ea n. First
of all, five of ch e d1irceen colon ies chat. ratified rhe First A111endn1enc
had d1eiro,vn srace religions,and d1ese sracechurches were neverforced
bydie federal govenunent co disestablish.
Second, d1e U.S. Congress and three of die first four US. presidents
signed la,vs passed by C ongress co give n1oney co missionaries doing
evangelisn1 a1nong che Indians.
111ird, the phrase "separacion of church and scace" does not con1e
frorn a legal docurnent but froni a private letter of1hornas Jefferson.
S. Fro1n Judge O verton'sd osi1 g srarement, De<.c' mbtr17 . 198 t, recorded in Norm.'ln L.
Geisler with A. E Bn)ok c II and Mark J. Keo ugh, 71u Crl!11/or hi 1/u: (',1mr11oom: "Scopn II"
(Milford.,Mich.: Mon Media. 1982). I56.
6. For a schol3rly c:-ritique of separationi t viewssee Danid 1.. Dreisbach.Ybommjtjfn:011
:md tht:JV,a/Jo/ Sep,1mi1tm Bttwtt:11Cb un:b ,md SMU!( NewYork: New York University J>resl',
200 2).
Lcss:ons to.Be Learned

And even there it ,vas a reference r.o building a ,vall bec,veen rhe fed-
eral govern111enc and the stares' rights co ad1ninister their o,vn affairs,
including having cheir own scare churches, if d1ey so desired. Indeed,
Jefferson was noc even ac che Constitutional Convention (1787) d1ac
rarified che First Arne nd,nenc.He was in France ac che cin1e,as anibas-
sador ro rhac coun try.
Fourth, Congress has approved of die n1occo "in God we cruse" on
coins, in che national anche,n ("In God is our cruse ... "), and on the
front ,vall of che House ofRepresencatives.
Fifi-h, Congresshasgiven caxdeductions co religious groups,andhas
had prayer before ir.s sessions begin, as well as approving govenunenc
paidchaplainsfor che rnilicary. Like,vise, presidential oathsandThanks-
giving proclarnacions have been pronounced in God's na1ne. Indeed,
rederal courts begin ,virh che prayer "God bless rhe United Scares and
chis honorable Court"! So, there are rnunerous ways in \vhicl1 thegov-
enunenc has sho,vn d1ar no such "separation" ofGod and governinenr
\vas intended by rhe Firsc Ainenrunenr .
Sixrh, checourts have upheld niany laws rhat had religious n1ocivacion,
such as chose against polygan1yb,igarny, thefi:, and n1t1rder.

THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE FORBI DS TEACHING

ONLY ONE VI E\\7 OF ORIGINS
1l1e EscablislunencClause of theConsricurion haslongbeen used co
exclude cl1e reaching of crearion in public schools. Bur rhe cin1e is long
overdue co curn che conscirucional rabies. If one view of origins can be
excluded for this reason, rhen so can die ocher vie\v. Both sides agree
rhaccreacion and evolurion areopposingvie,v.sOd1envise, d1ere,vo1ild
be no reason tor evolucioniscs co oppose the teaching of creation. Bue
if reaching only creation is"esrablishing" one vie,v, then so is teaching
onlyevolution.
For several reasons, it will not do forevolutionistsco argue cl1ac cre -
ation is a religious view and evolution is nor.. First, logically rhey are
both opposing vie\vson thesan1e issuesconcerning origins (see appen-
dix 6). Hence, wharever one is, so is d1e ocher. So, rhey are either bod1
religiousorelse cl1eyare both not religious. Nor wiU it suffice co clain1
286 Creation and the Co urts

that one has an object of religious devotion (a creator) but the ocher
does not. For sotue evolutionists have deified che evolution process.
\Ve have seen this to be che case,vith Alfred \Vallace, ,vho along with
Darwin pioneeredthe theory of naturalselection. \Ve have seen it tobe
uue of Henri Bergson in his Creative Evolution, ofJulian H uxley, ,vho
in Religion Withottt Revelation spoke of "the religion of evolutionary
hunianisn1," and even ofDanvin hitnself, who referred to "n1y deity
'Natural Selecrion.'"7
Further, rheSupre,ne Courr (in Torcaso,1961) accepted Paul"f illich's
definition of religion as an ultiniate con11nitnient, according co which
even arheisrscan be religious.Likewise, onedoes nor need co believe ina
creator inorder co niake religiousco nuu irniencscoor starenientsabout
,natters of origin. A natural law will suffice as an ulcin1ate principle.
\Vhar is n1ore, neither creation nor evolution is a religion as such,
sinceneidier calls for worshipor an ulti1nateco,ruuionent co dieposited
cause of origin. Bodi are posited tnerely as a causal explanation of the
scientific data and nor as an object of devotion.
Finally, neitherevolution norcreation isa religion or religious assuch.
Different vie,vs of origin are coo1patible ,vith different religions. For
exa,nple, creation isconiparible widi d1eisric religions, and evolution is
co1npatible with noncheistic religions. Bue neithercreation norevolution
icselfis a religion.nie1nere facechat avie,v isco1npatible with a religion
does nor ,uake ic religious any ,nore dian che co,nparibiliry of certain
,noral principles with certain religions 1nakes these moral principles
religious. Ifiedid, then lawsagainst cheating, stealing, n1urder, racis1n,
sexual abuse, genocide, and nlunerous ocher1no ral principles ,vould all
have to bedeclared unconstin1tional.
According to die high court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992),
"at rhe heart of liberty is rhe right co define o ne's o,vn concept of ex-
iscence, of 1ueaning, of the universe, and the n1ystery of huu1an life."$
\Vhen govern1nenc scl1ools, ,vhose attendance isgenerallycon1pulsory,
delve into ultiniare n1attersoforigin, d1ey ineffect affinn an "ord1odox"
7. Charles Darwi1l, iJl a Jen er to AsaGray.June S. 18 6 1 ( i1\ lTanc-is Darw i1\ , ed .. 11Je Lift
1111d f,e11m ,f Cl,;1,.Je, Da rwin, 2 vols. (New York, llosic!l(>Oks, 1959]. 2,I GS).
8 . 1'/1111>1td11' 1re m l,ood u.Casey,SOS U.S. 833 ( 1992).
Lcs ons ro.He Learned

position on such 1natters. This is par ticularly crue of teaching evolu-

tion co the exclusion oficsopposition. Indeed, in Keyishian v. Board of
Regents (1967) the Courc ruled thac "the First Aniendinent does not
tolerate laws tha.c case a pall of orrhodoxy over the classrooin."9 Bur
chis is precisely whac che Courc has done by forbidding chac creation
be taught alongside evolution. le has in fact established o ne vie,v as che
"orthodox" view. And chis is juscas,vrong now as it was when creation
was establishedas cheonly allowable vie,v in che schools.

OVERLOOKING THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

Another problen1ac the base of che courts' unfavorabledecisions
on church/scace issues is cheir isolatingthe Establish,nenc Clause{chat
"Congress shall n1ake no la,v respecting an escablishrnent of religion,
. . .") froni the Free Exercise Clause ,vhich constitutes rhe resr of the
sentence: "or prohibiting the free exercise chereo[" Puc positively, che
Free ExerciseClause saysCongressshould encourage religion ingeneral,
while not establishing any one religion in particular. 'This is precisely
whacdiegovenuuenc did in cheirearly land grants covariousdeno,nina-
cions and inallo,vingtax deductions for all religious organizations.Bue
by forbidding the teaching of creation, the courts are showing hosril-
icy co religions chac hold co a belief in a creacor. And by allowing only
evolucion, which is co1npacible with noncheiscic religions, the courts
are the rebyestablishing{i.e., prefe rring) these religions over cheiscic
religions. Ironically, in cheir hostility co theistic religion, che courts
have established religion-a religionofsecularisn1.In vie,vofchis, there
is a clear and present need to argue diis point in die courts and public
forun1S1uore effeccivel.yMisdirected zeal for che Escablishiuenc Clause
cannot negace che legici1nace need co supporc d1e Free Exercise Clause
of the First Amend1nencas,veil.

THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH CLAUSE

Todate thecreationiscs'cause has not exploited thefreedon1ofspeech
clause in theConstitution in their favor.On dieod1er side,evolutioniscs
9. K,yi shhm v. Bo11rd of R egents,38SU.S.S89(1967).
 288 Creation and the Courts

have used it veryeffectively, beginningwid1 the Scupestrial (1925)."fl1e

ini tial scaten1ent. of rhe defense ar Scqpes listed nun1erous reasons dle
Tennessee law forbidding evolution ,vas nor constitutional (seechap-
ter I). TI1e lase one cited Section I of the Fourceench A1nendn1enc of
the U.S. Conscicucio n, ,vhich says,"No scare shall 111ake or enforce any
laws which shall abridge the privileges or itnrnunities of citizens of che
United Scares."10 n1is ,vould include che First Arnendn1ent guarantee
of freedo111ofspeech.111eScopes defense also cited Section 19, Arcicle
I ofd1e Tennessee constitution, ,vhich states:"Tiiac theprinting presses
shall be free co every person. . . . n1e free con1n1unication of d1oughcs
and opinions is one of che invaluable rights of nian, and every citizen
niay freely speak, ,vrice and print on any subjecr. . . ."11 Defense attor-
ney Hayes added,"I prestune ouJ teachers should be prepared co reach
every dieory on every subject. Noc necessarily co reach die thing as a
face. . . . le should not be wrong co reacll evolution, or certain phasesof
evolution, but not as a facc."12
But t.hi s is p recisely ,vhat creat.ionists are arguing t.oday, nan1ely,
( I ) not. co reach one theory as a face, bur insread (2) co reach boch
theories in a balanced ,vay. All one needs co do to gee die point is to
replace t.he word "evolution" in the above quote with the ,vord "cre-
ation." Ir men reads, "I presun1eour teachers should be prepared co
teach every theory on every subjecr. Not necessarily to teach rhe thing
asa face.. . . leshould noc be,vrongco ceach creation, or cercain phases
of creation, but noc as face."
Indeed, Clarence Darro,v'sanci-bigocry speech at theScopestrial was
penneaced ,vid1 die "freedoni of speech" argu,nenr. He said, "Unless
d1ere is left enough of die spirit of freedon1 in rhe scare of Tennessee,
and in the United Scates, there is not a single line of any consticucion
mac can ,vichscand bigotry and ignorance when it seeks co destroy d1e
rightsof theindividual;and bigotry and ignomnce aJ'eeve raccive."13 He
added,"O n no reading of'the spirit of che law' concerning freedo1nof
10. . Sec \Villiain HillearyandOren \Y/. Metzger,eds., 1'1e1-Vorl,J,;1\ 1 0;1 Fttmou.<Court 1t'hti:
' U m1.es.cu EvolutionCrue (C inciooa.ri. Ohio: i acional Book Company, 19 25), 50.
I I. Ibid., 48- 49.
I2. Ibid., 56.
I3. Ibid.. 75.
Lcs ons ro Uc Learned

religion should the trud1about evolution be kept out ofourschool.s"14

By the san1e logic creationists should vociferously reply that "on no
readingof 'thespirit of the la,v' concerning freedoin of religion should
che crud1abouc creation be kepc ouc ofourschools."
n1e rrud1is d1ac d1ere isa direct parallel between whar cheevolucion-
isr.s werearguing for in the Scopes trial (I 925) and what crearionisrs are
arguing for today-freedo1n of speech in the public schools co teach
d1eir vie,v on origins alongside rhe opposing view.And if,as Darro111
contended, it was "bigotry" to teach only one theory oforigin when only
oeation wasbeing taught, then it is stillbigotry to teach only one theory
of origin when only evolution is being taught! It is a sad fact that r.he re
really isnoacrual freedo1n ofspeech in a publicschool science class for
acrearion vie,v co becaught - a view d1ar isheld in oneforn1oranod1er
by 85 - 90 percent of die An1erican public.
To be ,no respecific, theCourt has ruled char teachers areengaged in
procecced speech under acade,nic freedo1n and che First An1endn1enc
when they bring co the classroo,n relevant u1acerials chat supple111ent
the curricuhun and do nor violate any la,v (see Keyishian 11. Board of
Regents [1967]). In Epperson ( I968) "die Courc . . . acknowledges che
scace's power co prescribe the school curriculun1, bur it. held [in Meyer
v. Nebraska (1923)) d1ac these were not adequate to support che re-
striction upon che libercy of reacher and pupil.";' On rhese grounds,
d1ere is no consciturional basis for noc allo,ving creation co be taught
alongsideevolution, ,virh or without aschool board policy orscare law
n1andating it.

TheMisuseof Scare Oecisis

Staie decisis is defined legallyas a decision that has been ,nade on a

cenain secoffaces chat beco,nes a precedent c.o be applied co all subse-
quent cases whicl1have diesa,nefaces'. 1l1ereareseveral proble,ns ,virl1
cheapplicacionof chis prin ciple.First, icisnor found in theConstitution.
leconies fro111dieEnglish conunon law rradirion. Hence, itshould nor
14. (hid., 82.
IS.Eppersonv. Stal<efArka11.<ns,393 U.S.97 (1968).
 Creation and the Courts

begiven sacred legal scacus. Ac best, it isonly aguideline to beconsidered.

Ir is noc a Consticucional principle to be niandated.
Second, it is not infallible.1hereare nu1nerous tin1es in our history
when the Supren1e Court ,vas wrong and had co be overturned.1he
classic case was che Dred Scott (1857) decision ,vhich declared that
African-Ainericanswere nor"persons" with certain conscirurional righrs.
Forcunacely, chis was overturned eight years lacer by rhe n1irceenth
An1end1nenc (1865).(Unfortunately,che Roe v. /de decision [1973 ],
,vhich declared die unborn are not persons ,vhose life is protected by
che Conscicucion, has nor yec been overturned.)
11iird, diefactsare not really thesaoie inall thecreation cases, yet die
courcshave used staredecisis in decidingsubsequent caseswith different
faces. For exaniple, clearly die Scopes law (1925) char forbade teaching
any view char contradicted die biblical vie,v is not ar all thesarne as rhe
"creation science" laws, as in Mi:Lean (1982) and Edwards (1987), or
the Dover(2005)school n1andace relating coceachingincelligencdesign.
Ye.rdie subsequent courts used rhe precedencs of the precedingcourcs
codecide cheir cases as though they were based on rhe saoie secoffaces
when clearly rhey were not. Certainly rhere isadifference between laws
chat wane only creation r.aughc instead ofevolution if either is caught
(Scopes, 1925) and chose diar,vant creation taughtalongsideevolurion
(Epperson [1968 ),,Wcl ean [1982 ], Edwarlti [1987],and Dover [20051).
ln such cases the principle ofprecedenc does not apply.
fourth,eacli situarion hasitsown unique characterisricsand, hence,
aprecedent does not alwaysapply.Forexaniple, inso1ne precedent cases
no constitutionalor nioral righr is being violared by applying che prec-
edenr. In od1ers, die right co life isat srake and,hence, a precedent not
involving a righc co life does nor apply. Like,vise, die righc co freedon1
ofspeecli co ceacl1crearion as science cannor bedenied for creationists
sin1ply becausea precedent case,vith differentcircwnscances foundthat
creation was caught asa religion.
Finally, beingfallible, theSuprern e Court has not always incerpreced
and applied c.he Conscicution accurately. Judges are kno,vn ro have
ideological and political biases. If the first decision niisinterprecs the
Conscicucion when applyingit co thesefaces,d1en d1ere is noobligation
Lcs ons ro.He Learned

on future courrs co 1nake the san1e rniscake. 'The Supre,ne Court has
been seriously wrong 1nany ci1nes in ocher cases, and there is no reason
co assu1ne d1ey are not \vrong in these creation cases. In fact, ,ve have
sho,vn (in chapter 8)1nany good reasons to indicate theywere wrong in
rhese cases. Hence , fucure courts should look afresh ac chese decisions
and nocblindly follo,v d1e1n because of a fallible, extra-conscicurional
principle chat has had nun1erous n1isapplicacions in rhe past. Since
McLean, Edward,sand Dover areseriously 8a,ved (see chapters 3, 4, 5,
and 7),any new creation/evolutioncase presented co cheCourt should
have a fresh look in thelighc of rhe Conscicurion itself. Othenvise, d1e
Court is not finding conscirucional cruth, ir is n1erely co,npounding
traditional errors. Stare decisis 1nusc be reex.an1ined and reapplied or
ir will cornpletely undennine die rneaning of the Constitution ,virh
decisions based on bad precedent. \'{le need attorneys dedicated co che
Constitution who ,vill co111pcehensively and exhaustively rethink che
erroneous understanding and application of precedent co decide die
constitutionality ofl a,vs.

The Civil Tolerance Argurnent

Creationists have not yet exploited d1e civil tole rance issue in the
courcs. In the M ozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1987)
case, students and parents had clain1ed rhac it ,vas a violation of dieir
First Arnend1nent religious rights of freeexercise for theschool board
co be "forcing scudenc-plaintiffs co read school books which ceadt or
inculcate valuesin violationof their religious beliefs and convictions."
Evolution wasonesucl1view co which d1ey objected.1l1eir wishes were
upheld by rhe district courr bur overruled by d1e Sixd1Circuit Court.
1l1elatter courcargued d1aceven rhough srudencs ,vere offended, d1ere
was no evidence d1ac one was "ever required co affinn his or her belief
or disbelief in any ideaor practice" caught in rhe texcor class.1l1ecourc
insisted d1ac d1ere was adifference between "exposure" and being"co-
erced" co accept me ideas. 'They noted char rhe only ,vay ro avoid all
offense ,vas not co teach anything. 1l1ey insisted chac: "1l1e lesson is
clear:govenunencaJ actions d1at rnerely offend orcasedoubton religious
 Creation and the Co urtS

beliefs do not on chat account violate freeexercise."' 01ey insisted chat

chisexposure to offensive views wassitnply a n1accerof"civil tolerance
ofod1er vie,vs and did not co1npel anyone co a "religious tolerance" of
ocher views whereby they were con1pelled co giveequal scacus co od1er
religious views. "Ir n1erely requires a recognition d1ac in a pluralisric
society ,ve1nusc 'liveand lee live:"16
Ifchis,vasasound decision, rhen why can'r rhes,vord cur both ,vays?
\Vhy cannot creacionisrsargue chat rhepresenracion of their views,even
if considered religious and offensive by od1er,sis nor d1ereby coercing
the students co believe in butsi1nplyto beexposed co rheu1? \Vhycannot
evolutionistslearn to"liveand leelive"roo?' Il1ecourtsseen1co have nvo
setsof rules- oneset bywhich evolutionisallowedandanorher bywhich
creation isexcluded from thepublicschool classroons1.Creacionisr.s need
coinsist thatall playersin d1egan1efollo,v rhesa.ine rules. Bya fair reading
ofrhecivil tolerance ru,le creation should beallowed alongsideevolution.
After all, crearioniscsarenor insisting char d1eirviewbecaught asrrue ro
rhe exclusion of allocher vie,vs'. Il1ey si1nplydesire char it be allo,vedas
one view a111ong ochers co which young peopleshould be exposed. n1is
iscertainly d1e n1osr roleranr thing co do in acivil society.

Forgetting Jhy Je're H ere: Taxation Without Representtaion

Serious citizens need co consider die lirrle regard given by d1e courts,
parcic1.Jaclyin thecreation issue, co the venerable principle on which our
federal republic ,vas founded:"Taxationwithout represencarionistyranny."
Surveyssho,v that so1nethree-fourths co 90 percent ofcax-payingAtneri-
c-ans do noc have rheir creationist vie,v represented in publicschools1.7
\Vere rhe founding fathers co rerurn co co11ren1porary An1erica and see
how cirizens are being forced co pay caxes co p ublic schools co ceach their
16. /11ourr v. 1-lawkin.<Co tmry BoardefErlt<cario11, 8 27 E 2d 1 0 58 ( 1 987 ).
1 7. A r ece nt P ew Forum on Religion poll (August 30, 2005) found that 78 percent of
Americans believe God was involvecl in the creation of ..life o nearth. Another five perc l t
believe life was cteaccd bya"'higher powc,"or"llnivcrsaJ spirit"- whicharc just o rhe-r words
forGod.Stillmore (upco 90 percent) bd icvcGod created the universe.And95 pn-centbdic,e
in God. Onl)'<).n c- fo u r1h be lieve that huma1'l life arose by natural sd oction" (evolution ) n o t
gu ided bya Sup,me !k ing (http://pe\\rfonun.orgls urveys/origi1u / ).
Lcs ons ro Ue Learned 29 3
children contrary co their cherished beliefs, chey ,vould be scandalized.
Indeed, were'TI1omasJefferson to reappearon diescene,hewould discover
diachewasbeingforced copay taxeswichout representationofhisvie,vson
a"Creator"and that"alln1enarecreatedequal." Indeed,hewould find rl1ac
d1esevery viewsinunorcalized in IheDeclarationqflndepentkna had been
soscandalized by thecourcs chat chey had in effect declared our national
birth certificate unconstjtutional!\Vhile l an1 notadvocatingit, I have no
doubt thatJefl:erson ,votild srart asecond Ainerican Revolution!

Avoid Lawsand PoliciesThat Appear toMandate Creation

' TI1e courcsareahnosc paranoid about laws d1acmandate die reaching

ofcrearion in any,vay, even ifon.ly alongsideevolution and not instead
ofevolution. Ai1d they arealn1osc blind co die face char, in effect, they
have1nandated a sicuacion \\hereonly evol.ucioncan be taught, unchal-
lenged byany realco1npetingview.111eEpperson (1968) decision struck
down any la,v forbidding ch e teaching of evolution. And chis, with
the subsequent Edwards (1987) decision, gives evolution a de facto
n1onopoly on rhe n1arket.
Creationists n1ttStundersrand rl1is tendency ofche courcs coestablish
evolution, and they should avoid the cenipcacion co gain back ground
by 111andacing creation alongside evolution. As noble as such efforts
have been, they have noc worked and p robably should be laid asi.de
until there is a rnore sweeping cliange in die Supre1ne Court. On die
lase creation vote in rhe Suprenie Court rl1ere were on ly c,vo votes for
creation (Rehnquist and Scalia), and Scalia is the only sure vote lefi:,
alrliough one or niore of the newer 1ne1nbers (like l1101nas, Roberts,
or Alico)n1ay voce for creation."TI1isstill leaves us shore of che needed
five for a favorable niajoriry vote for creation.
One thingisworth nocingabourcourt decisions on the rnandared bal-
anced creacn1enr la,vs; nan1ely, d1ey1nisinrerpreted thestatutes. Neid1er
Arkansas nor Louisianaactually 1nandaced ceacl1ing creation.l11ey lefi:
open die option that neither vie,v could be taught. Al.I they1nandated
was char, if either vie,v is caught, d1en d1eocher view nurse be presenred
in a balanced ,vay. Tiiis issignificantly different frorn rn andating diac
2,94 Creation and the Co urts

creation be taught, and it is totally rernoved fro1n rnandating a f.1vored

posicion cocreation. Nosuch law hasever been proposed by creationists,
leealonepassed byascare legislature. So, diecourts have ruled against a
straw n1an! Noned1eless, given che crack record of die courts, it seerns
advisable co avoid rnandacing reaching creacion in any fonn.

An /111portant Distinction: Govem111ent Endorse111ent vs.

Private Expression

In a nun1ber of cases, so rn e Supren1e Court justices have n1ade a

legiri1nate discinccion between rhe w1constitutionaliryofgovenunent
endorsed religiousviewsand the right ofprivate expression of rhe san1e
vie,vs. In shore, che fonner are unconsrirucional and the laccer is nor.
Private religious speech has rhesarne right assecularspeech. Indeed,d1is
see111s to be a principle behind die Suprerne Court forbidding school
endorsed prayer bur nor disallowingscudencled prayers (seeLeev. J#is-
1nan, 1992). If d1is,vere not pennissible, d1en me right of students co
freedo1u of speech would be violated. In face, if student initiated and
controlled prayer ,vere nor possible, rhen secular free speech ,vould
begiven a higher status rhan religious free speedt. Bue rhe free speed1
clause of che First Amendn1enc n1akes no such distinction.111us, even
if creationists' vie,vs are considered religious, chey should be allo,ved
under che equal statusof free speed1 concept.
The sa1ne discincrion is no,v widely accepted ,vid1 regard co ocher
beliefs. 'l11ere is no prohibition by the courts against me expression of
ocher beliefs d1acare religious. For exan1ple, one can believe chat C on-
fucius Lived and caught certain n1oral p rinciples. And these principles
could even be caught as pare of a course in values. Confucius caughc,
for exan1ple, d1ac we shou ld noc do co ochers ,vhac we do nor ,vane
then1 to do to us (the so-called "negative" Golden Rule). 'll1is would
not beconsidered tmconscicucional by che courcs1nerely because it,vas
pare of the religion of Confucianisrn. Like,vise, die Supren1e Courr
could rule (and has ruled) in favor of n1onogan1y. \Vhen it did so it
explicicly referred co irs basis in d1e "Christian" religions (see Davi, v.
Beason, 1890).1l1is it did, nor because ic waslegislating che truth of die
Lcs ons to Ue Learned 295
Christian religion above ocher religions but because it ackno,vledged
a secular purpose and a social value co chis principle chat happened co
coo1e frorn the C hristian religion.111ereisno reason the Court cannot
do chesan1e for die reachingofcreation. Sincecceacion haseducarional
value(co teach born sidesofan issue) and since che posiringof an intel-
ligent designer has value in itselfas a scientific concept (being used in
archaeology,cryptology, inforn1ation meory, and me SETI progran1),
dien why cannoc ir be caughc despice me face chac ic isa pareofcercain
Abral1a1nic religions (such as.Judaisni, Christianity, and lslan1)?

Appointing Non-Activistj11dges

Perhaps rhe nioscvexingproble1n facingmecourcs is duesoofi:en judges

fuil ind1eir conscirucionalduty co n1erely interpret thela\vand instead, in
effecc, theyrnake che la,v.By doing so, che people'sshorc-tenn and recall-
able elected representatives(the Legislatures) are replaced with lifetirne
appoinred (nor elecred) and virrually non-recallable1ne1nbecsofdie high
courcs.1hisdestroys rheconscirucionalseparation ofpowersand renders
void die willofd1e people (Arcicle 3,Section 2 of rheConscin1cion).n1ey
forget that cheConscicucion begins,"\Ve the people. . ." and not" \Ve the
Supre1ne Court." Until diissicuacion isceccified,\Veshould naeexpecr any
significant change in che Courc's First Aniendrnenc decisions.18
Currently, the best way co rnake changes in the syscen1 is co elect
conservative presidents who willelecc judges,vho will interpret theJa,v
instead of niaking thela,v. Along,vidi chiskind of president, the people
01usc elecc conservative legislators who ,vi.LI support Cottrc norninees
who will scricdy interpret che Conscicucion.
In dieory, Supren1e Cottrc jusrices can be i1npeacl1ed, buc ic is prac-
tically irnpossi ble co do so. As even the laceconservative Chief Juscice
Rehnquist e111phasizes in his history of the Supren1e Courc, it has been
viewed asaseeded practicesince d1e in1peaclunenc crialofJusriceSainuel
Chase in d1e early I800s cl1ac disagreernenc wid1 a juscice's decisions
or judicial accions is nor an appropriate basis tor i1npeaclunent and
8.1 . See MarkR. Levin,1Hen inBUttk : How the Supn meCourtlsDe,tn1ying America(\ sh
ingwo, D.C.: Regncry. 200 S).
 Creation and the Co urtS

removal.'There isanocher,consricurionallysanctioned way cochallenge

rhe po,ver of rhe Supre1ne Co urt, bur ic has nor been utilized by rhe
Congress in recent cinies.

Tl,e Use of Article Tl,ree, Section 2 oftbe c:onstitt1ti on

According co chissection ofche Conscirurion, "in all dieod1er cases

before nientioned, rheSupre,ne Court shall haveappellate jurisdiction,
bod1as co la,v and fact, with such exception and under such regulations
as the Congress shall n,ake" (ernphasis added). In effecc, rhe Congress
could liniir the Suprenie Court's jurisdiction and power, ific wished co
doso.'!hiswould curb theaudiority ofa runaway judiciary. Ir isconsri-
rurional, bur it cakes courage t.odo ir.'The people's elected representa-
cives could pass la,vs co negate die high court's illegitirnace legislating
froni the bench.S01ne fear chis1nay precipitateaconscitutional "crisis,"
bur n1aybe chis would bea good rhing. Afi:er all, it is d1e Constitution
itselfthat allows doingdiis. Any alleged crisis char such an action might
engender couldn't be niuch worse than what ,ve have now, and it 1nay
be ,nuch better ifir rurnsour diac ir "clips die,vings" ofa Court ,vhich
in recent historyhas had no real cl1ecks on ir.

A Co11stitt1tio11alAn1endr,1entto Curbthe S11p1e1neCourt's Po111e1

Yet another ,vay to pur the brakes on rhe high courc is a constitu-
tional a111endnienc curbing its power. Bue it is questionablechat there
are enough votes co do d1is, since it rakes ratification by du ee-fourd1s
of rhe scares'. Il1enrhere is die face chat,once die an1endmenr would be
put into effect, the Supre1ne Court would be the supre1neinrerprerer
(or,nisincerpreter)ofchis ne,v part of theConstitution. And ,ve would
be right back ,vhere weare no,v.

Train Moreand Better FirstA1nend1nent Attorneys

r,vo-chirds of die attorneysin che world are said robe in the United
Scares- waycoo1nany! And agood percentage ofdieseareconservative,
 Lcss:ons ro .Ile Learned 2.97
1nany of chern in spice of the liberal law schools they have attended. An
evidence of this, related to the issue under discussion, is char son1e 70
percent.of arcorneysbelieve char.bod1 creation and evolution should be
raughc in rhe publicschools.19 Ar. lease dueeevangelical universities have
lawschools:Liberty University, Regent University, andT1inity University.
Unfo rtunatelyh, owever,,nose Chr istianlawstudents donot n1ajor in First
Au1end1nenc issues. Frankly, there is no rnoney in ic."l11is situation has
co be reversed if weareever goingco win d1ese First An1endn1enc battles.
' I11eactivisc,broad conscrucrioniscinterpretation ofrhe First A1nendn1enc
has don1inaced rhe courts tor solong d1ac ir isofi:en taken as nonnative.
Being a First An1endmenc attorney n1usc beco n1ea priority for brighc,
conservacive young n1ind.sl11e reason for rhis is nor only coargue courc
cases, but ro enter d1e legislativearena as well. Mose politicians have a
la,vdegree,and rney pass mela,vs.And ,nose judges, fro1n local courts co
d1e Supren1e Court, ared1osen fro1n an1ong attorneys. Penerraring chis
virtual liberal 1nonopoly 1nusr becorne a nun1ber one priority if we are
ever co restore d1e reachingofcreation in our public schools.
' l11ereare,ofcourse, sorne nocableexcepcionsco chis bleak picture-
people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Tho1nas. Hopefully, newly
appointe d Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sa1nuel Alico ,vill
fall into rhesarne category. Bue even ifaU of mese would vote favorably
(and it is not known whed1er d1ey ,vould), it is still nor enough votes
to gee creat ion through the Supren1e Court. And wid1rhe recenr shifi:
ro a liberal n1ajoriry in Congress chere are no in11nediare prospects for
getting anod1er conservative Supre1ne Courr justice.

111e Philosophical Issues

I a111not a scientist by fonnal training, though I have so1ne training
in science and havedonea locof reading in chearea. My doccorace is in
philosophy. Bur oneofrhe reasonsIgot involvedin mecreacion/ evolu-
cion debace is mac I discovered rhac ac roor ic is a philosophical issue,
and d1acis1ny area ofexperrise, especially as ic bearson religion.\X/hen
19. Sec chapter 8. norc S8.
 C reatio n a n d the Co urt s

I \vascaUed asanexpert witnessin d1e"Scopes II" trial (Mi:Lean, I982),

I discovered rhac rhedebate needed philosophers cohelpclaiify the is-
sues and niake i111por canc discinccions. llie nioscfundan1encal of d1ese
disrinccions is iliac between origin science and operation science.

Fail1're to DistinguishOriginand Operation Science

I soon discovered chat evolutionists and creacionisrs ,vere likeships
passingin rhe nighr.Evolurioniscschargedd1accreation ,vas notscience,
and n1anycreacionistsdubbedevolution a religion. While d1ere isson1e
trud1in bod1assertions, there isadesperate need to1nakeafundainental
discinccionbeC\veen science about che pascandscience abouc the present.
Boch arecalled science, but diey arediflerenc kinds of science,vidi dif-
ferent objects and different principles. Once thedifferences areknown,
then it isclear co see chat neither creation nor evolution isan e,npirical
scienceabout die present. Rather, bod1arelikea forensic science about
che past. This distinction ,vas ,nade in n1ysuppressed testi111ony in Ar-
kansas (see cliapcer 4) and spelled our in Origin Science ( 1987).20

OPERATION SCIEN CE
Science in the strict sense is about die operation of the universe.
n1is is based on the principles of observation and repetition. n1us,
any rheory abouc nature n1usc ,nat ch the repeated patterns observable
in nacure.1 1 On die basis of d1ese observed repetitions, enipirical (or
0.2 NorntaJ L. Gcisler:u)d J. Kerby Anderson, OriginSdenu (Gr.indbl pids, fich.: lhker.
1987). It was also o utlined al< earlyas 1983in my book /,.A-1,m tlu .A1r.,,sun? An Eva1/1,ttitm'!f
Con1empomry Humanism (Grand Rapid,. Mich.: Bak<,. 1983), chapter11. The roou of the
d isti1)ction go lx,ck ,o early scicnciscs who l<pokeo( dtediffcrence bet ween cosmogony (about
origins) a ndCOl<m olo g:y(abo ut theoperationof thecosmos).SeeNorman Gei$1er, A Scient ific
BasisforCreation: The: Principleof Unifonnity.,.Crt11tion Ew/11ti Qt1Jo11nu,L4 / 3 ( Su mmfr1984).
The-s unedistinc(ion w ,smade bC"tw<.en biogeny andbiologya.nda1Hhroge1 1yand md1ropology.
E\'<.':n one CY<-)lutionistwit11<::l1s a t th e Sco
. ptl'trial ( 19 25) made a l<imilar distinction {seechapter
1). Curr<ndy.sciemisu stilldistinguish betwccm a scientific undc-.,rstand ingof the pasr, which
use. a foren sic type ou::thod and is found in astrophyl<ics,,p leontology. and archaeology. and
l<C.iences in th e pr ese nt, which are nm fon:.nl<i<-"but e mp irical
21. It would be tu,ftui cf ul. for many rea$ons. forevolutionisu to argueagainst this oo rhe
basis of the alleged randonuless in the subato mic world. l;irs-t, th is allege.d r, ndomncss may
result from in .,.estigator interference,since one has to bombard tJ1e $ubaromic world with an
d cctroo microscope in order ,o seeit .So, the S<'ien risc maybe obsc:rviJlS r.he result of hisowr)
Lcss:ons ro Uc Learned l99
operation) science can rnake testable predictions and che theory can be
either confinned or denied. Clearly origin events do not full into chis
category, since they are neirher presendy observable nor repeatable. In
thissrriccsense ofenipirical, observable, and repearable events, neidier
,nacroevolurion nor creation is a science.

ORIGIN SCIEN CE
learned, ho,vever, and rescified in Arkansas (see chapter 3)
\1(fe
that rhere is a broader sense of "science" chat can deal wirh the past.
Archaeologisrs, paleonrologisrs,astrophysciists, and forensic scienrists
have been doing origin science for centuries. Bue like the exa1nination
of a hon1icide ,vith no ,vicnesses or recordings, origin eventS were not
observedand theyare not beingrepeated regularly in che present.Hence,
origin science, like forensic science, 1nust depend on principles ocher
than observability and repear.abilicy. \Ve discovered chat fron1 rhe very
beginning rhe two basic principles being used ,vere causality (every
event has an adequate cause) and unifonnicy (the present is d1e key co
d1e past). Since me search for causaHty has been at rhe foundation of
science frorn the beginning, me principleof w1iforn1icytranslates inco
a causal principle ,vhich can be fonnulared d1us: lhe kinds of causes
known (by repericion) co producecerrain kindsofeffects in the present
are the kinds ofcauses that produced mese kindsof events in che past.
And since causes fall into rwo basic categories, natural and incelligenc,
it isnecessary co decerrnine ,vhich kind of eftects call for,vhich kind of
cause. Fron1a conl!nonsense point of vie"' ic is noc difficult co see ho,v
repeated observation in the present infonns us chat round rocks in a
disturbing. Second, eYcn greatminds likeAlbert Einsteinrejec-tf this view, s".lying"God doesn't
playdi(e wich the u1'liverse (ina.lett('( toMax Born,Dccc-mber 4. 19 26.quoted in Elizabeth
Knowles. ed., 1he Oxfortl Dictio11ary ofQ!'otnliom [ Oxford: Oxford Unin rsity Press. 1999].
290). 1'hird,despite the alleged rando mness, the final result is a re-gular and we1lpattcrned
n:uu.ralworld \\1'lich aloneis thebasis forn:nuraJlaw. Fourth, bot.hc,.olurioo istsand the courts
h;;wc-c.ommitted t.henudves tothebelief that01\lysuch obsenable, repe3rable, 1\atu.ral lawsarc
the basis for k;ience. f-l11ally,once e volution ists and d1e couruallow for spontaneo useruptions
ir'l oature. not subject to obsen-able aod rqx-a.tablc paucr1\S, they haYe ope11eda wide door
co cn-ationlst v ic \X"S. which a.rgue th n JH) t c,ery C\' CJ'lt in the natural wo rld calls for a natural
cause. And this would be fatal to the 1no nopoly thee\olutionary cstablishnlenntow holdson
the schools andco urts.
300 Creat ion and the Co urts

screa1n are produced by natural forces and arrowheads are created by

intelligent causes. n1e sciences of cryptology and infonnation theory
have both confinned the difference between intelligent and natural
causes.
In applying these principles co che origin of life and ne,v life fonns
in the creation/ evolution debace, we n1usc ask, Whac are che d istin-
guishing characceriscics of a living organis,n? Two of these character-
istics cum out to be specified coo1plexicy and irreducible con1plexity.
Another is anticipatory design, ,vhich is n1anifest in nature as ,veil as
in die "anthropic principle," die fine-tun ing of die initial conditions
of rhe universe that 1nakes Iife possible. Allof rhese characteristicswe
kno,v fro1n repeated observation and experilnencacioo are evidence
of incelligenc causes. Indeed , Claude E. Shannon in 1948developed
the revolutionary infonnation dieory that is used to de1nonscrace rliat
rhe lecrer sequence in DNA is niarhe1narically rhe sa1ne as rhar in a
hwnan language.nius, it is scientific co posit an incelligenc cause for
boch. n ius, the scientific creacio n,is n or incelligenc design approaches
are just as scientific in chis sense of the tenn "science" as is evolu-
tion. Boch involveknowing char the kind of causes seen in repeated
observation (and experin1en tacion) in d1e present prod uce certain
kindsofeffeccs-whed1er natural or incelligenc (asin archaeology and
c ryptolog y).ll 1us, evolucionisrs haveevery right ro show ho,v narural
causes can produce changes, as chey can be shown co have done in
1nicroevolucion. 1l1e debare has nod1ing ro do ,vich religion as such.
le issitnply a niaccer of den1onscracingfron1repeared observation and
experirne n racio,n vhich kind of cause- nacural or incell igent- can
produce life co begin ,vich and new life forn1s afi:er rhac. llie failure
of d1ecourts co understand diisdistinction hasled dieni co thro,v ouc
the creationist "baby" ,vith che "badnvacer of bad en1pirical science.
Of course, creation is not an e1npirical science, but neirher is 01acro-
evolu rio n . Boch deal ,vid1 pasc unobserved and unrepeared evencs.
Neirher is an ernpirical science. Both are fo re nsic type sciences, and
forensic typesciences utilize die principles of causality and nniforn1ity
for unobserved and nnrepeared pasr evencs such as die origin of die
universe, first life, and new lite fonns.
Lessons t<>Uc Learned 301
Failure to Distinguish Objective Studyand ReligiousC'on1r11it111ent

Another issuecallingforphilosophicalinsight was that nocleardistinc-

tion,vasbeingniade bet,veen dieobjectiveapproach ofphilosophy/science
on cheone hand and dieconunitnienc called for ina religiousexperience.
In fact one of Paul Tillichs students, Langdon Gilkey, was a" 'ia1essfor
evolution acdie"ScopesI!" crial becauseboth heand his mentor111ade mis
kindofdiscinction.22n,ac istosay,oneand diesaineobject(say,afirstcause
or creator) can beapproached fro1n an objecrive scienrific/philosophical
perspective or &0111a con11nitted religious point of view. In traditional
cern1inology,it is sin1plya 111arcer of whed1er a "crearor" is beingposited
as a result ofa reasonable inference fron1die scientific evidence (which is
science, nor religion) or ,vhedier die creator ispresenred as an object of
worship and religiousdevotion. Since Langdon Gilkey, che n1ain ,vitness
on d1is topic for evolution, had already 1nade rhis distinction, it see1ned
fittingcharI should useitas,vell.1 he judgesaw fieco ignore rheargun1enr,
however, and dieauthoriitessaw fit not to plint1ny testi1no nyw1til.ali:er
theSupre1ne Court.had called creation inhei:endy religious. Bue creation
science certainly isnot, just as Aristode's Unn1oved Mover,vas not,an ob-
jeer of religion or ulri1nace devotion. Nor,vas Plato'sCreator (De,niurgos)
dieobject of devotion or,vorship.n1isdisrinction was brushed aside by
diejudgeand was never really addressed or refr1red. Bue it isar cheheartof
whether a public school science reacher can refer to a first causeorcreator
as diesource ofdie universe, fuse life, and new life fonn s.

The Religious Issues

n1edefinition of religion has been acrucial pointin First An1end1nenc
decisions. Traditionally in A1nerica, religion wasdefined asdie,vorship
ofGodoraSupren1e Beingt.i1 his wasduelargelycod1eJndeo-Christian
2. Sec Paul T illich. Sy)tt 1111ui c Jbeo!og
, y 3 vols. ( Ch ic3go! Universil)' of Chi:cago Press,
19 S1- 19S9), I ,I 8-28; andLangdon Gilkey, /l{akt:r of /-lr.w , e11 ,w d l tl'lh (C,ardcnCit)\ N.Y.,
An<hor, 1965),35.
3.2 Fo,an excellc:,u r('.Viewof this issue, see the::artide byJo hn':Xl. \Xl hitdu::ad H)d Jt>hn
Conlan on .. he E.mtblishmentof the Rd igionofSecular Humansin1anrl lti< Firl't Amendment
lmplic nion, in Texns1i-ch l. au, Revieu, 10 (\Vimer 1978), 19.
30l Crcatjon and the Co urts

inAuence on oursysce,n. Indeed, belief in God wasacondition for hold-

ing public office in n1any scares. Lacer, ho,vever, John De,vey and ocher
humanistscalled their beliefs a religion andsigned H1,r11anist 1vlanifastoI
(1933), proclain1ing their ne,v noncl1eisric religious beliefsco rhe,vorld.
In 1934 Dewey had broadened che definition of"religious" co include
"anyacriviry pursued in behalf of an ideal end against obsracles and in
spite of threats of personal loss."24 Lacer, in che I940s, nonrheiscic con -
scientious objectors ,vho ,vere denied dca6: exen1pcions because rhey
did not believe in God won cases whidi in effect said you can have your
First Ainendtnenc religious rights,vicl1our believingin God. This ,vas a
significant turningpoi,nc since ineftect theCourt had redefined religion
ina noncl1eiscic way.By1961 in Torcaso v. Watkins thecourcs had shifi:ed
their definition wicli rhe ,nore pluralistic cult ure, and with cl1e help of
Harvard cl1eologian Paul TiUidi had begun codefine religion in broader
terms d1acincluded atheistand agnositc, Buddhist, Taoist, and humanisr
by na,ne. 'fillich clai1ued char anyone ,vith an ulci1nace concern about
anyd1ing was religious2. 5 At first chis seen1ed to be a con1plete disad-
vantagefor conservatives and creationists. Ho,vever, it tur nsour co be a
double-edgedsword chat can be used to our advantage. In n1ycescin1ony
(seechapter 4) in Arkansas (1981)26 l pointed out char hu1nanisn1 is a
self: labeled religion rhac. believes inevolurion. Indeed, son1e evolurion-
iscs like Julian Huxley even referred co it as"che religion of evolution-
ary H1unanis111."27 I went on in 111y testin1ony to note chac if creation
is considered religious becauseir is anached co a theistic religion, men
evolution can beconsidered religious becauseit isacrached co noncheistic
religions. And, ifevolution can beconsidered nonreligious because one
can extract evolution fro1n ics religious source and context and treat it
purdy sciencifically, then the san1e is crue of creacion.n1ecrucl1 is char
d1e cour cshaveargued out ofboch sidesof their n1ourhon chisissue.111e
24. Joh n Dewey, A Common FniJb (New Haven.Conn.: Yak Uni\'('"rsity Press. 1934).
27.
2S. r'(.)r:tmorccletailed lc- Ihtsroryofthemeaningof rd igion in thecourts,$CC \'<'hitd ,e:td
and Conlan. '"Establishmentof the Rdigio1, of S,.cularHum1...nisrn... 13- 14.
26 r. rhc testimonies were giv.:o in De.a mber of 198 t, hut the Court'sdccisio1"1 was no t
rendered untilJanuarv S, 19 82 .
27. SeeJuJ;anI-luxky. &ligion 1-Vilhout Reve/111io11 ( Ne w York: Ifarp<r, I9S7). 203ff.
Lessons to Ue Learned 303
ti111eislong overdue co press thecourts forconsistency. For byforbidding
creation chey havein effect established beliefsofthe religion ofhun1anisn1
and ocher noncheistic religions. Ofcourse, che courts have ruled chat it
is,vrongcoestablish a religion ofsecularis111.1heAbingtuncourt (1963)
declared:"Weagreeofcourse d1ac cheScace n1ay nor establish a'religion
ofsecularisn1'in rhesenseofaffinna rivelyopposingo rsho,vinghoscility
co religion, chus'preferring chose who believe in no religion over those
who do believe'" 28(cf Zorach 11. Clauson, 1952). And even though it is
understandable d1ar in rhe Peloza case (1994) rhe Supre1ne Courr by
refusal co hear upheld rhelowercourt decision chat forcinga teacher co
teach evolution did not require hin1 co ceacl1 a religion of hun1an1ins,19
nonetheless, in die Washington EthicalSociety case (1957) a federal ap-
pealscourt ruled that secular hu1nanism isa nontheistic religion ,vhicl1
deserves a cax-exe1npt scacus. Bue ifsecularlu11nanisn1 isa religion by its
o,vn self-designationsand Court recognition (cf Torcaso, Zorach, ecc.),
d1en d1is argwnenc needs co beexploited 1nore by d1ose contending for
balanced treaunent of both creation and evolution.

Public Relationsand a Biased Media

Asdocuinenced belo,v, there isa serious n1edia biasagainst creation.

(See also appendix I.)111is is w1dersrandable in view of the high per-
cencage of persons in the n1ainsrrea1n n1edia ,vho are evolutionist and
secularists.Various pollsshow aconsistently high nwnberof secularises
and anti-creationistsin rhe n1edia. About rhe tin1eof"Scopes II" (1981),
statistics showed that the predon1.nianc rnainline n1edia held liberal
viewsands01ne92 percent did not arrend religiousservices regularly. Ir
is frightening co realize rhacin a quarcer ofa cencury ,ve have noc1nade
anysignificanc progress on chis issue.' fit is r.oo n1ust change.
2,8. lbi11g1011 S choolDisn1av. Schempp.374 U.S.203(1963).
29. l his decision is understa1ldabl t; e\ ci-. justifiable, for du:s:-une reason that reaching the
scientific c\idence fur creation docs rll)t, as such, establish tl1eistic re.lig l o ns. n 1is, ho wev er,
docs not mean that court decisions fuvoringevolution co the. exd us:ior1of cnatio 1l, do not
favortenetscomp,tibk wit'h0 1'lcsetof rdigious bdidS O\'erother rdigio1'ls ch.aldo nor share
these belief's. A11d tl1is is pn."Cisd y what rheco urt dec-ision s fin'Oring thecxclui-ive tc1chingof
evolutionhavedooe .
 Creation and the Co urts

My experience at che Arkansastrial caught nie chat no ,natter ho,v

n1anygoodargtunenrs, scientificallyand philosophically,creatjoniscs put
fonvard-and chere,vere niany,as \Vayne Frair noted (see che preface co
chisbook) - nonecheelss,when filtered through a biasedcourtand niedia,
creationists were,nade colook bad.TwoeXlUnples1nake rhepoint.Donald
Chinick flatly denied agreeinenc ,vith a scaceinenc n1ade bya n1e1nber of
che Bible Science organizacion (ro,vhich Chinick also belonged) rhac
he ,vanred co get the Bible and Christ back into public school science
classes. Nevertheless,Chittick wasassociated with chacstacement in die
news report on his cestin1ony at the trial (see appendix 1).
Bernard Goldberg, ,vho served for nearly cl1ircy years as a reporter
and producer for CBS News,scares in hisNew l'ork Tin1es bestseller Bias,
"In 1985 the LosAnge/.es Ttrnes conducted a nationwide surveyofabout
duee thousand journalisesand chesa1ne ntunber ofpeople in thegeneral
public co see how each group felt about die niajor issues of die day ... :

23percent of rhe public said diey,vere liberal; 55 percent of the

journalises described che1nselves as liberal.
56 percent of the public favored Ronald Reagan; 30 percent of
die journalises favored Ronald Reagan.
49 percent ofche public was for a wo1nan's righc co havean abor-
cion; 82 percenc of che journalises ,vere pro-clioice.
74 percent ofche public wasfor prayer in public schools; 25 percent
of the journalists surveyed were for prayer in die public scliools.
56 percent of the non-journalistswere for affirn1ative action; 8 I
percenr.ofdie journalises ,vere for affirn1acive accion.
75 percenc ofdie public,vasfor chedeach penalty in niurder cases;
47 percent of journalises were tor die dearn penalty.
Half die public was for stricter handgun concrols; 78 percent of
die journalises ,vere for cougher gun concrols.30

My own cescin1ony (seecliapcer 4),which wascodie hearcofdie issue,

wasal,nosr cocally ignored byche111.linscreainniedia- a.nd unfo rcunacely
30. ll<rnard Goldberg.Bia, (\'1i'shington, D.C.: R<egncrr, 2002 ). 126.
Lcs ons ro Ue Learned 305
even the Christian,nedia, who were absent from the trial, used second-
hand reportsfor theirstories{see appendix 2). Insread, ina verysuccessful
diversionary racric, the ACLU decided to rake advantage of rhe judge's
bias by allowing tesri,nony about witnesses' religious beliefs about die
devil and de,nonic deception in the world. 1li is1nade greac headlines,
bur ir torally distorted rhe realissue (Can creation be mughr fron1a sci-
entific pointofview in schools?). 'D1ese diversion and distortion tactics
rorally buried 1ny tescilnony ,vhich, according to eyewitnesses present,
had descroyed the ACLU case {see the fore,vord to this book).
Further, chere is the ,nysterious episode of the court scenogrnpher's
refusal co transcribe n1y resciniony until after the Supretne Court had
ruled on d1is issue so1ne five years larer (in I987)-this in spite of 1ny
repeated efforts to get the tesriluony rranscribed.Once I n1ec wid1an
Arkansas acrorney,vho,vocked regufarly,vidi chatcourt,and he assured
1ne d1ar he could gee rhe cesciinony transcribed. He wasshocked when
die person whodid d1at job refused to transcribe ir,wirl1oucexplanation.
\Vhen he asked why, she ,vould only smile at him.111en, stranger than
ficrio1,1,vithin ,veeks after rhe Supre,ne Courc ruled against crearion in
Edwards (1987),the Arkansas court began transcribing1ny cesti1nony,
and eventually I wasgiven acopy by die attorney general's office. Now, I
a1n nor asupporterofconspiracy theories in general, but given the faces
of chis situation, I can only conclude diat son1eone did nor ,vane niy
restilnony available for lacer legal appeals, includingthe appeal co the
Supren1e Courc.lnrerestinglyenough, without acourr-rranscribedrecord
of1ny resti1nony, Supren1e Court .Jusrice Antonin Scalia used a siniilar
arguniencin hisstrongdissent on theEdwardscase{see chapter 6). One
can only speculate as to,vhar dieCourc,votild have ruled had they seen
rhe fuller arg1unencand raken ic inco consideration in d1eir decision.
Ho,vever, ,ny experience with a biased judiciary on d1ese niatcers does
not leave n1e ,virh a loc ofopci1nis1n about the hypod1ecicalouccon1e.
'Diisisrheproblen1, buc what isrhesolution? leiseasier cosn1ella rorcen
eggdian tolaya betterone. Furdier, I an1painfully re,n indedofho,vlong
itcookevolucionists togain do1nina11t c1ilcural recognition of their vie,v.
Danvin ,vrore On theOr('{in o[Species in 1859,and ir,vas nor wuilover
a hundredyears lacer (in Epperson, 1968) r11ac rhe first Supre,ne Court
 Creation and the Courts

decision ca1ne down in their favor. Yes, they gained a n1oral and media
victory in 1925, buceven chis wascwogenerationsafterDanvin's book. le
cookover a century for Darwin's idea co becoo1e law in the Uniced Scates.
And asdisappointed asI a,n cosay it, \Veare nor going co ,vin d1is bacde
con1orrow, chis year, next year, or probablyfor1nany decades co co1ne.
Mean,vhile, ic is becrer co lighc a candle chan co curse che darkness.
Here are so111e candles co light:
I) Voce fo rconservative candidates for political office. Makesure they
are judicially conservative, nor jusc econo111ically, socially, or 111ilicarily
conservative.
2) Beco,ne a journalise and do son1erhing abour n1edia bias yourself.
3) Run for public office, scarring ,vid1 your local school board. le is
an easier election co win (I did rwice), and you can be an influence on
school policiesand cexcbooks, including creation isc1nacerial.
4) Becon1e a scientist and learn how co defend creation scientifically.
5) Arrend a good sen1inai:y (like Southern Evangelical Se1ninary in
Charlocre, N.C.) d1ac reaches ho,v co defend d1e rruch. A recent poll
sho,vs char less d1an IO percent of Chrisrians understand whar it n1eans
co have a Christian ,voddvie,v, and even fe,ver kno\\1 ho,v co defend
their faich.
6) Gee a Ph.D. in science and/or philosophy. 'The rooc issues in che
creacion/evoluciondebace are philosopl1ical, and the bacde n1usc be
,voll on an ideological level.
7) Send your cliildren ro a good Christian school or ceacl1 d1e1n ac
hon1e, where chey can be educated in a Christian worldview.
8) Send your children co a good C hristian ca1np ( like Sununir Minis-
eries in Manitou Springs, C olo.) ,vhere d1ey will beeducated in world-
vie,v issues, noc just entertained.
9) If yourchildren go coa secularschool,111ake sure rhey ger involved
in a good Christian group on can1pus; and readJ. Budziszewski's book
Oil How to Stay Chn'.;tian in College; PhillipJohnson's book on Deflat-
ingDanvinisrn;and I Don't Have Enough Faithto Bean Atheist, which
I coaurhored with Frank Turek.31
3 I . J.Rudz.is:r.cwski, 1/oru10 S1,tyChris1itmin C.olkge{Colo rado Springs: N,a,.J>rcss , 19')9 ) :
Phillip Johnson, Deft!tui 11g Da r 11.Jini.m 1 ( DownersGrove, llJ.: Lu <'.rVarsi't)Press. 199 7): No t
Lcs ons ro Ue Learned 307
10) Becon1e a public school teacher.'TI1ere are n1any things chat can be
done leg-ally, and the Supre,ne Courc has noc yec forbidden the presen-
tation ofscientific evidence tor intelligent design as a ,uaccer of p,ri\ace
freedo,n ofspeech; ic has only ruled on a case chat mandated teaching
creation alongwith evolution in publicschools.Further, checourcshave
ruled ,nany things in our favor, including:
a)1he released rin1e progra111, whereby srudencs can be released ro
go off ca,npus co scudy a copic considered religious by the courcs (in
McCollurn, 1948).
b)'TI1e Biblecan becaughtasliteniture, without clairningic is true.Seu-
dents are smart enough co ,nake up d1eir own niindsorask questions.
c) Teachers can share meic o,vn beliefson creation (oroilier copies),
ifasked by sn1dencs.
d)' 1l1ecourrs allo,v reachingabout religion, bur nor me reachingo/
religion (Abington, 1961).1his can be used co teach abor,tcreacion and
noc die ceachingo/ creacion.
e)Yourlifewillbeaninfluence inand ofitself,and can lead rolegicin1ace
st udenc-iniciaced in-classdiscussionorali:er-school opporcuniries.

'Ilie Educational Issue

Before concluding, c,vo1nore issues need co be briefly discussed. First,

rheeducarional issue.1here is greaceducacional valuein reaching bod1
sidesof issues.By weighingcheargu,nents proand con,scudencs nor.o nly
learn aloc niore, but chey are ina better position co n1ake up their o,vn
minds. And even if cheir niinds a1e preccy well sec on one vie,v before
rhey study cheocher, it ,vill enable mern ro see ,vhy odiers believe,vhat
they believe and, if nod1ingelse, betterenable cheni codefend d1eir o,vn
view. A curriculum experc, Larry Parker of Georgia Scare University,
gave eloquent resci1nony co d1e value of reaching opposing vie,vs such
ascreation and evolution. Ali:er describnig five n1ajor principles as rhe
rnan Ge isle.r and Frank Ture.k:, / Don't H11ve EnoughFaith to JJe ,m A1ul ii1 (\X1 heaton, Ill.:
Cros,way,2004).
 Creation and the Co urts

basis of a good curriculu1n,he a/finned chat "teach ing nvo sides of a

concroversy likechis is consistent with all chose prin ciples."32
It isainazinghow n1any pro -evolutionists have1nade stacen1encs chat
favor in principleteachingcreacion alongsideevolucion.ConsiderJohn
Scopes hi1nsel che defendant ac che Scopes trial (1925). He said: "If
you lirnic a teacher coonly onesideof ai1yching, the whole cow1cry will
eventually haveonly one d1oughc, be one individuaJ." 33 On Dece111ber
3,1976, justa rewyears be fore1\fcl ean,die ACLU Acade1nic Freedo111
Con1n1ittee ,vroce: "One of the objectives of universal free education
is co develop in children the intellectual capacities required for the
elfeccive exercise of die rights and duties of citizenship. Experience
den1onscraces that d1is is best accon1plished in an annosphere of free
inquiry and discussion." Even die Supre1ne Court itself (in Edwards),
,vhen ruling on creation, said "all scientific theories about the origins
ofhun1ankind" can be taught or "anyscienrific theory rhat. is based on
establishedfact."34 And, as ,ve saw in chapter I, the ACLU icself at the
Scopes trial declared: "For God's sake lee the children have cheir n1inds
kept open-dose nodoorscocheir knowledge; shutnodoor fron1che111.
. . . Lee che1n have bod1. Lee d1e1n boch be taughc.3"S

The Wzltte ofa FreeMarket ofIdeas

In a free n1arket country like ours, it should be a point of pride co

allo,v alJ vie,vs co be presented. The n1arket of i.deas should be free
as ,veil. Squelching ideas is rhe ,vorst fonn of governn1enccontrol. le
frustrates creativity and productivity in both d1e ideo logical and eco-
32.C ited fn)m a news reporter's derailc:d acc o unt o f Parker's testimony at the 1\rfd . ,m
(198I- 1982) trial.See Geisler, Ct?11to r i11 r/,eC,,urttoom, 11,9
33. John Scope,, quoted in P.\Villfam DmiesandEldr.i Pearl So lomon,11,e 1-Vorldef /Jiology
(New Yo,-k, McGrawHill, 1974), 414.
34, Edttwn l<u. Agu illnrd, 482 U.S. S78 (1987). It is true that ,h;, can be read two ways,
( I) \U,.or '"an y" ,ie w can mean:11\y v ie w indudi1l g C'reation. or (2 ) \1l y"and"a
' ll,. naturalisct:i
,'iew . No nethd css , it expr s es o pennc:ss. andcreationistshavee,,.ery right m testwhat it means
byencou giJlS rcachcn:to volur1rarily teach creationalo ,, gside evolurio ,, .
3S.Dudley Field Malone, q uoted in \Villiam H illeary and Oren \V. Metzger, e.d,.. '!he
1'Vorld 1\1 os1 h, moru Com11 i'111L 1b messtt Evdusitm Case( Cin c-innati: National BookCom.
pany, 19 25), l 8 7.
 Lcs ons ro Ue Learned

non1ic 111arkecs. le isStrange indeed chat a country chat prides itself in

First A,nend,nenc "&eedo111 ofspeech" will not allow d1is freedo111 co
public school teachers in science classes. 'Die fucc is chac chere are cwo
,velJ-k nown and opposing vie,vs on origins, evolution and creation,
and weare nor alJo,ving teachers co teach borh. Whata disgrace to our
cherished ideals.

1be Argt"t 1ent forMinority Rights

Minoricy rights have been astrong politicalissue forgenerations. \Ve

1nob ilize, protest, and n1arch when d1ey are violated- and we should.
Even our o, 1i national birclicercificace, 'Jhe Declaration ofIndependence,
speaks of rhe "inalienable rights" granted us by che "Creator," ,vho is
called "Nature's God." Bueche right coexpress,vhac is seen as a1ni.nor-
ity vie,v of origins has been suppressed cilne and again by che courts.
' Oiisisan intolerable forn1ofideological tyranny. It is chescuffof,vhich
revolutions are ,n ade.' fi1equestion is how long a frustrated 111inoricy
will tolerate cl1is intolerable condition. Noc only are "n1inority rights"
in chis area being fruscraced, but diis"111inoricy" is being forced co pay
caxes co have che courts and schools violate its rights.' lli i.s is a classic
exainple of"caxacion without representation.
Furchenuore, die issue is not even 111inoriry righrs, since a 1najoricy
(up r.o 90 percent)of A1nericansbelieve a creator was involvedin pro-
ducing die universe. So, it is realJy a suppression of 111a_jority rights by
a tyranny ofclie niinoricy. TI1is niusc be brought co aspeedy resolucjon
or else our nae.ion's cherishedbelief in free speech is a niere shain. Far
&0111 being a beacon co die nations, it is an exan1ple of hypocrisy and
inconsistenc.y

111e Tactical Issues

Betoreco ncluding,acoupleof taccicalissuesshould becouched upon.

1he first is judicial idealis111, and diesecond is courtroom cliearrics.
310 C reat ion and the CourtS

Jdealisn1Abo11t 0111]11dicial Systen1

Oneof rhe diings I caineawaywidi froni rhe Arkansas crial(1'.fcLean,

1981-1982) ,vas ,vhac a poor foruin die couccrooin is for discovering
truch. I wenc in with a kind of idealisric vision ofbodi sides presenting
cheir arguniencs objecrivelyand clearly, and rhecase beingdecided inipar-
tiaUy. l ,vas in for a real shock. In actual face, deception ai1d distraction
doniinared.1l1e judge wasbiased(seechapter 3 and appendix I). Logical
fallacy pervaded presenrarions and die final decision. One exainple of
this,vas dieevolurionisc Michael Ruse'sclain1diar evolution ,vasa face,
even though che evolucion isc brief said that ic ,vas a scienci6c d1eory
that could be falsified. \Vhen the cross-exaniiningarcorneyasked how
afact could be falsified,the witness,vascaught inan inextricable trap.36
Also,diefirst witnessfor dieevolutioniscside was rhejudge's Med1odist
bishop, ,vho said only evolurion should be caughr!Jusc ilnagine a case
,vhere Jerry FahveU is the first ,vin1ess for readiing only creation and
die judge is one of his deacons! llie1nedia ,vould have shouced bias
fro111 die roofi:ops! Furcher, d1e judge called creation "Sundayschool"
scuffduring the hearing. \Vhat is rnore, hisruli ng,vasfiUed,vich logical
fallacies (see chaprer 3). Needless co say, die aJniost c,vo ,veeks ar die
trial ,vasan education in reality.

Courtroom Theatrics

One of the distinct inipressions I canie away ,vith ,vas char a trial is
dieacrics and rhe best actors win. Nor only did die ACLU have niore
actors (nearlydiree rinies as niany lawyers), but theyalso trained their
witnesses in theatrics. One,vicness, Langdon Gilkey, later ad1nicred diis
in hisbook on die trial.;, Kno,vinghe wasgoinginto Arkmsas, rhe hearc
of die Bible Belt, Gilkey cur his hair and rook a ringour of his ear ro
u1ake a better in1pressionon the judge.I also noted adistraction tactic
being used by me ACLU during die court proceed ings. \v'hen d1ere
36. See a rcporte.r's ac-<;ount of this in Cre111or in rheCaurrroom, 72.
37. See Langdon Gilkey, Ctt:fll ioniim011 'l'h ,d: Evolt4-tion 1111d God 11/ l. i1tle Rotk { Min-
neapolis:\'Vinston. 1985). 16.
Lcs ons ro Ue Learned 3I I
were effective creation ,virnesses, rhe ACLU attorneys ,vere shuffling
back andford1inchefront of checourcrooni. \Xlhen evolution witnesses
were on the stand, rhecreationist acr.orney sac in quiet respect.
Also, theACLU attorneys useddiversion tactics.When diecreation
,vitnesses ,vere being effective, they ,vould change co another subject
and ask irrelevant questions about d1e ,vitness's religious beliefs (see
appendix 4). Tiiey kne,v diis ,vould attract the actention of the 1nedia
co diesensational and divert dieirattentionfro111theessential. And the
trum is diat it worked.Tiiey,von!niecourcroo111 rurned our robe not
a foru111for rrud1 but astage for meacrics. So, die best actors ,von, and
rhe trurh lost!38 Mose people,vho,vatched meO.J.Si111pson trial ca1ne
ro chis sa111e conclusion.

A ReversedScopes Strategy

Many have felt,even before die Arkansas trial, d1at a becrer srraregy
for creationists would be a "reverse" Scopes trial.' Iliac is, find a public
schoolscience reacher whoon hisown,apart froniscace or school board
111andare, teaches bodi evolution and creation fro111 a striccly scientific
point ofview.nien,ler alawsuit beleveled against hi111. Ofcourse, whar
he is teaclling niust be clear of religious connorarions, and he 1nust be
freeof acrual scacernenrs ofor iniplicarions abouc religious rno civarion.
Ideally, heshould be a highly respected, a,vard-winning,and ,vell-liked
read ier.Lee miscasegorocourt and let usfind out onceand for allho,v
biased rhe court"' ill be about anything chat srnacks of an inrelligenc
cause.At least then we will kno,vforsure,vhecher our tactics rnustshiii:
toarenasother rhan thecourcs.Ofcourse, n1any of these things aregoals
of the intelligent design 1nove1ne nt. Unfortunately, in the Dove, case,
the "baby" of intelligenr. design , vas thro,vn out wid1rhe "badnvar.er"
ofan unforcwiacelaw niandacing rhest udencsbeexposed co intelligent
design, by a biasedcourt. Lee's hopediis issuecan be revisited ina berrer
forni ina highercourc.Ochercases havefailed usingasunilarapproacll.
38. For an cxce.llenr bookt'ln the ACLU's 3gcnda to redefine O't()ral v:ilues,seeAlan Sears
and Craig Osicn, 7/,e ACLU v. Am, ,-ic,r( Nashville: Broadi,-,n & Holman.2005).
311 C reation and the Cc:mrtS

111ese include Webster (1990), PeLoza (1994), and LeVake ( 2000). 39

\Vhile none of these are as n1uch of a reverse Scopes trial as ,ve 1nay
like, they failed because of the bias of cl1e courr.n1is leaves us with the
necessity ofoverco1ning the objections addressed above.

In Conclusion
\Vecan learn rn anylessons fron1 the hiscoryof thecreation/ evolurion
controversy in thecourts. Indeed, ifwe are to besuccessful in die future,
we1nusr learn lessons fro111 rhe pasr. \Ve havelistedconsrjrurional,legal,
policical, philosophical, religious, public relations, educational, and
raccical lessons. In order co i1nple1nencchese lessons, we need a whole
anuy of trained and dedicated accorneys, judges, legislacors, ceacliers,
scienciscs,philosophers, and infonned citizens co undercake chis mo-
1nencous cask. We did not lose chis battle overnight, and it ,vill not be
re-won overnighr. We 111usc be in ir for me long haul. le 1nusr be ,von
on me ideological, policical, legal, and educational levels. Ir ,vill not
jusr happen on ics O\VIl. le is a ,var, and successful ,vars cake good plan-
ning, cr.1ined so ldiers wicl1good weapons, and a well moughc our and
execuced ga.ine plan. le will cakecooperacion becween variouscreatiorusr
groups, cirizens, acciviscs, poliricians, lawyers,and judges. Moseofall, it
,viU rake persuasivecon11nunicacion on me part ofour1noral leaders as
co rhe value of d1e enterprise. \Ve 111usr nor gro,v,veary in ,veil doing.
\Ve1nust agree wid1rhe fa1nous Ainerican patriot Ed,vard Everett Hale
(1822- 1909),,vhen he declared:

I am onlyone,
But still!amone.
I cannotdoeverything,
But still I can dosornething.
And because I rannot do everything
I will not refuse todo
The son1ethingthat I can do.

39. S<:e th e inrro ducrion to rhis book.

 ,
APPENDIX !

Secular Media Coverage

of the McLean Trial

on1paringeyewitnessandlatercourt recordsof thelvfc.Lean

trial(seechapter 4) with niainstrean1111edia reports reveals a
. ..., strong,nedia biasagainst c reationand in favorofevolurion
(seechapter 3). 'The followingsamples fron1thesecularn1edia illustraet
the bias in cern1s ofborh the way rhey reporced and what derails of the
uial they diose ro report on.

What theMedia Reported- And How It Was Biased

Against Creation

Inchese representariveselectionsfro1n che n1ainline1nedia I willprint

their headlines and ,vhat they accually reported, then briefly conunenc
on the bias reflected. AcrheendI'lloffer sornegeneral conunencs abour
1nedia bias.

Ja cksonvilleJournal, Friday, D e ce111be r 11, 1981:

Evolution Key'W'o rd , Textbook Official Says

LITTLEROCK,ARK. (AP) Creationists began lobbying for their point
of view to be rnugbt in publicschools after a leading biology textbook
31 3
314 Appendix i.

o,ganizaiotn decided touse the word evolution in itsbooks, thegroup's

director testi6cd in federal court.
llie word isa red Aagtofundameutalists,\VLlli amV. Mayer testified
yesterday in thetrial ofan Arkansaslaw that requiresbalanced treatment
of creationist rhoughrand evolution if rhe latter is caught in schools.
Mayer is rhe d irector of the Biological ScienceCurriculum Sn1dy in
Boulder, Colo.

Bias noted: When evolutionists tes6fied, they were not said co be

"lobbying"for their vie,v. Also, ,vhile creationists ,vere referred co as
"fundan1entalist,s" a ,vord with generally negativeconnotations ro the
broader public, theevolutionistsacche tria,l, nan yof\ vho,,n vereeirher
atheists or Marxists, ,vere nor referred co by eicher of chose cernis.

News111eek, Decen1ber 1. 1, 1981:

Creation Goes to Coun

PerhapsCharles Darwin was wrong. The more things evolve, the more
theyseem co remainthesame. Fili:y-sixyearsali:er thefamous Sc()pes trial,
ren lawyers s tood in an Arkansas courtroom lase week debating once
agai,1 the competing- and occasionallycomplementary- truths ofsci-
ence and religion. Instead ofa traditionalassault on Darwin's ideas, the
case displayed a new mutant of thearrackon evolution.Ar issuewas the
consrirnrionaliryof an Arkan ts lawwhich requirestharwheneverevolu-
tion is caught, teachers mustgi,eequal time co crcaciou science,a secof
theories chatlookagreatdealliketheBiblicalaccountofCreation dressed
ina labcoat.Supportersof thelaw, mainlyfundainenralistChristians,say
they are merely seeking a fair hearing in thesecularschools. Opponents
argue chat thelaw is notonly poor science, but bad law,in that it violates
the First Amendment ban against theofficialestablishmentof religion.

Bias noted: Once again, supporters ofcreario,n vere called "funda-

n1enacliscs." 1hey ,vere conipared co che 1925 Sc()pes group, ,vhen rhe
1981 case involved an entirely different law- onesupporting ceaching
evolution too-and an entirely different set ot\vitnesses, na1nely cred-
ible, educated expercs in science and philosophy.
Secular Media Coverage of the 1\ 1eLe.an Trial

11,e Washington Post, Wednesday, Dece1nber 9 , 1981:

ACLU Opens Attack o n Creation-Science
By PhilipJ.Hilts
Washington Post Staff \Xlritcr

LITTLE ROCK, ARK., Dec.8.One witnesscharacterized the methods

ofso-called "creation scientists" as "sleazy" and anothe,said he knew
of no creation-scientist who had ever submitteda paper to a scientific
journal for publication, as the plaintiffs in the Arkansas creation trial
got its (sic)argu,nent under wayhere.n1eplaintifts, represented by the
American C ivil Liberties Union, arcseebng toshow that what iscalled
creation-science is noscience at all, but merely religious apologetics for
the word-for-word literalreadingof the Bible.

Bias noted: 'The report refersco "so-called 'creation scientists'" and

depicts creationists as"sleazy" and as not being real scholars. le depicts
crearion as a religious vie,v because ir co,nes fro,n rhe Bible. To a large
degree, che bias inchis report isshown bywhatdetails che,nedia selects
for ir.s reporting.
n1efollowing ire,nsalsosho,v chis"biasofseleccion." Obviously, che
reporters are sin1ply reporring what che witnesses said. And yet, they
just as easily could have chosen to report rhe ,vords of witnesses ,nor e
favorable co creationis111:

Arkansas Gazette, Litde Rock, \Ved.nes day, Decen1ber 9, 1981:

Creationsi1nPrc111ises False, Twist Science, Trial on Act 590Told

2ndTry Fails to Get Li111it on Test itnony
By GEORGE \X/ELLS
G11zette Sraft

Crc-.ition-science is no tscience, itsmain premisesarefalse,and itswriters

frequently twist chc work of accepted scientiscs to meet preconceived
notions, aseriesof witnessessaid Tuesday in federal courr.
 Appendix t

Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, Wednesday, Oecen1ber 9, 1981:

Creation-Science Law Assailed

LITTLE ROCK, ARK. (UPI) Requiringteachers to teach creation-
science along with evolutionwould be dreadfully wrong, a geneticist
testified Tuesdayasscientistscontinueto criticizetheArkansas creation-
science lawword by worcl
C reationscienceis not science,said FranciscoA) tla,a genetics pro-
fessor at the University ofCaliforniaat Davis,and no evidenceexists to
backup the theory as explained in the1\ rkansas statute.

Jackson
vi/Je jo 11r11al (Jacksonville, Florida), Wednesday,
December 9, 1981:

Creation-science IsAbsurd, Geologist Tells Arkansas Court

LITTLE ROC K,1\ RK. (AP)n,ecreation-sciencewhich Arkansaslaw
saysshouldber.1ughtalongside evolution in irspublicschoolsisasabsurd
as t.hc theory that t.hc Eanh is flat, according to a geologist. G. Brent
Dalrympleof theU.S. GeologicalSurveywasoneoffour witnessescalled
yesterdayby A,ncrican Civil Liberties Union lawyersas theyattacked
the scatc law asan unconstit utional establishment of religion.

Dallas Times Herald, Wednesday, D ecem ber 9, 1981:

Scientists Ridicule Evidence of Creationists

United PressInternational

LITTLE ROCK, ARK. Scientiststestifyingagainst Arkansas' creation-

science law Tuesday said evidence intendedto back up the concept
is based on o utdatedor discredited research, errors, and misleading
statements.
'Thecreation-scientists' claimthat the Eart.his no more than 20,000
years old, for example, ranks with the Aat Eanh hypothesis a nd the
hypothesis that thesun goes around the Earth, said Brent Dalrymple
of the U.S.Geological Survey.
Secular Me.dia Coverage of the1\1el e.an Trial 317
Jacksonville jo11rnal, 'Il1ursday, Oecen1ber 10, 1981:

Creationis,n Bad for Classes, Official Says

LITTLE ROCK,1\RK. (AP) Enforcc1nentof Arkansas' creationstat
ute would turn classroomsinto circuses,withst udents tryingto catch
teachers disobeyingit,saysaschoolofficial \\ 10 opp osed thelaw. If you
implement the law,studenrs would have a mpleopportunity to catch
the teacher doing wrong, Dennis Glasgow,science director for Little
Rock schools, testified yesterday i11 the federal court trial of a lawsuit
challenging thestatute'sconstitutionality.

Dallas Ti111es Herald, Thursday, Oecen1ber 10, 1981:

Scl1ool Officfal CitesConflict in Tc.-iching Creation-Science

Under New Arkansas Law
United PressInternational

LIT..fLE ROCK, ARK. Tead1ers co uld not possibly tell their stu-
dents about creation-science under Arkansas' ne.w law without discuss-
ing religion, the science supenisor for Little Rock schools testified
\Vednesday.
Testifying in Arkansas' version of the Scopes monkey trial, Dennis
Glasgow sa id: The first time I came acrossany of theseideas was in my
SundaySchoolclass.

Bias noted: ln addition ro rhe "anti-creationistselectviity" we are

seeingin these ne,vs reports, note the pejorative reference co cheScopes
"n1onkey rrial."

The Most Sensational and Distorted Media Reporting of AU

n1e reportingon u1y,ovn testimony(chapeer4)andcross-exau1inacion

(appendix4) was d1e n1oscdisrorred pareof rheenrire rrial. le wasselec-
tive, nvisted, and grossly rnisleading,as rhe following typical selecrions
frorn the rnainline n1edia will den1onstrare.
 Appendix J.

First of all, rhe entire court transcript of n1y cin1e on che stand is
seventy-seven pages. Of chis, the rn edia largely reported on only two
and a half Lines!
Secondly,the n1ediaaunosc entirely ignored n1y prepared cescirnony
(see chapter 4), which not only ,vas to the hearc of che issue buc repre-
sented sorne nvo-thirdsof rny ciuieon rhestand.Instead, they reported
only a couple oflinesofcros-sexaniinarion onanentirely irrelevant n1a-r
ter-rny personal religious beliefs abour dernonic deceprion-which
the biased judge shouldhave disallo,ved.
111ird, che entire thruse of che rnedia blitz on rny cesciniony had die
eftecc of discrediting creationisrn by associating it widi the occult, die
dernonic, and UFOs.' 01is would nor have been possible, since die de
fense attorneys repeatedly objected co ir, unless the biased judge (see
chapter 3) had allowed it and a biased rnedia had exploi r.ed ir.:

Washington Post, Friday, D ece1nber 11, 198 1:

Creationist Tells of l3clicf in UFOs,Satan, Occult

LITTLE ROCK, Dec. 11. The defense of rhe Arkansas crearion law
opened todaywith a spectacularC1Ju,1ruom fireworksdisplay as rhc opcn-
ingcrearionisr wirness described,under cross-examinarion his beliefin
unidentified flyingobjects, demon possession and theoccult, which he
said hesees asactual satanic attacks in the wodd [emphasis added).

Bias noted: First of all, no such ching happened- evenfigurativeyl.

'fl1is,vas agross exaggerdtion. 'In eresi1nply ,vas no"spectacular coun-
roon1fire,vorks display."1l1isstacernent isn1orelikea speccacular1nedia
fire,vorks display. Second, to ignore die entire testin1ony-,vhich ,vas
at the heart of thecontroversy- andconcentrate on d1ings che ACLU
accorneys had no right asking abouc isa total distortion of objectivity.
1l1e Post's baseless report of courtroo1n "fireworks" and dieir focus
on UFOs was d1en picked up by1nany od1er newspapers all around
the ,vorld:
We're sorry. Your browse must accept cookies to be able to browse
the text of this book.

Please set your browser to accept cookies and try again.

Thank you.
32.0 Appendix 1

belief in unidentified flying objects, de.mon possesio

s n,and the occult,
whichhe sees as actualsatanic arracks in the world.

Arkansas Gazette, Little Ro ck, Saturday, Decen1ber 11., 1981:

1l1cologian Contends U FOs Workof Saran

Thefinal witness for rhc plaintiffs and rhefirst witness for thestare agreed
Friday that Ace590of I981,chescarecreation-science law,was inspired
by Genesis, but disagreed on whether thelawshould stand.
ln his testimony, Dr. Norman Geisler, a professor of rheology and
philosophy at Dallas Theological Seminary, who was the first witness
called hy thestare in rhe rrial of rhe law's co nsticurionaliry,also said,"I
believe in Ul' Os- 1believe theyarcasatanicmanifestationin the world
for the purpose of deception."

Los Angeles Herald Examiner, Saturday, Decen1ber 1 1., 198 x:

\ V itncss in Creation Trial Links UFOs to Satan

LITTLE ROCK,ARK. (AP) A rheologyprofessor resrifyingyesrerday
in a court restof how creation sho uld be raughr in publicschools said
he believesUFOs exist and are rhe work of Saran.
Norman Geisler, professorof rheology and philosophyat DallasTheo-
logical Seminary in Dallas, who testified as rhesrare's first witness,said
unidentified flying objects arc asatanic manifestation in the world for
the purpose ofdeception.

A rka nsas Ga zette, Little Rock, Saturday, December 1 1., 19 81:

H.ighHghts of T,ria1
A Dallas theologian, the firsc witness for rhe state in thecreation-
science trial,said Friday char he believed UFOsexist:"I believerhcyare
asatanic manifestation in the world for the purpose ofdeception."
n, ewitnesswas Dr. Norman Geisler, professor of rheologyand phi-
losophy at Dallas Theologica lSeminary, whoalsosaid rharhebelieved
that Act 590 re.Acctcd the book ofGenesis, but chat the Bibleservedas
the inspiration for many legitimatescientific inquiries.
Secular Media Co v ragc of t hc ;\ 1cLcan Trial 321

Dehoit 1V e1vs, Saturday, Dece1uber 1 2, 1981:

Creationl t Takes Stand , Calls UFOs \Vork of Devil

LITTLE ROCK, ARK. Ul Os arethe work of the devil, says the first
witness called to defend an Arkansas law that allows teaching creation-
ism in publicschools.
They' re asatanic manifestation in the world for rhe purposesofde-
ception, said Norman Geisler, a professor of rheologycalled ro help
defend the law" b"i'nst a federal suit by the American Civil Liberties
Union.Geisler,whosaid hebelieveseverything in the Bibleis true, made
hiscomments undera gruelingcross-examinationby Anthony Siano,a
New York attorney, who with Little Rock attorney Ro bert CearleyJr.,
is assisting the ACLU in the case.

Biasnoted: Firsc, die niedia sensationalized c,voand a half lines of

n1y seventy-seven-pagetestilnony and largely ignored the heart of the
argtunencsgiven in fuvor of reachingcreation. Further, nor only did die
111edia report it on che day ic happened (Dec. 11), buc ch ey conciuued
to report icon the 12th, I3di, I4di,and J5d1(see below), even diough
it ,vas old ne\vsand ne\v witnesseshad taken die stand and given sig-
nificant cescin1ony.

Tbe Tar11pa Trib11ne-Times, Sunday , December 13, 1981:

Creative Testi111011y ar Creationisn1 Trial
LITT LE ROC K, ARK. (AP) Testimony in the trial of a srare law
requiring balanced presentatio ns of evolution and creation-science
has so far encompassed UFOs, rhe devil and fears about student
vigilantes.

Bias noted: Far n1ore relevant tesci111ony as co ,vhy crearion ,vas

scienceand should be caughc alongside evolution was alinosc totally
neglected byd1e n1edia infavor ofche irrelevant, distorced, and exagger-
ared co n11ne ncse ngendered byACLU attorneys' questionson religious
belief,vhich,vould havebeen ruled out of order had rhe judge nor been
biased against creacionis1n.
32.2 Appendix J.

T11eMia1niHeraltl, Sunday, Dece111ber 13, 1981:

UFOs Are Caused bySatan, \'<fitnessat Creation Trial Says

LITT LE ROCK, ARK. (AP) A witness who support$ teaching cre-
ationism in Arkansas public schoolssays he findsevidence in the Bible
for UFOs, which he called asatanic manifestation in the world for the
purpose of deception. "I believe everything the Bible affirms is rrue;'
Norman Geisler of Dallas 111eolog ical Seminary in Dallas testified
Friday.

Bias noted: Here again, they rnake it look as if it ,vas just Bible-
thu1nping theologians ,vho supported the biblical vie,v of creation,
,vhen in fact it was a philosopher ,vith a Ph.D., and noted scientists
with doctorates in their fields who ,vere only asking rl1at die court be
fair and aUo,v both of rhe only c,vo possible vie,vs on origins, rather
rhan just one. 111e ,nainline n1edia never presented a fair picture of
,vhat really happened. Even 1ny friends reading the repons ended up
wirl1a rorally lopsided view. And rhe days following yielded n1ore of
the sa,ne:

Tl,e Daily De111ocrat, Woodland-Davis, Calif., S11.llday ,

December 14, 1981 (caption):

Key ACLU atto rney Philip Kap lan catches up on his phone mes-
sages during a break in the creation science trial in Little Rock,
Ark. this week. D r. Norman L. Geisler, a professor at Dallas Theo -
logical Seminary led off the defense by saying UFOs arc a satanic
manifestation.

Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock, fonday, Dece1uher 14, 1981:

Satan's UFOs
Co nsideringall the testimony that had preceded c,eationism's first wit-
ness, it could hardly be surprising that Satan has now been introduced
in the constitutional test before Federal Judge \'Xlilliam R. Overton of
Arkansas' creation-science law,Ace 590of 198I. Incroducing this fresh
Secular Media Coverage of the1\ l el e.a11Trial 32 3
element into the trial on J'.ridaywas D,.Norman Geisler, a p1ofcssor of
theologyand philosophyat DallasTheologicalSen1inray,as he beganche
tescilnony of defense witnesses called byAttorney General Steve Clark.
le was interestingcescimony, not only on direct exa,nination but also
on cross examination by theaccorneys for the American CivJ Liberties
Union, which represents che plaincilts, half of chem religiousleaders
themselves.

Bias no ted: Neither che la,v itself; nor rhe defense attorneys,nor
thecreation witness had "introduced" "Satan" into che trial Jc ,vas the
ACLU who introduced him, with the approval of rhe judge, in o rder
ro discredit creation and irs,virnesses.

Tbe West Australian, Tuesday,December 15, 1981:

FieryStart to Trial on Creation Law

LITTLE ROCK, Mon: The defense of the Arkansas c reation law has
opened with a spectacular courtrrl/>1n fireworks displa:y as the opening
creationist witnesssaid he believed in unidentifiedflyingobjects, demon
possession and theoccult, which he sees assatanic attacksin the world
[emphasis added].

Bias noted: Ir is11oreworcl1y cl1ac nor only did1nedia halfway around

rhe ,vorld pick up che sarne bias but rhey plagiarized the very words
fron1 cl1e Washington Post report (above). Even son1e Christian rnedia
(seeappendix 2) did d1issan1ekindofsecondhand distorted reporr.ing.
111e sarne sensationalized reporting continued afi:er the trial and into
rhe next mond1, as the next selections indicate:

Chenii cal a n d Engi neering News, Decen1ber z1, 1981:

Creationists Expected to Lose Arkansas Fight

'H1ere have been some strange moments as the t rial has unfolded. For
instance, in cross-examination, Norman Geisler,ofche Dallas111eologic-.1I
Seminary in Texas, testified that unidentifiedflying objeccs are Satanic
manifescacions in che world for che purpose of deceptio n.
324 Appendix J

Discover, February1982 :
J udgment Day for C rea tion ism
Siano pounced on rheSatan reference,pressingGeislerro recallanyper-
sonalexperience charconfinnedhis beliefin rhe Devil.Geisler declared,
"! believeUFOs exist." He explained that they are asatanic manifesta-
tion in chis world for rhe purposes ofdeception.

Biasnoted:n1e ACLU accomey had noc"pounced" on tl1e reference

co Sac-an; ic ,vas he who, during cross-exa111inacion, p ried chis i.rrelevanc
infonnacio nour ofa reluccanr ,virness because a biased judge, overruling
che repeaced o bjeccio nsofchedefenseaccorneys, aUowed hi.in codo socoche
discreditof thepresrnned innocent defendant forwhon1he,vassupposed co
beprovidu1ga faircrial A11unbiased readingofdieactualcourt cc-anscript
suppressed for five years (seeappendix4) willverify d1isanalysis.

Other Reports, Some Fair, Many Biased

' Ihe fotJo,ving chree excerpcs are rareexa1n ples of good reporting:

The Ne111York Ti,nes, Tuesday,Dece111ber 15, 198 1:

Professor Defends Tcaclling of Creationas Stunulating
LITTLE ROCK, ARK., Dec. I 4 (AP) Teaching evolution in the
publicschools withoutalso reaching creationism is tantamount ro in-
docrril1arion,an educator testified today in defense of Arkansas' new
creation science law. Larry Parker, a professor of education at Georgia
State Universityin Aria ne-a, alsosaid that teaching creationism as well
as evolution in public schools would make classes stimula ting and
thoug ht-provoking.

Ar ka nsasGa zette, Little Rock, Tuesday, Dece1nbe r Is , 1981:

Perceives Benefits
The other witness Monday was Dr. Larry Parker of Dunwoody, Ga., a
professor ofeducaitonat Georgia Sr-Jte CoJ!ege, whosaid that students
Set:ularMedi.a Co n ragc of the 1\f cLean Trial

would benefit from being taught both concepts. He said educational

psychologists had esrablished chat children who were given divergent
questions showedan increased divergenceof ideas.

Co1n11urcia!Appeal, t.1emphis, Tuesday, D ecember1s, 1981:

Creationism Defenders Trip O,cr cstioo from Judge
The first witness to testify11onday cited local and nationalpolls that
indicate most people want both theories taught in public schools.Stu-
denrsshould lcani how to thinkinschools, not what to think,said Dr.
[.arry E. Parker, associate professor in thedepartmentofcurriculum and
insrructionat Georgia State University.

Bue 1noscreporcs \Vere biased, as these lase fe,v exa,nples show (rhe
firsc of chese also conies fron1che Con-nnercial Appeal arcicle):

Co1n11urcialAppeal,t.1e111phis, Tuesday, December IS, 1981:

Creationism Defenders Trip Over cstions fro1uJudgc

Anotherscientist who testifiedMonday referredtoCharles Darwin,the
F.n herofevolutionary theorya, ndsaid,"!feelif Darwin were alive today
he'd beacreationscientist." Dr. \VayneFrair, professorof biologyatThe
King's Co llegein New York,said A,kansas wason thecutting edge ofa
progressive movement that iscuttingthrough decades of ignoranceto
let studentsconsider creationism in publicschools.

Bias noted: This is a fair but severely truncated scaternenc of one

of che n1osc c redible wicnesses for creacion, ,vho is a ,vorld-reno\vned
expert on turtles and a n1e1nber of the Arnerican Aca,de ny for the Ad-
vanceu1enc of Science.

Arkansas Dernocrat, Oecen1ber 16, 1981:

Educators Say Plant Ancestry ProvesCreation

Scienitficevidenceon theancestriesofplants and ,nineralschallengcsac-
cepced principles ofevolution, creation sciencistssaiTduesday in defense
32.6 Ap pendix J.

of Arkansas' creation sciencelaw. But one witness confirmed he was a

memberof rhe BibleScience Association, which saysputtingChristand
the Bible and rhe power of the Holy Spirit backintoscience isoneof the
most powerful methods of witnessing in chechurch today.

Bias noted:1l1is was oneof the worsedistortionsof what a,vitness

actuallysaid. DonaldChittick had just told theACLU attorney thache
did not agree with that very staren1entby another 1ne n1berof the Bible
ScienceAssociation.Yeeche reponer, usingguile byassociation, lu1npe d
Chiccick with the very scace,nenc he denie d, as though he wanted co
try co gee "Chr ist and the Bibleand the power of the Holy Spirit back
.into sc.ience".

DallasTirnesHerald, Wednesday, Dece1uber 16, 1981:

Zoologist BasesBelief of Origins onBible

Donald Chittick of Newberg, Ore.,explainedoneway creation-sciencisrs
hadarrived at the 10,000year figure for the Earth's age. Hesaid uranium
releases helium as it turns intolead, and the amount of helium now in
theearth'sacmospherecould have been reached in about I0,000 years.
Chin ick, a aker, is a member of the BibleScience Association, Inc.
ofMinneapolis,Minn., whichrefers inicscreed toevolution asa pagan
religion.

Biasnoted: More biasagainst a very crediblescientsit and,vicnessis

expressed here ch rough "guilt by association,"giving his religious back-
groundandassociation with agroup with "Bible" in their narne. All th is
adds co rl1e in1pression rl1at creation is just a religious vie,v.

Discover, February 1982.:

Judg,ncnt Day for C rca tion is,n

Littlescientific research tosupport creationhad been done by thestate's
witnesses. Frairs testimony,fur exa mple, was essentially negative. He
explained that, according to evoluitonists'predictions, red blood cells
should besmaller in advanced vertebrates.Bue he had found charsome
Sccu'3r Media Coverage of the },1eLr.an Trial

amphibians, although higher on the evolutionary scale than fish, had

larger blood cells.

Biasnoted: FrairspeaksofdiebiasagainschiJn, particularly byDiscover

magazine, in dieprefacecochisbook. Havingheardhistestimony and read
his book 1he Case far Creation,1 I can cesrify rhat his cesriniony was nor
"essentially negative." Hegave nwnerous positiveevidences for creation.

Dallas TI111es H era/ti, Wednesda y,Decetnber 16, 1981:

Zoologist Bases BeliefofOrigins on Bible

LittleRock, Ark.Azoologist testifyinginsupportofArkansas' creation-
sciencelawadmitted some of his ideas about the beginningof lifeare
based on biblical scripture. Harold Coffin of Loma Linda Univcrsity,a
Sevenht -dayAdventist school in California.saidTi.,csday theearth was
onlyabout 5,000yearsold- contraryto mostscientistS'o pinions- and
that life was once wiped out bya massiveAood . His belief,he testified,
was based 1nost!y 011 scripture. Coffin said the foss ils found from the
Canibrianperiod arcfullyformed,co,nplcx creatures n1uch Likeanimals
that exist today.Mostgeologistssaydie Cambrianperiod, when rhefirst
o rganisms appeared,wasabout 500 millionyearsago.But Coffin said it
,v-ds5,000 co7,00 0yearsago- notl ongbeforeaworldwideflood wiped
out most animalsand !cit rhcir fossils.
"My data for d1at is religious and not real(r scientific," Coffi n said.
Hesaid the genealogiclarecord in Genesis isone basis for his belief in
a young Earth. Based on the scientific evidence alone, Coffin said,he
could not arguewith evolutionists [emphasis add ed].

Bias no-ted: As the en1phasized ,vords indicate, d1ree tiines in this

shore text reference is ,nade co the creation witness's belief as based on
the Bible and not science. n1isleaves a tota lly fa.lse i,npression diat the
Arkansas la,v h,e vas suppoHi.ng,vould be teaching a biblical vie,v, bur
this isexacdy ,vhat thela,v forbade. Coffin was only referring to where
he got his view, nor diekind ofevidence dia t could be presented for it
in a publicschool.
I. \ yne Frair. 1he Casefor Ch :111io11 (Ch icago: Moody. 1976).
328 Appendix 1

Ch e, nical a11tl Engineering Ne,us, Dece111ber 2 1, 19 81:

CreationistsExpected to Lose Arkansas Fight

Robert Cearley, a Little Rock lawyerworkingwith theACLUsummed
up thestate'scasefor creationism in a post-trial pressconference.1 think
you saw in thecourtroom," hesaid,"the best effort diat could be made
on the pareof thecrearion movemenr to de1nontsratethelegitimacyof
theirscience and there is nolegitimacy."

Bias noted: \Vhy choose an opponent of creationco sun1 up the

creationists' cesc,inony?n1e ,nedia did noc use creacionisrs co sun1 up
rhe evolurioniscs'view.

A rkansa s Gazette, Little Rock, 1l111rsday, Decen1ber17,

I 981:

Life Brought to Eartl1from Space, \''1itness for

Oefonsc Testifies
Lifearose on earth as a result oforganic molecules brought fro,n space
by comets, an astronomer testified Wednesday in federal court during
the eighth day of the creationism trial. Dr. N. C. Wickramasinghe,
head of theapplied mathematicsand astronomy department of Uni-
versity College of\Vales University at Cardiff, said that terrestrial life
had itsorigins in the dust clouds ofspace. He alsosaid that histheory
[ was] developed in collaboration with Sir Fred Hoyle, a noted British
astronomer.

Biasno ted:rhe n1edia did noc ,nenrion chat che witness believed
chat life had an inrelligenc creacor. Nor did ic n1ention rhac he did
not identifychiscreato r as beingsupernatural- both of which were
opposite the stereo type the ,nedia ,vished co generate about cre-
atio nisrn. The judge also ignored this in his decision rhat creation
involved the idea of a supernatural creator and thus ,vas essencially
religious.
Secular Mc.dia Coverage of the 1\ft Le.an Trial

Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock, l hursday,Decen1ber 17, 1981:

High.lightsof Trial
Robert Gentryof Oak Ridge, Tenn., testified char radiation damage co
rocks indicated theearth mig/u beonlya few thousand yearsold.rather
rhan rhe 4.5 billion years usuallyaccepred bygeologists.

Biasnoted: n1is report isaccurate asfaras itgoes, but does nor give
thewholestory. Gencrypresented wirefuted testirnony for aview rhat,
if true, ,vould totally destroy the case for evolution. This deserved at
least a 1nentio11 in die report,sincedie,vholecasefor die only vie,v the
court allo,ved in school (evolution) is entirely dependent on Gentry
being ,vrong. (No science ,vit nessfor evolution even atcernpced co
respond t.o Gentry, and the judge disoiissed his testimony as a "tiny
rnystery.")

C,he11iical and Engineering News, Decen1ber 21, 1981:

Creationists Expected to Lose Arkansas Fight

The scientists who testified on behalfof creationism maintain chat it
and evolutionarc mutually exclusive. Thereforea,ny evidenceagainst
evolutioncounts as evidence for creationism. The research they testi
fied about, ,nuch efit don e in II Library, is directed at showing that
what they call evolutio n cannot have happened and that, chcrcforc,
creation must have happened. Much of rhe rest of their testimony
concerned theories purporting to prove rhat the Earth isonly10,000
yearsoldand that theEarrh'sgeology can bee.xplained byNoah's flood
[emphasis added].

Bias noted:n1e writer said of creationist research diat "rnuch of it

[was] done ina library,"asthough diis were less dian scholarly.11ietruth
is that only a very srna.11fraction of,vhat any scienrist knows cornes frorn
firsthand experirnentarion;thegreater part ofany scientist's knowledge
cornes frorn books in a library.
330 Ap pend ix i.

Judge Overton's C'losing State111ents

Ac che close of che crial Judge Willian1 R. Overcon said, "I ,vill noc
undertake to decide the validicy of the Biblical version of creation nor
che dieory of evolucion." Hesaid, racher, d1ac he,vould decide,vhedier
Acr 590 itself isconsricurional-in odier words, ,vhether ic violates che
separation ofchurch and srace guaranteed under the First Ainend1nent,
,vhecher icviolaced acadeniic fi-eedorn, and,vhed1er icisunconscicucion-
ally vague.
Bias noted:11iis is hollo,v-soundingjudicial rhecoric in view of die
above noced bias die judge revealed againsc creacion science and die
Bibleview ofcreacion. Heobviously fiwored"science;' which he defined
as excluding creation (see chapcer 3). He clearly snapped ac a wicness,
saying creation ,vas what you learn in "Sunday school" and is noc "sci-
ence" (seechapter 3).

Discover Magazine (March 1982)

Typical of diesecular rned ia, che widely read Discover niagazine did
a n1ajor wrice-up on che crial, phocos and all, buc ic was so biased chac
it provoked die follo,ving letter froni rue:

Dear Edito r:
Your article on the Arkansas C reation-Evolutiontrial gave me new
insights into how evolutionhas maintained irsclfin theabsence ofsub-
stantial evidencefor over a century.
First, you emphasized theirrelevant.111e judgesaid the court would
nevercriticizeor discredit any person's testi1nony based on his or her
religious beliefs. Yetyou madesure that theirrelevant personal religious
beliefsof the creationist witnesses were clearly noted. There was,on the
other hand, a conspicuous absence of the radical liberal, agnostic,and
atheisticand even Marxistic beliefs of theevolution witnesses.
Second,_?ou ornitted theessential. C reationim
s ,v-As judgedwrong be-
cause of its religioussou,cc. Yet you o mittedall of thecrucial testimony
thatsourcehas nothingtodo \\ th thescientific justfiiability(asevolution
witnessDr. Rusesaid). You also failed to inform your readers of my tes-
timonyabout thesource of Kekule'smodel for theBenzene molecule-
Secular Media Coverage of the ill rl e.an Trial
331
a visionofasnake bitingics tail.Or of Tesla (whomyou heraldedin the
sameissue) whoseso urcefor thealternatingcurrent motor was a vision
while readinga pantheistic poet(Goethe).What about Socrates, whose
inspiration forphilosophy camefrom a religious prophetess. theOracle
of Delphi? Has anyone ever rejected their scientific theoriessimply
because of their odd religious-likesource?
Finally,have you told your readers what the ACLU lawyer,Clarence
Darrow, said in effect at the Scopes trial ( l 925), that it is bigotry for
publicschools to reach only one theoryoforigins?2 Oh yes, my insight
into evolutio.n\Vhenyou emphasize the irrelevant, om it theessential,
and forbid the opposing viewa hearing, it is easy for a theory co long
outliveits evidence. Myths die hard.
Sincerely,
Norman L. Geisler

Co n clusion
'll1e rnedia biasat"ScopesII" wasson1ecin1es blatant,asseen here, but
ofi:en n1ore subtle. le,vas reflecc.ed in headlines, pejorative words, guile
by association, and in che very selection of what co cover and what noc
cocover. Nowhere ,vaschis ,noreevident than in 111y cescitnony.1J1e best
,vay tor readers co verify chis for che1nselves is co read rhe above ne,vs
reports of 1ny resciinony and chen read die ,vord-for-word reporc of ic
froni tilecourt stenographer, revealed for chefirst cilne in dlis book (in
chapeer 4 and appendix 4).
'll1e1nain stereotype ofcreacion perpetrated by me press was that it is
a religious viewoffundamentalistschat isfound inche Bible. Thecourts
d1e1nselveshavebought intod1iss:une niych, describinggenuineatrernpcs
co teach only chescientificevidence both tor andagainstcreation/evolu-
tion as chinly veiled atce1npcs co establish a ti.1ndan1entalist religion in
die public schools. Nothing could be farther froni rhe faces.
nie real rrngedyischar chegeneralpublic isdependenc on che1nedia for
dieir inipression ofwhac really transpired acrhishistoric and precedent
setting trial. And chat general inipression was seriously distorted.
2.1hi$ (:Otirc senten ce wasomitted by D i it tJ'flt r m aga zine, with no incH-carion of-an ornis
sion,wheo therpublished n'l)' letter.
 ,,..
A P P EN DIX C

Christian Media Coverage

of the McLean Trial

heevangelical Christian n1edia coverageof the trial,vasgenearlly

scant, poor, and secondhand. No n1ajor Christian n1agazine or
newspaperassigned anyone to attend the crial daily.
1l1e Moral Majority and the700 Club (ParRobertson) concentrated
on unjustlycriticizing rheau o rneygeneral. n1eygavelittlesubsra.nrive
reporting on the actual trial proceedings. 7he MoralMaj()Yity Reports
(February 2, 1982) did publish one eyewio1ess evaluation of the uial
(on page I 5).
Eternity n1agazine (May 1982) publishedascrongly negativearticle
on the rrial byso1neone whodidn't attend.n1eygaveonly lin1icedspace
t.o an arr.icle by a trial eye,virness.Bue chis wasgranted only after rhe
eye, vitness had requested space co cry to balancerhe picture.
Moody1Vlonthly (May 1982)srronglysupported checreationists' cause
butstrangelyenough at.tackedchecreation witnesses and defenseofche
tiia.l. In an article citied, Arkansas:\Vhere Creationis,n LoseItsShire,"
rhey asked: \\7hydi dcrearionisn1lose?' fi1eyanswered in large bold print:
333
334 Appendix :1

Jesdefenders sin1ply would nocfight sciencewith science ( 1 1). But chis

is totallyfalse, since thesubstance of diecrearioniscs'case wasco present
nu111erous cred ible scientists who testified to thescientific evidence for
creation.1\1oody, nor being presenrar the trial, had boughr inrod1esaine
niydi widely circulated by d1e secular 1uedia di ac ic \vas a "religion vs.
science" issue. Like1nany odiers, d1ey joined diechorus ofcriticism of
the defense handling of the trial, especially on rhe111acrer ofquestion-
ing me witnesses' religious beliefs. Moody Monthry repo rred : "Geisler
stood behind rhescare and explained that Clark'sstaff had objected co
di is type of question earlier in die crial to no avail and diat ic ,vould
have been futile co havedone so again. Bue C lark's spokes1nan did nor
agre,e vich Geisler, and he cold1'1oody Monthry, 'lewas jusr. pare ofour
strategy noc co. \Ve didn't plan to win the case on cross-exan1inarion.
\Ve planned co win it under direcc cesciinony.'" Moody's srare111enc ,vas
falsesince boch approaches were crue.

Letterfrom Attorney General's Office to Moody Montbl;y

n1ese false criticis,us ,vere apparendy due co son1e n1isquoces and

rn is-iluplicationsdrawn by a freelance reporcer Moody h i red cogive his
accounc of che trial.1lieMoody article d re,v the follo,ving response:

Dear Edito r:
'll1e article entitled ''Arkansas: \Xl here Creationism Lost Its Shirr:
which appeared in the !vlay, 1982 iss ue of your magazine, suffers from
numerous and substan tial inaccuracies. \Xlhilespacewould not allow an
exhaustivecatalogingof all errors which the autho r, /vlr. /vlarrin Mawyer,
made, it is important mat your readers be informed of s01ne of me more
serious errors, lest they be lulled in to accepting Mawycr's comments as
a fair and accurate representation of the trial that actually occurred in
Little Rock. Please permit us to bring to your attention the following
. .
maccurac ,es:
I. Paul Ellwanger d id not help Arkansas legislators and attorneys
construct Act 590,as yourarticlestates. (page I0.)Ellwanger and other
individuals ( incl uding \Xfeodcll Bird) weresolely responsible for draft-
ing the bill which eventually became Act 590. No changes were made
Christian Mc..-dia Coverage of thcJ\fcLean Trial 335
in hisdraft bythe Arkansas Legislature,norwas the Attorney General's
Office ever consultedprior to passage of the legislation. If we had been
consulted prior to the bill becomi11g law.the result would have been a
sounder, more defensible act.
2. Act 590did not require teachers tospendas much timeon creation-
science as they spend teaching evolution science. (page 10.) The bill
mandated balanced treatment, notequal time.Throughout our defense
of the Act, westressed thatbalanced treat,ncnt did not necessarily mean
equal time. Our reading of balanced treatment (and the testimony of
defense witnesses) was to theeffect thatgiving balanced trcam1ent would
requirespendingasufficient amount of time on bothcreation-scienceand
evolution science so that studentscouldfullyunderstand both theories.
The amount of time devoted toeach would necessarily vary,depending
upon the perceptivenessof thestudents, the abilityof the teachers, and
the available scientific evidencefor both theories.
3. Iv!r. Mawyerscharacterization of theattemptedparticipation by at-
torneysWendlelBirdandJohn \Vhiteheadsimilarlyisinaccurate inseveral
respects. Fitst, Mawyer labeled Bird and \Vhitc [sic] asconstitutional at
torneysandasexperienced creationist attorney.s'Tothedegree that either
attorney iscalled a constitutional expert, they are onlyself-appointed
experts.Sincegraduation from lawschool, mostof Bird'semplo}n1ent has
been asa lawclerk 10 7 federal judges, ajob which consiscsof reading trial
transcriptsanddoingresearch. Asa lawclerk, thereis nooppornmity tocry
cases.Thedifference between reading trial transcripts and actually trying
cases is analogous to che difference between reading medical cexcbooks
on chc human heart and performing open heart surgery.
"Thesecond error by Mawyer lies in hiseditorializingthat weoffered
Bird onlya minor role. Infact,Bird wasoffered theopportunity to par-
ticipate in all aspectsof thet-ase,but asone memberofa team.(Thisisthe
sainerolewhichCX'))Crt a ttorneys have had inothercases with onroffice in
the past.) Not content to merelyserve asan integral pareofa team, Bird
stated in no uncertain tenns that ifhe could not run the team,he would
not play at all. It need only be pointed our that it is Steve Clark- not
Wendell Bird-who is elected by the people of Arkansas as che States
chief legal officer. Steve Clark never has nor will he ever abdicate the
duties and resptlnsibilities entrusted tt) him hy the people of1\ckansas.
4.n1earticlestates that theAttorneyGeneral becamecxrrcn1cly upset
when,our of 16witnessesscl1eduledcowitness, only8 appeared.One,a
336 Appendix2

Dr. Dean Kenyon, Aew into Little Rock andleft the next morning. (Page
11.) It iscorrect that Kenyon left Litt.le Rockabrup tly.(\Xie acceptasac-
curate the sta te ment in Mawycr's article chat Kenyon left at che urging
of Bird. Tampering with witnesses is not looked upon with favor in che
legal profession.) Beyond the departure of Kenyon, it is a falsehood co
say that the Attorney Generalwasextremely upset when only eight wit-
nessesappeared. Thefaceisthatwe made a conscious decision not cocall
several wit nesseswhom we had previously listed as potential witnesses.
The individuals were not called becausewedid not need their testimony
or d,eypresented variousstrategicproblerns forthedefense which would
have hurt our case more than it could have helped.
5. Perhaps che most serious of Mawyer's many errors is found on
page 12, where hestates:"Virtually alldefendants[witnesses]admitted
that they were only familiar with creation in the context of the Bible,
not scientific study.'This adinission laid bare che essential weakness of
the entire defense.":1 irst, this statement is patently false.' Ih c d efense
expert witnesses said that in their opinion thescientific evidencefit the
creation-science ,node!better than that ofevolution. All of the defense
expert wit nesseshad done wo rk which in their professional opi nion
supported creation science.Almost all of the defensesciencewitnesses
have had articles published in scientific journals. lhus, there is no basis
infact fortheauthor'squotedsratemcnt.Perhaps Mawyer wasattempt-
ing- in hisown inarticulate,iinpreciseway- to allude to ano th eraspect
ofour defense.Some (but not all) ofour witnesses did admit that their
initial interest into [sir.] delving into thescientific evidence forcreation
had been sp urred by their study of Genesis. The testimonyat trial was
unifor m that this fuct was not relevant to the scicnti6c validityof cre-
ation science.Thesource of ascientific th eo ry isabsolutelyirreleV'ant if
thefaces justify or support the theory. Witnesses for both the plaintiffs
and defendants agreed o n this po int. (For example, Dr. Michael Ruse,
oneof the plaintiffs'expertsin the philosophy ofscience, testified under
cross examination that Nlarxis m is a religion, and that Harvard Pro fes-
so r Stephen J.Go uld is motivated by Marxism in espousing a variant
on evolution knownas punctu ated cquilibrimn.Nonetheless.Rusesaid,
the fact that Gould'ssource is religion docs not require dismissal of the
theory).
6. illustrative ofMawyer's slanted postmorce111is the slight mention
of Dr. Robert Gentry of Oak Ridge,Tennessee, who testified on behalf
Christian Mc..-di3 Coverage of thc1'1cLean Trial 337
of thedefendantS. Gentry's work isthe mostcompellingevidence within
thescientific comn1unity fora relatively recentageof theearth. His work,
which centers on theage of thegranites which underlie thecontinents.
strongly indicates that these granites had co have cooled in a maccer of
minutes, rather t.han over millions of years as evolutionary theory pre-
supposes. Mawyer neglectedto point out that Gentry is acknowledged
as che leadinge:\verc in chc world on chis theory and has provided a test
to falsify his theory. Todate, his theory has not been falsified.
7. Another glaringerror was thestaten1ent attributed toaspokesman
fortheArkansas AttorneyGeneral concerning the tcstin1onyof Dr. Nor-
man L.Geisler,a Professor of Theologyat DallasTheologicalSeminary.
(Page13.) In thecontext of thearticle,?.1awyerquotesa spokesman for
the AttorneyGeneral'sOfficeasdisagreeing with Dr.Geisler'sstatement
on the reasons why no objection was made to Gcisler's testimony on
UFOs. Q0te che contrary is, in face, crue. Dr. Geisler was che State's
leadingexpert witness on philosophy and religion. lhc subs tanceof his
testimony was never challenged by attorneys for the ACLU on cross
examination. Rather, they chose to question Dr. Geislerabout a totally
unrelated matter, i.e.. his bclicf in the cxcistcnce of Satan.
Throughout the first several days of the trial the Atcorney General
strenuously objected to all questions concerning the rd igious bclicfsof
witnesses. These objections were consistently overruled by the Court.
Indeed, we cold the Judge chat we had a continuing objection to any
question concerninga witness'(s] religious beliefs,and thisobjection was
noted in the official court record. Inasmucl1 as Dr. Geisler testified on
the fifth day of trial (and after theentry ofour continuingobjection), it
would have been mere folly to again object to this line ofquestioning.
Theanicle further implies that wedid notobject tothecrossex:unina-
tion of Dr. Geisler because it was just a part of our strategy not to. "'X'e
didn't plan co win the case on cross examination. \Ve planned to win it
under direct testimony." (Page 13.) ln actuality, what Mr. l'v!awyer has
done isconstruct what lawyers cenn a classic non sequitur (i.e.,an infer-
ence that docs not followfrom the premises).Thequotedstatement deals
solely with our cross-ex-.uninacion of ACLU witnesses. not the ACLUs
crosscxan1ination ofour witnesses'. ll1edecision nottoobject tothecross-
examination ofour own witness (l) r.Geisler) had nothing whatsoever tt)
do with our plan not towin thecaseoncrossexamination of thewitnesses
fortheACLU. In other words,wefeltchat witnesses for theStacecould,on
338 Appendix2

direct examination, ofter convincing evidenceinsupport of thecreation

1nodel of origins. We certainly never expected witnesses for the ACLU,
whowereirrevocably commi tted totheevolution model oforigins, to ofter
any evidence favorable to our position during cross-examination. Thus,
in view of rhe Court's previous rulings on t.head111issibiliryof witnesses'
religious beliefs, absolutely no useful purpose would have beenserved by
again objec tingduring Dr. Geisler'scross examination. To have done so
would have onlyserved to emphasize an inconseq uential derail.
In conclusion,.:\'lawyer'sarticle isanusleadingand inaccurateattempt
to utilize the Office of Attorney General and the defense witnesses as
convenient scapegoatsfor rhe failure of Act 590. 'The issueof creation
science and evolution-scienciesa C(lmplex one,and will continue to be
debated foryears to come. )\,fr. /\,lawyer's article hurtS, rather than helps,
that debate. But, perhaps we expected too mucl1of him. On page 12 of
thearticle, /\,lawyer identified Dr. Ariel Roth as a woman (referring to
"her deposition"). In all our meetings with Dr. Roth both before and
during the trial, he wasa man.Someone who cannot accurately report
thesexofoneindividual s ho uld not beentrusted with the responsibility
of reporting chc origio of all man.kind.

Yours truly,
STE\TE CLARK Attorney General
DAVID L. \VILLIAMS RICK CAMPBELL
Deputy Attorney General Assistant Attorney General'

The Coverage by Christianity Today

Christianity Today hired a freelance reporte r ,vho attended only a

shore tin1eo noneday,even d1ough he waslivingin the Little Rock area.
\Vhen we asked hin1why he didn't attend the trial daily, he cold us he
,vasgoing co,vrice a conce1nporary hiscorical account based largely on
che ne,vspaper reporcs. le ,vas no surprise d1ac rhe Christianity Today
report on the trial (January 22, I982) reAecced rhe san1e scereotypicaJ
1. Tl1is lett e r, writt<.':n May J0, 1982, was puhl idted by i\1t)()dy. Unfo rtunately,I arn unable
to provide the publi<."ation date .
Christian Mt.-dia Co verage of the A1tLe1111Trial
339
irrelevant., sensational, and distorted picture presented in the sect1lar
press., I vroce th e follo,ving letter in response co d1eir coverage:

Dear Editor:
Your article on the Arkansascreationtrial wasa colossaldisappointment
and a gross d istortion of the truth. By mi111icking thesecular media's
focus on the out-of-conte,xt irrelevant, and sensational, you held up
the creation witnesses and defense attorneys to public scorn. You also
misrepresentedaspokesman for the Attorney General, thereby casting
aspersions on the credibility ofanother witness. Further, you disto rted
the testimony of the valiantscience witnesses,manyofwhom risked their
professional reputations to testify2. And contrary to your uni11fonned
claim that theydid not light science with science, these scientistsgave
threesoliddaysofscientificevdi enceforcreationism. If your reporter had
attended the trial hewould have known this. DuaneGish,Cal Beisner,
Mark Keough, and myself were all evangelical writers present for the
whole science testimony, and we all disagreewith your gross misrep-
resentation.\Vhydidn't you get someone who k11ew what theywere
talking about? Why did you hirean absentee,free-lancewriter from
\X1ashingco n, D.C.? And whydid you refuse to printa firsthandaccount
offered you by an evangelical writer (Cal Beisner) who did attend the
crial? \Vhy didn't your reportereven telephone anyof the above men-
tionedeye-witness writers to get the faces ? And why didil't he use the
firsthand material of the prepublication manuscript on the trial (The
Creator in the Courtroom, Mott Media)sent cohim?
To cap it all oft;you printed an interviewwith D r. \ '(f _ T. Bro\\01 in
which you proudly paraded the scientific evidence you believe should
have been given at the trial. \Veil, a littlefirsthand knowledgewould
have told you that this verysame scientific evidencewas presented at
the trial. In brief, your report was woefully ignorant, grossly d istorted,
and potentially libelo us. 1nis is the kind of thing we expect from the
world, but not from fellowChristians.

Sincerely,
Norman L. Geisler
2. Robert Gcr)tr)' wasinformedafter thetrial that hiscontractat the Oak Ridge National
Labo rato ry (Tenn.) would not bere.newed . I learne.:l lat<'r froman in side source tl1at h i,s boss
was not happythat he had testifiedat d\c trial.
340 Appendix 2.

Institute for Creation Research (ICR) Article

'The lnstitute for Creation Research ( ICR) had an accurate but brief
(2-page) report in their bnpact (March,1982, No. I05) on rhe trial by
Duane Gish, who ,vas an observer at rhe trial. He spoke of the defense
testilnony asbrW iant and excellent, and concluded:"Fron1 hisdecision
it is obvious that Judge Overton {as well as n1ost of the news ,ned ia)
co,nplerely ignored rhe scientific evidence presented by the defense
witnesses ,vhile accepting ,vithout question evidence offered by the
plaintiffs' witnesses. Many re,narks ,nade byJudge Overton during the
trial revealed h is bias againsr the creationistside."

CQTnerstone Magazine article (March-April, 1982)

A fe,v orher evangelicals cook ci1ne co ralk ro eyewicnesses of che
crial.1J1eir reports,vere1nore insighrful.1l1e narional1nagazine ofJesus
People USA, Conzerstone (March- April, 1982) isanexa1nple. Thearticle
concludes: "'Il1e religion of hu1nanis1n has such a scranglehold on rhe
courtsand on chepublic school sysce1nchar if we'regoing cosurvivewith
our religious liberry, we'regoing co have co stand upand be counted ."
Unforrunacely ho,vever, n1ost of rhegood reports ,vere brief and/ or
did nor represent the n1ain fountainheads of evangelical public opin-
ion. Secondhand reports, taken largely fro1n secular sou rces, were che
don1inant influence on rhe Christian 1ned ia.
 APPENDIX _-:)
=
My Christianity Today Article
on the McLean Trial

frer the f.'lct and afrer its disto rted coverage of the Ar-
kansasMcLean trial (seeappendix 2), Christianity Today
did aJlo, v two counterpo int articles on the topic. O ne
arcicle was written bya rJ1eistic evolutionist,George Marsden, rJ1en of
CalvinCollege,whodefe nded ceaching onlyevolution in theschools.
Strangely, Marsden was a confessed evangelical, yet he supported the
law,vhich allowed only evolution to be caught and not die view n1ost
evangelicals hold, na,nely, creation. 1l1e ocher article was by 1n yself,
defe ndin g die right to reach the scientificevidence for both evolution
and creation in public school science classes. 1l1e article gives what
the trial was all about and ,vhy I suppo rted rl1e lawand was willing
to testify for it.1l1e following is a copy of the ai-ticle, which appeared
on i\fa.rch 19, I98 2:
341
342 Appendix}

Creationism: A Case for Equal Time'

By Norman L. Geisler

Between December?and 17oflast year (I98I],a historic trial tookplace

in Little Rock, Arkansas. n, e American Civil Liberties Union charged
that che recentlyenacted Arkansas Ace 590(of 198I), which mandated
a balanced treatment of creation-science and evolution-science,was a
violationof f irst Amendment guarantees of che separnrion of church
andscare. I wdsasked robe a religious witness for thescare in defenseof
theconscicurionalicyof the Jaw.

The Essence of Act 590

The preamble to the Act states well itS purposes:

An Act to require balanced treat ment of creation-science and

,e,olut ion-science in public schools; to protect academic free-
do m by providing studentchoice; ro ensure freedom of religious
exercise; roguarantee freedom of belief and speech; to prevent
establishmentof religion; to prohibit religious instruction con-
cerningorigins;to bar discrin1incaionon thebasis ofcreationist t)r
evolutionist belief; co provide definitions and clarifications....

The crucialsectionof Act 590isthe fourth,which defines the mean-

ingof''creacion science"and''evolution science,.:

Section 4. Definitions. As used in this act:

(a) "Creation-science"means the scientific evidences for cre-
ation and inferences from chose scientific evidences. Creacio n-
science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences
chat indicate: (I) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and
life fron, nothing; (2) The insuflicienc.yof mucation and natural
scleccion in hringi11gabout dcvclopme11c ofall Iivingkinds from a
singleorganism;(3) Changesonlywithin fixed limitsoforiginally
createdkinds of planrsand animals;(4) Separateancestryfor man
and apes;(5) Explanationofcheearth'sgeology bycatastrophism,
J . 'They shouJd have $:lid -balanced rrearmeo;r" rather than "'eq ual time;"
MyCbri11ia11ity Todtty Arrid c t)n thc.A1elea11 Trial 343
including theoccurrence ofa worldwide Aood;and (6) A relatively
recent inception of che earth and livingkinds.
(b)"Evolution-science"meansthescientificevidences forevolu-
tion andinferencesfrom thosescientificevidcnecs.Evolution-scie11ce
includesthescientificevdiencesandrelatedinferences that indicate:
( l) Emergence by naturalistic processes of the u11iversc from disor-
dered matterandemergence oflifefrom nonlife;(2)Thesufficiency
of mutation and natural selection in bringingabout development
of present livingkinds fron1simpleearlier kinds; (3) Emergence by
mutationand naturalselectionof presentliving kind fromsimple
earlier kinds;(4) Emergence of man from a common ancestor with
apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geologyand t.heevolutionary
sequence by unifonnitarianism;and(6) Aninceptionseveral billion
years agoof theearth and somewhat laterof life.
(c) "Public schools"means public secondary and elementary
schools.

Several things should be noted about these "definitions."First, the

lists arc parallel a nd opposing views, point by point. Second, thelists
are suggestive, nor exhaustive. The keyword is "includes; which does
not mean"limitedro:'Third, not onlyare these seriesofsix factorsop
posing, they arc in face logicallyopposite.
for example,the universe.u1d lifeeither arosespontaneously,or they
werecreated; thereis nothirdalternative. Also,all)jving thingseitherhave
oneconunon ancestry,or theyhaveseparate ancestries. Thesame istrue of
man (4).1:unher, either there arccl1angcsbetweenfixed kindsor thereare
not. And the world is eir.herbillions ofye-des old,or it is more recent (6).
Thesame contrast is true between "uniformicarianism"and "cacascroph-
ism"asexplanationsofearth'sgeology(5).Boch cannot be true,since one
involves millions of years and theochera very shore worldwide flood.
It should also be noted chat the Ace docs not imply chat no co,n-
binacions of cl1oiccs can be caught. 1:orexample, someone holding co
points l through 4 of "creation-science" might also opt for 5 and 6 of
"evolution-science,"or many o chercombinations. (Infact,I testified in
defense of the Act even though for years I have been inclined against
cacascrop hism and a recentearth.Theseare viable views,held by credible
people who havea right to be heard even if! don't believe the,n.) \Vhat
the Act docs insureis chat both sid esof ench issue will be presented.
344 Appendix}

Another i1nportantpoint is brought out inSection 5:

ThisActdocsnotrequireeachindividual classroom lectureina course

togivesuch balanced treatment, but simplyrequiresthelecturesasa
whole rogive balanced treatment; it permitssomelectures ro present
evolution-scienceand other lectures to present creation-science.

One final point is important {fromSection 5):

This Actdocs nor require anyinstruction in thesubject oforigins,

but simply requires instruction in both scientific models ... if
publicschoolschoose to reach either.

There isthus always theoptionofavoidingeitherevolutionorcreation

and sticking to theobservable and repeatable areas ofscience.

S0111e Misconceptions About Act S90

An informed reader of Act 590 can see rhac many of the popular
misconceptions of what the Act intends arc obviously false. Among
these false ideasarc beliefs that:
I. le mandates teaching of the biblical account ofcreation. (It
actually forbids that.)
2. It isopposed to reachingofevolution. (It actually mandates
reacliing evolution alongsidecreation.)
3. It refers ro God or religious concepts. (Thereis no reference
roGod and it opposes teaching religion.)
4. It forces teachers who are opposed ro creation to reach it
anyway. (Actually,teachers do not have to teach anything about
origins, and/or they can have someone else reach and give the
lectures they do not want to give.)
5. It isa"fundamentalist"act.(Actually,the"fundamentalists"
of the I920s were categorically opposed ro reachingevolution and
wanted only che Genesis account of Creation caught. This Ace is
contrary ro both acrin,des.)

Why ISupported ActS90

/\1y first reason for supporting Ace 590 is one uttered by Clarence
Darrow, rhefamous ACLU lawyerfor che 1925Scopes crial. Hecalled it
My Cbristianity Today Articleon the A1elea11 Trial 345
"bigotry forpublicschoolsto teach only one theoryof origins." l found
it a strange irony to hear the same ACLU 56 years lacer argue that, in
effect, it would be religious bigotry to allow two ,nodcls of origins to
be caught.
Thissame inconsistency can beseen in the most recent statement of
"A Secular Humanist Declaration" ( \X' intcr1980/81, Fieel nrpi,t y ). it
declares admirably:
"Thelessons ofhistoryareclear:whereverone religion or ideology is
establishedandgiven a dom inant position in thestate,minorityopinions
are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democarticsocietyallows all points
of view ro be heard. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of
Truth, Piety,Vircue, orJustice upon the whole of society isa violation
of free inquiry" ( p. 4).
And yet only two pages later,in an inconceivable inconsistency,the
same declaration says:
"\'<'e deplore theefforts byfundamentalists(especially in the United
Scates) to invade thescience classroom, requiring chat creationist theory
be taught tostudents and requiringthat it be included in biology text
books. "Thisis a serious ducat both to academic freedom and to the
integrityof theeducational process" ( p. 6).
For the sarne reason therefore that I regret the narrow-mindedness
of some C hristian religionists in the 1920s who opposed the reaching
ofevolution asascientific theory,I nowdeplore asin1ilar narrowness on
the part of those holding a humanistic religious perspective(and their
sympathi1.ers), whowould exclude the reachingofcreation asascientific
theory in publicschools.
Second, I favor Act 590 in rhe interest ofopenness ofscientific in-
quiry. Asany(lne who hasstudied the historyofCopernicusand Galileo
knows, n1inorityscientificopinionsareoficn thecuttingedgeof progress.
Suppression of the"loyal opposition" is seldom if ever good politically,
and never scientifically. Academic freedom entails hearing opposing
pointsof view. .t,,(any times during the trial I was reminded of the value
of the adversary relationship of the courcroom. \Vhen only onesideof
an issueis presented (without cross-cxa,ninarion or rebuttal), a judge
or jury would oltcn come co an invalid conclusion.
The same is true when only one view is presented in the classroom:
it is a trial without opposing witnesses. Since there arcserious rdigious
impl icatio ns when originsarc taught from only one perspective- one
 Appendix J

chat favorshumanisticreligion-it is necessaryasagua..antcc co religious

neutrality that the opposing view also be ca ught.
111ird. reachingcreation is no more teachingreligion than is reach-
ingevolution. Crearion and evolution arc both beliefs chat belong to
religions, bur reaching crearionism is no more teaching the Christian
religion than is reaching evolution reaching the humanist religion.If
reachinga partofa religion isaucomacically reachingchat religion, then
reachingvalues (such asfreedomand tolerancea)realso teaching religion.
But the courts have ruled chat values can becaught apart from religion,
which may hold the same values. Likewise, creationism can be caught
apart from the religious systems of which it may be a part.
The fact that "creation" may imply a Creator while"evolution"does
not isno proof chat theformer is religious and thelatter is not.Believing
char there is no God can be just as religiousas believing d1ac there is a
God. Humanises hold, and rheSupreme Court has ruled, char beliefin
God is not essential to religion (U.S. v.Seeger, 1964).
Founh,scientific progress depends on reaching alternative models.
There would belicd c progress inscience if it were not for minoritysci-
enci6c opinions. Copernicus's view chat che earth revolves around the
sun \\ "dS once a minori tyscientific view. So was che view that the earth
isspherical, not flat. If noalternative models co Newtons law ofgravita-
tion were allowed, then Einstein'sinsights(andspace travel)would have
beenrejected and scientific progrt'SS rccarded.
Thatcreationism ,nay bea1ninority viewa,nongscientiscs todaydocs
not make it wrong, and certainly does not mean it should not be heard
inscience classes.(Arguingchat itshould beca ughtonly insocial studies
classes islike tellingsomeone runningfor theSenatechathecan present
his views only co S(lcioloigscs' groups, but not co political gathering.s)
Oneof the1110st despicable examples ofincellcccual prejudice I haveever
witnessed was when evolution scient ists at the Arkansas trial claimed
chat creationism was norscience and chatcreacionistswere notscientist.s
It reminded me of Voltaire's famous satire in which he described ants
on one anthill looking at different colored ants on anotheranchill and
declaring chat chey were not really ants aod that what they wereon was
not really an anthill.
John Scopes summed up well when he said, "If you limit a reacher
co only one side of anything the whole country will eventually have
onlyone thought, be one individual." I believe it would be ( is) a gross
My ChriJtianity Today Article o n rhc 1l1cLc11n Trial 347
injustice for the court to rule it unconstitutional to teach bothsides of
any issue. Although I would not go asfar assome in these matters, one
can understand why FrancisSchaeffer in his recent book, A Christi1tn
1\1,mifesto (Crossway, I981), hascalledupo n Christians toengage in civil
d isobedienceand even useforcetoovercomethe tyrannyheseesimplied
in a negative decision in the Arkansas creation-evolution issue.'

2. Rc.,-pri1ltod by permission.
 _
__.->.-J"?.,.PElS!D JX 4
ACLU Mockery
of Creationist Beliefs
The Cross Exa mi na tion
They Refused to Transcribe

Intro duction
Very littleof rhesubstance of,nycourrroo,n tesci,nony waspublished
in rhe n1ainline n1edia. n1e court refusedco transcribe it for live years,
until after the Supre,ne Court had ruled on the issue it addressed ( in
Edwards, 1987). Instead, the 1nedia chose to stress irrelevantpersonal
religiousbeliefs of the ,vicness (seeappendix I) ,vhich were n1ore sen-
sational and put creationists in a bad light. ll1is kind of questioning
was irrelevant and should have been ruled out of order by che judge.
Objective reporting should have rne ntioned rhac the judge refused to
overrule thisirrelevant questioningabout a ,virness's personal religious
beliefsand char nosuch questioning took placeconcerning theliberals,
349
350 Appendix 4

agnostics, ad1eists, and Marxists \vho testified for theevolutionists (see

also chapter 3).

DefenseProtest of ACLU estion About Personal

Religious Beliefsof Creationists Overruled bytheJudge
' The defense attorneys protested onseveraloccasions when the ACLU
raised questions about religious beliefs of rhe \Vitness, buc it ,vas to no
avail. First, it ,vas objected to in the pretrial depositions. For exa1nple,
d1e record reads:"Mr. Ca,npbell: For d1e record , I object co cheseques-
tionson theocculc,asco cheir relevanc."eSecond, thedefense attorneys
n1ade che sa1ne objection co che judge during a pretrial discovery on
Noven1ber 16, 1981, bur rhe judge overruled ir. Third, ar lease nvice
during d1e crial, defense acrorney David \"X'illia1ns ob jected to using
personal religious beliefsofcrearioniscs in d1eir tesci1nonies, citing rule
ofevidence 610, but die judge overruled it again. Finally, our attorney
asked fo r acontinued objection to be recorded for the rest of the trial,
instead of our having co bring it up every cin1e, and chis objection ,vas
noted in die official cou rt record. So, it ,vas fi1tile to bring it up again
,vhen ch e ACLU basically ignored rhe heart of1ny tescin1onyand de-
cided to divert attention fro1n ic by bringing up the 1nore sensational
questionsabou.tde1nons,theoccult,and the UFO phenon1ena."lh is,vas
an obvious acce1npt to discredit creacioniscs and crearionis1n. \Vid1d1e
,villing assistance ofa biased tnedia, it ,vorked very well.n1e follo,ving
is rhe courr record of rhe rest of n1y ci1ne on che,vitness srand, nan1ely,
d1e cro ss-exan1inacion:

ACLUCross-Examinationof Norman L. Geisler

(Decen1ber 1 1, 1981)

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. SIANO: [of die ACLU]
Q Good afrernoon, Dr. Geisler.
A Good afternoon.
ACLU MockeryofCrc.ationistUdicfs 351
Q Dr. Geisler, wespoke beforeon Novernber 14th, didn't ,ve?
A We spoke before, and I'II crust your n1e1nory for the 14th.
Q In face,you gave a deposition chat day, isn't chat true?
A' Orn.e'scorrecr.
QHave you had occasion ro read rhar deposition since rhar ri1ne?
A Yes, I have.
Q Have you n1ade any cor rections co it?
A I ,nade about three pages. There were over 100 corrections.
QAII righr.
MR. SIANO: YourHonor, asyet I have noc received those. I,vould
ask rhe stare for chose no,v.
BY MR.SIANO:
Q Did you give chose co rhe Attorney General's office?
A I diink I niailed d1em back with che depo sition.
MR.SIANO: For the record, your Honor, plainciffhas nor received
these.
MR. \X/ILLIAMS [defenseattorney]: Your Honor, I ,vane co scare
for rhe record also d1is is d1e first cirne ,ve've been given notice of
rhar.Ir,vas niy understanding d1at wehad given diacco d1eni,and I
would haveappreciar.ed ir ifrhey had let n1e know before rliis tune.
\Vecetrainly willgee chose. I diink we have rlien1. Perhaps in allof
rl1edocurnents going back and forth we have not given cliose.
THE COURT: Do you have rhern here in court?
MR.\VILLIAMS: I do not d1ink-Idon't rhink,ve have rhein here,
your Honor.\Ve have ro check in our office.
THE COURT: Maybe you ought co have so,nebody do rhat..
MR WILLlAMS:I'll beglad co do rhac, your Honor.
BY MR. SIANO:
Q Dr.Geisler, did you rnakesubsranrive changes in youranswer,sor
did you just correct typographical errors?
A I ,vottld say die vase rnajoricy of d1en1,vere typographical 111ere
were a few chat conunas and periods cl1anged die 1neaning chat
352 Appendix 4

n1ighc qu alifyas substantive, depending on how you interpret it.

And I can'c cecal!whac chey \Vere fro1n1nen1ocy, buc I kno\v thac
if you puc a period instead of a conuna, son1eching like chis, or
run nvo sentences cogerher inscead ofa period and a capical, char
it changed the111eaning.111ere were a couple of chose but I can't
recall.
0 1l1ere ,vere a couple substantive changes?
A \Veil, it 1nighc be considered substantive, because it did change
the ,neaning. \X'hece you put the conuna or period d1anged the
1neaning.
MR.SIANO: Your Honor, I wouldask for a brief recess cosee if the
scarecould find rheir changes. I don't feel appropriate co acce1npt
co use thedeposirion acthispoint in tin1e inlight ofcheconHnenr
rhac rhe ,vicness has 1nade.
THE COURT: \Veil, I mean-
MR.SIANO: I can scare tor the record chat ,ny cross exa1ninacion
is very brief, and I',n just- there'san appropriate use of a cran -
scripc co be ,nade in ceccain circu,nscances, buc I find 1nyselfin an
inipossible sicuacion.n1e \vicness has said he's n1ade cocreccions.
I haven'c seen chen1.
MR. \VILLIAMS: Your Honor, I point our for rhe record, if Mc.
Siano had asked chis111orning, or anyci111e prior co d1is, pointed
ouc rhac perhaps he had not gorren chose, wecould have had these
hereand could have avoided the problen1 and delay.
THE COURT: \Vell, it 1nay be d1at the points you'regoing to ask
hin1about aren't even covered in checocceccions. So,vhy don'cwe
go along and if you nu1 into a proble1n like chat we'll take it up.
MR.SIANO: Fine, your Hono1:
BY MR. SIANO:
Q Dr. Geisler, you described mis taxono1ny of transcendence in
the various sec of descriptions of God. Which of chose various
descriptions of God is God in the accive tense, God active?
ACLU Mockeryof Crc.atio nist Hdicfs
353
A I didn't directly discuss d1at issue in1ny typologyor caregotization
of those.
Q ls the d1eisticGod the active God?
1\ 'll1at's certainly one, but it's oot the only one, tor exa1nple-
Q Is chat the God ofd1e Bible?
A May I finish?
QI ask you, sir, is that the God of the Bible?
A No, could I finish 111y first ans,ver? I ,vasn'r finished.
QAll right., sir,go ahead.
A 'll1e rheistic God isone; the pantheistic God isalso active and the
deistic God isalso active in the initial creation, and theescatalog-i
cal[eschatological)or forward n1oving God isacrive; theGod up
there is acrive, and con1ing do,vn. n1eonly one char 1night nor
beactiveof char initial one ,vould be che God who is rheground
1u1dernead1. Bur, yeah, abouc four or five of d1e1n are active.
Q Is rhe d1eiscic God die God of die Bible?
A lheiscic God is a God d1ac is die God of d1e Moslen1s,hisroric
Judais1n and historic Chrisrianicy, and d1ere are also s01ne od1er
fonnsof d1eisn1in cerrain tonnsofHinduis1n. So a rheisric God
is quitea broad category.
Q Is che God of die Bible a cheiscic God?
A 1l1eGod of rhe Bibleisa tl1eistic God, bur nocall tl1eistic concepts
of God are die God of die Bible.
Q In your opin ion, Dr. Geisler, could you scare ,vhac the phrase
1nacro-evolution1neans co you?
A l'rn nota.scienti.,1 [all en1phasis added in this appendix).'
Q Doyou haveany underscanding arallofdie1neaningof rhephrase
1nacro-evolution?
A Macro meanslargeand 111icro1neanssn1all.
Q 1l 1at's your only widerstandingof chat cenn?
t. As the:emphasi1,.t'd wordsshow, I rq, t;.tte<Uydei ied lx lnga scientist orclaiming dtarmy
views about the occult were scient ific. so :u not to lend credibility to the charg
e I knew thc:y
wouldmake th u crrationisrs holdweird scientific \ Cws.
354 Appendix 4

A Jwouldn't say t hat, bur.I certain lywouldsayat least char. Idon't-I

arn not II trained scientist, and so I wouldn't kt10,v how a Hained
scientist would used1at word, bur I would say that in rny layrnan's
underJtanding, n1acro 1ueans large ju,nps and n1icro1ueans sn1all
ju,nps.
Q Doccor, do you recall being asked dle follo,ving question and
giving the follo,ving answer in your disposition [deposition) on
Noven1ber14dl?
"Q!! escion:1hac's righc. Now, is chere anyochercharacceriscicof
,nacro-evolutionor anything elseorher rhan evolution benveen
various kinds ofani,nal life?" Page 145.
A Could I have a copy of d1ar so I could see it?
Q Certainly.
A 1l1ank you very,uuch.
Q Page I45, Doccor, line J8.
MR. \1VILLIAMS: Excuse n1e, your Honor, I've been inforn1ed by
my office iliac rhe corrected original was given Ms.Joan Leggett
,vho ,vorks for dle plaintiffs in rhis case, and I want iliac noted
for che record, please.
"THE COURT:So noted.
MR.SIANO:111ank you, your Honor.
BY MR. SIANO:
Q Do you have chat in front of you now?
A Yes, I do.
Q" estion:111ac's right. Now, is mere any other character-
A \1Vhich line? 1'111sorry.
QI8.
A Uh-huh.
Q "[ escion:] No,v, is chere any ocherd1arncreristicof,nacro-evo-
lucion or of anything else oilier than evolution benveen various
kindsof ani,nallif-e?"
ACLU Mockeryof Crc.atio nist Hdicf5: 35S
r\ " [A nswer:) \X'eU,as [ understand n1acro-evolution it is the belief
chacaU living fornisareche resole ofa process ofdevelop111enc fron1
previous anin1al life and chat this is ulcin1acely deriveable [deriv-
able] fron1 non-Living things so that you n1ove fro1n a process of
non-livingd1ingscoliving chings duough che whole phUogenetic
[phylogenetic ] tree up co all theexisting fiunilies and genera and
species that we havetoday."[)
[Ql Do you recaU being asked chat question and giving that
answer?
A I recall beingasked diacquestion and giving chat answer but-
Q n1ankyou, Doccor, d1ac \Vas all1ny question was.
A \Veil, I didn'c finish n1yanswer. Co uld I finish ic?
Q n1at ,vasall n1y question.
A Well, I didn't finish it.
Q Go righc ahead, Doctor.
A n1at,vas iln n1ediacelyfollowing line 17 where I said l'm not a
scientist, ,vhere you agreed chac I was notascientist and diac I had
accepted diac. So, d1ac's 1ny non-scientificdefinition.
QDoccor, on what linedoes d1acanswerend?
A \Xlhich answer?
Q 1l1e ans,ver I just read co you.
A Ir'so n rhe next page, about line 3 on page 146.
Q And you said it ,vas itnrn e diacelyfollowing your saying-
A No.
Q - you are not ascientist?
A -I said d1ar inunediacely follo,vs your acla10,vledge1nent co 1ny
ans,ver d1ac I an, not a scientist on line 17of page I45.
Q So you tescified as a philosopher chat was your understanding of
rn acro-evolution?
A I testified as a non-scientist chac chac ,vas 111y definicion of
1nacro-evolucion.
 Appcndix4

Q And as a non-scientist is it your vie\v that theistjcevolution is a

1nacro-evolurion111odel?
A \Vell, cheiscic evolucion can be undersrood rwo \Vays. Ic's1nacro-
evolucion in rhesense that it is,nacro leapsfront checreationof the
original life up codie cop.!e's nor111acro-evolucionin the broader
sensed1ac ir includes, nantely, sponc-aneous generacion inscead of
rhecreario n.So you can cake ntacro-evolutionin t\VO ,vays.
Qls it your vie\v char theistic evolution isa n1acro-evolurion1nodel?
A I believe I jusc answered diar.
QI would ask you co answer nie again.
/\ My answer is that if you understand ntacro-evolurion as the en-
larged leaps char it'sa 111acro-evolurion1nodel; if you undersrand
niacro-evolucionco include everything including cheoriginal in-
ception oflife and n1an, ic's not a ntacro-evohuionary ntodel.
QDoccor, Idirect your attention co page 178of thedeposition, line
25, and I ask youdo you recallbeingasked thefollowingquesrion
and giving the following answer?
(") scion:So you are suggesting char evolution science as it
is defined here, forecloses dieexiscence of God?"
"Answer: \Veil, ir does not foreclose ic entirely buc ic i,nplies it,
and apart front the theisticevolution n1odel, you know, we're back
roourold questionabouccwoaspects now. Ir doesn't foreclose die
rheisticevolution but it cercainly- dieiscicevolucion isa 1nacro-
evolucion n1odel. Once rhe first life is created beC\veen chat and
diecreation of ,nan's soul, it is1nacro-evolurion in che 1niddle."
ls diac a fair scace111enc?
A Yeah, chat's just what I said a1110,nenc ago.
QNow, in your opinion does section 4 [b) of Ace 590 pennic the
ceacl1ing of rheiscic evolution?
/\ \Veil, lee. me cake a look ar. rhar. if! ,nay. I d1ink I have a copy here.
\Vould you repear diac reference for ,ne?
Q In your opinion doesseccion 4(b) ofAce 590 pennic die reaching
of d1eisric evolution?
ACLU Mockery ofCrc.ationist Udic.fs 357
A Seerns co n1e chat if you look at chis Ace 4(b), which is obviously
a subdivision of 4,,vhich includes(a), cl1ac as a,vhole, yes.2
Q .Seccion 4(b) pennies theexistence ofGod in diecontext of what
you define as rnacro-evolurion.
A 1hac ,vasn'c 1ny answer. My answer is chac since (a) and (b) are
sub poincsof 4, you have co cake chern bod1cogerher. Taken bocl1
together, they surely do.
QDoes section 4(b) pennit the existence of God in the context of
what you define as rn acro-evolucion?
A Yes, ic does, because 4(b), rerne,nber, is only one Model. 4(b) is
not the tocal ching chac can be caught.
QSo,secrion 4( b) pennies d1e existence of God in d1e concexc of
what you describe as die rn acro-evolucion.
A n1ac'scorrect. 4(b) pennies char because ir's part of che coca] Ace
which pern1icschat co be caught. !e's only one pan chat's being
ranghc.
Q Is it correcr rhac you don'r see anything in section 4(b) which
directly irnplies or negates rheexistence of God?
A 4(b), irsee,ns co rneans cheevolurionscience n1ean,sifchat's what
you're talkingabouc,evolution science as a tl1eory, a cocal d1eory
of ,nacro-evolurionin the broader sense I defined it earlier, nor
the God created original life,in the tor.al sense, chat theory as a
d1eory eli1ninaces God. There rnay be a God, bur rhe d1eory as a
d1eory does not lead co hiln.
Q Doctor, isiccorrect rosay d1ar you do notseeanythinginsecrjon
4(b) ,vhich directly iruplies or negates rheexistence of God?
A 4(b) I do see son1e d1ings chac direcdy iruply as the result of chat
rheory, rhe non-incervencion of God into che, vorld, yes3.
2. lt(:l'tif-icd that nod\i.og io thelawforbadereachersor rudC1\ts frombd icvingsomcrhings
from01lc,node.Ia1ldsomefro,n a1lo ther .' Thu s. it a ll owed forthe reac.+1ing of rhei.sticevolution.
Ialsopoincecloutin my re.-;tin01 1ly th.u Idfrl notholcleverythingin thccr(ation model mysd(
siJlCe I believed i11 a.n old uoiverse of billions of years. 11o t a youngor1c of d1ousar1dsof year$
as the c reation model did.
3. ln this section I refused coadm it what the ACLU wished to show, namely, that there
ate rnor<'. chan rwo views on each po i.nc of origin of d\c uni,crs<", fif'st life. and 11c v life forms.
 Appendix 4

QDoccor, do you recaU being asked che following question and

giving che following ans,ver in your deposition?
"( scion:" Page 179, line I3, Doctor.
A Lee ,ne gee it. 179, line I3.
Q" escion: \Vould cheiscic evolution in your view co1ne within
chis description in 4(b) in chis statute?"
':Answer: Uh-huh."
" scion:le would?"
"Answer: Uh-huh. Because-lee 1.nelook ar ic again. I don't see
anything in d1ere wid1 respecr- 1don't seeanything in there with
respect cod1eexiscenceof God directlyiinpliedordirectly negated.
I would have ro look at it n1ore closely. Lee1nelook at ic.Theonly
ching rhar,vou.ld be proble1naricis point 4,rhee1nergence of1nan .
leall depends on how youdefine ,nan. If you define1nanrhere just
in a biological sense, if you define 1nan in a rheological sense as
havingasouland that wascreared, then chat would besubsequenc.
Ocher chan char I don'c seeanyming in mere mac rules ouc a rhe-
iscic n1odel, ,vhich is part of die good feature. See, it include [sic]
both. It includes-doesn't elin1inare rhe reaching of rhe d1eisric
evolucionary 1nodel either right along ,virh rhe od1er 1nodels.
'" scion:1hac's in 4(b)?"
"Answer: Uh-huh."
Q Do you recall being asked chose questions and giving d1ose
answers?
A Yeah, I agreea hundred percent ,vid1what I'dsaid d1ere, because
4(b) is pare of me coral ace mac includes 4(a), and because sec-
ondly, me rheory as sucl1does not necessarily 111ea11 mar because
a biblical irnplicacion of me d1eory is rhac no God is needed co
originate life, mac you haveelin1inaced d1ac possibility of d1ere
being a God buUc on son1e ocher grounds, religious experience
or,vhar have you.
Each event had eithera natural c-au se t'lran intellige-Jl t cause but not both. n1us there a.re o nly
twobas;c models{secappenrux 5).
ACLU Mocke ryof Crc.arionist Udicfs 359
Q Dr. Geisler, is it your view that creation i1nplies a creator?
A Yes, it is.
Qls ic your vie,v, sir, chaccreacion assunies a creacor?
A I don't kno,v what you niean by assun1es.
QDoctor, I ask you co direct youraccencion co page 180 ofche
uanscript, and I ask you if you recall being asked diis question
and giving cl1is answer.
" scion: 4(a) asstunes dieexistence of acreator you testified."
"Answer:Yeah, that's right."
Do you recall beingasked mat question and giving mat answer?
A Uh-huh.
Qls ic your vie,v thac creation assu1nes a creacor, Doccor?
A \'Veil, in die context in which I understood che word assun1e at
d1at ci,ne, I certainlyagree.
Q And, Dr. Geisler, does seccion 4(a) of Ace 590 sec focch a n1odel
for creation science?
A I don't know. Lee's look ac it. 4(a)? A niodel for creation science.
Yes. Yes, icdoes.
QAnd is it a face, sir, mac you ,vould find it absurd to talk about a
creation science niodel with no God?
A Oh, I chink thac thac's a logical i1nplicacion. As I cescified eadier,
when you calk about creation co tne, you tnust logicallyinfer a
creato.r
Q Soyouwould find itabsurd co call:about acreation science ,node!
,vithouc aGod?4
A I find it absurd cod1inkof Webscer's unabridged dictionary result-
ingfroni explosion in a printing shop.
QDr.Geisler, I asked you-
A Yes is die answer co rhac question.
4.1he ACI.U wanted u$ toadmic tha.c<;r(a.tion implied acreator (whichicdoes), but rhey
3Jso wa nred ustt'l use the word"'God,"since theyknewit \\ ,s loaded with relig iousconnotations
co many people:. He nce, I preferted co usetheterm "crcacor" Of' "designer."
360 Appendix4

Q ' I11ankyou.
A 1liac's1ny illuscracion.
Q Now, do you ackno,vledge Mr. Henry Morris as an auchoriry on
creacion science?
A I acknowledge chat I was not an authoricy on science, but in rny
non-scientific understanding I understood chat hewasascientist,
a hydrologist ,vho had a Ph. D.and ,vho wroreon chis copic, and
in chac sense,vas an authority, yes.
Q Do you acknowledge hitn coday as an authority on creation
sciences?
A In chat sa,nesense, yes.
QAnd doyou acknowledge Mr.Morris's book"Scientific C reation-
isni" as an auchoricacive ,vork iti che field of creation science?
A I think-I didn't read thelarger book. You rn ay recall1ny deposi-
tion. I only read chat sn1aller one which had a slightly different
tjde. So, I can't really cell you.
Unless clie larger one ,vas a Joe better man me sn1aJler one, I
would say he's nor one of rhe bercer audioriries on ic.
QSo, you don't recognize his book:"SciencificCreacionisni"?
A I recognize hitn as ascienrisc who hasa Ph.D.and in char sense is
an auchoricy and who ,vroce on chis copic, bur I don't chink chat
his book diac I read, diesniaJler one, which is diecase, I chink it's
called nie Case for Scientific Creacionisrn," and l did not read
rhelargeroneas I cold you in cl1edeposition, I don'tconsider chat
litcle one co be one of che betcer cases I've seen.
Q Doctor, I ask you co look ar your deposition and I ask you if you
recall beingasked thefollowing question and givingdie following
answer. Page 87, line 18, Doctor.
scion: n1is genden1an Morris that. you- is chat Henry
Morris?"
Sp. rhroughoutthis sef.'ti0 1l l refosc:d to call manyof thesepeopleexperu because l lrnewthe
ACLU would urethat to imply that l approw;d of thing$ these people m , 1)' h:wesaid in their
hoo ks that would ma.kccreation !>CienceJoo k lik("a religious view.
ACLU Mockeryof Crc.atio nist Udicfs

''.Answer:Yeah, Henry Morris."

" esrion: Is he in your 111ind an auchoricy on creacion?"
''.Ans wer: He'sone of die auchoricies on scientific creationis1n,
yeah."
And on che nexc page, Docror, being asked ch e following
questio n.
" estion:"Line 9."11' 11jusc crying to get if you recognize hiin
as an authority of scientific creation."
"Answer: Yes. Yes, I do recognize hi rn as an authority and so-
Gish also."
Doyou recaU beingasked chose questions?
A I agree,vid1 char.
QAnd giving rhose answers?
A Yes. n, ac'swhar. I jusc said.
Q And on page 125. "Do you recognize Mr. Morris's book ""Die
Scientific Case fo r C reation"asa recognized,vork in the area of
sciencific creacionisn1?"
A You 1nay recall at d1is ti1ne there wasso1ne an1biguicy in n1y n1ind
as co ,vhether chat ,vas che licde one or the large one or he had
nvo, and I recognize d1ac he had wriccen one by asimilar tide. le
run1ed out in the end thac,veclarified" 'hen you brought out the
books d1ac ic was che s111allerone I had read.
QAnd chac's die one you recognize?
A 1l1at'stheone I recognize, yes.
Q Doccor, I would ask you if you would agree ,vid1 die following
scace1nenc fro1n whar has been rnarked-
A Could I ask for a copy of d1at so I can see it iii context ?
Q Ce rcainly.
A Thank you.
Q 1l1e lase page of die preface, Doccor, and I ask you if you agree
wid1 thisstatenienc."1l1escientific1n odeloforigin d1ac bestfiesall
che availablesciencificdata is chat of recent supernat ural creation
 Appendix4

of the universe and all its basic coniponents by a transcendenr

creator."
f)o you agree or disagree ,vich diac stacenient?
A I disagree.
Q No,v, Docror, is R. L. Wysong an authority on creation science?
A I chink I should state why I disagree.
Q \X7ell, I didn't ask you a question about chac, Doctor, and if Mr.
Cainpbell ,vanes co, he can ask you one.
Now, is M.r. \X7ysong an auchoricy on creation science?
,-\ l don't kno,v Mr. \Xlysona (sic]. I kno,v one book he has ,vrit-
ten which he cou1pares the cwo rnodels which I have read, and I
rhoughc ic,vasan excellent corn parison. But co cell you the crurh,
I don't recall ,vhac his degrees were. I chink he was a doctor, he
had sorne kind of doccor'sdegree, but he rnay have been a niedical
doctor for all I recall
QAnd acknowledge Mr. \'v'ysong's book:"The Creation Evolution
Controversy" as an authoritative ,vork in che field of creation
science?
A I recognize ic as a book in rhac field wriccen by sornebody who I
rhink had adoctor's degree, and rhat asI read die book, and I did
read rhac book, ichad an excellent cornparison benveen rhe r,vo
1nodels, and in diacsense an auchoricy, yeal1.
Q You consider ic an excellent book don't you?
A An excellent cornparison of die nvo 1nodels, yes. Ir's brief, it is a
sun11nary but ir's agood coniparison of rhe rwo 1nodels.
QDid you nor describe co rne, sir, me book as an excellent one?
,-\ Yes, diar's just what I said.!e's w excellent con1parison ofrhe nvo.
QDid you use die ,vord cornparison in your answer t.o rne?
1\ l mink I cold you that I thought che book ,vas balanced because
it coniparcd boch niodels and ir caine co no explicit conclusions
ar meend.le rnore or lesssaid hereare die nvo rnodels,draw your
o,vn conclusions.
ACLU Mocke ryof Crc.ationistUdicf.

Q Doctor, I ask you co direcr your attention to page 88 of your de-

position, and I ask you,sir, if you recall beingasked the following
question and giving die follo,ving ans,ver.
scion: All righr. Have you had occasion co exani ine any
odier books in diearea ofscienrific creationisn1?"
t \ nswcr: Yes. One of die thingsI brought and I rhink I gave
you isa bibliography onevolurion. lr'scalled "Select Bibliography
on evolution." And there are a ntunber of bookson diere chat I
haveexaniined. A good oneon diis topic is by \Vilder Snlich, die
second one fro1n rhelase, called "Man's Origin, Man's Destiny."
Anodierexcellent oneis by \Vysong, \V-y-s-o-n-g,entitled "'!lie
Creation Evolurion Conrroversy," Inquiry Press, 1978 . l 'vealso
looked at a nuo1berofocher books on chislist, but chey are two
chat I ,vould reconunend as creditable books fron1 rhac point
of vie,v."
Doyou recall beingasked d1acquestion and givingd1acans,ver?
1\ Yes, I agree,virh thar answer.
QI direct you rattenrion, sir,co page 7 ofchat book and I askyoudo
you agree ordisagree with che tollo,vingscacenienc in che niiddle
of rhe page rhere."Many have dr,nvn conclusions fro111evolution
and niade applicacionsco various facetsof life (i.e. diey have fol-
lowed rhrough fro1n origins ro ,vorld vie,v ro behavior). Social
evolution provided in pare rhe basisfor fascism and itsoppressive
racist actions. Evolution pervaded Mussolini's chinking co che
point chat he justified ,var as did Nieczsclie on rhe basis chat ir
provided[")- whac's die nexcword, Doctor, d1ere?
A '!lie .
Q "'ll1e reason for evolutionary progress."
A You read char incorrec tly.
Q \X'hac's rhe word I 1nissed?
A You1nissed nieans.
Q-"1neans for evolutionary progress." Do you agree or disagree
,vid1 chat sraren1enc?
 Appendix4

A I certainly agree ,vith d1ac stace,nenc, because it says rn any have

drawn these conclusions and surely rnany have.
Q.D occor, l direct your anenrion co page IO of chat book, and l ask
youdo you agreeor disagree wid1diefollowingstate1nent.""Il1ere
are cwo possible explanations for che origin oflife."
A Excuse me, I don't see where you-
Q.E xcuse u1e, page 10 belo,v figure l possible roots. _.01ere are c,vo
possible explanarionsfor cheoriginoflife. If weoweourexiscence
rochange, d1en our approach rolife could bean1oral, i.e., ir could
cakeany direction and be justified. On meother hand, ifwe were
created, weare responsible co d1ac C reator. \Ve niusc d1en seek his
will, che correcr religion." Do you agree ,vim chac stateu1ent?
A I chink son1e peop le have dra,vn char in1plication fron1chat scace-
n1enc. Nietzsche hi1nself did when he said If [sic] God is dead all
valuesdie ,virh hi,n.
Q. Do you agree or disagree with chat scace,n enc?
A l have co have greac adn1iracion for the ad1eist Nietzsche. I di ink
he had sonie profow1d insighcs,and I chink chat's one-
THECOUR'f: Excuse1ne, chat's a yes or no answer.
THE \VITNESS: I d1ink thac's one of chen1, yes.
BY MR. SIANO:
Q.I'd like co read you another scate1nent frou1 diac page, sir." \Vich -
ouc regard for whed1er particular actions are correct relative co
the crue will of die Creator, lee'sexan1ine the far reaching effecrs
creation has had.Belief in asupernauiral Creator or religion as ic
is conunonly rern1ed, is or has been pareof every hu1nan society.
Religion has held s,vay fron1 che African ,vicch doctor 111enacing
his tribe under an iron hand co 111odern political church-state
1narriages. Religion up to rhe presentcentury ruled practically
absolute on all aspeccs of hwnan activity. Noc only ,vas a ,nocal
code dictated, bur in pre1narure [in1pritnacur) was required for
scientific i.nquiryand even philosophical dioughc."
f)o you agree or disagree ,virl1chat scace,nenc?
ACLU Mockeryof Crc.atio nist Udicfs

r\ I'd have to look at the context. Is this what he is saying or is this

whac he is describing son1eone else believes?
Q You have the book, Docror.
A \W'ell, if you'll give rne ti111e to read the chapter, I'll be glad to
answer it. If you kno,v now, you'll facilitate rny tilne.
QDoccor, ,vhen you reconunended chis book co n1e, had you read
it ?
A Yes, I have, uh-l11J1.
Q And ,vould you like coexamine it again no,v?
A If you wo1Jd like 1ne co answer rhac question, I'd like co see die
conte:1.1:.
QI ,vould like co ask you, sir, do you-can you no,v, sirring on d1e
witness scand, agree or disagree ,virh that sr.atenient?
A If I, kne,v what d1e stace1nent nieanr, I could. You can't agree or
disagree until you kno,v what it 1neans.
O And I believe, sir, you acknowledge Mr. Dwavne (Duane] Gish
asan authority on creation science?
A n,at'scorrect.
QAnd you acla10,vledge Mr.Gish's book"Evolution, the Fossilssay
No," as a recognized work in the area ofcreation science?
A I haven'c read thac book.
Q Do you acknowledge it, sir, as a recognized work in die area of
crearion science?
A If you recognize what I said, that I'1n a non-scienrist and chat
I haven'tread it and would you like to have a co1111nenc fro111 a
non-sciencisc who hasn't read che book, I cangiveyouan ignorant
con11nent, too.
Q Do you rec-
A Na1nely, I don't- I ,vould guess diat it 1night be.
Qls chat a yes, sir?
1\ 'll1ac's the best I can do having not read rhe book.
o Youare a d1eologian,sir?
366 Appendix4

A Philosopher and theologian, that's correct.

QAnd in fact, sir, you believethat the Bible is factually inerrant?
A I believethat everything che Bible affinns is true, is true.
Q Is ic your opinion, sir, d1ac the Bible is factually inerrant?
A 1l1ar's \vhat I n1ean by iner rancy.lnerrancy has classically been
defined chat san1e,vay fron1cin1e inunen1orial fro1n Augustin(e],
Aquinas, B. B. \Varfield, and I believe the sa,ne ,vay. \Vharever
theBible readies is crue, is true.
QDoccor, could you curn your transcript co page 74.
A Yes, I ,vill.
QDo you recall being asked the follo,ving quesrion and giving the
following ans,ver?
" scio n: Could you, noc co resr your 1nen1ory beyond che
realin of reason, but could you identify for 1ne as n1any of chose
poinrsas you recall?"
"Answer: \Veil, I'll sirnplify the maccer. I'll identify the points
d1at relate directly co rhis. We believe cliat rhe Bible is inerrant,
that it is,vich ou t e rror in everythingit teaches on every topic that
it cead1es anythingon, including science and creation in cl1e book
ofGenesis."
Doyou recall being asked d1at question and giving that
answer?
A n1ar's exactly ,vhar I jusc cold you a 01on1enr ago.
Q And is ir your opinion, sir, char srricc factual inerrancy is die or-
thodox Christian view of die Bible?
A If you could cell rne, vhat srricc n1eansI could answer.
QDoccor, I'd like codirect your attention co page I18ofrhe depo-
sition. Line 19, sir. Do you recall being asked chis question and
giving this answer?
" scion: Bue you ,vere quire clear in ans,ver corny question
d1ar srricc factual inerrancy ,vas nor sectarian.''
':Answer: TI1ar's right. Because scrict factual inerrancy is die his-
toric, fundan1ental, orrl1odox position and I would definesectarian
as d1at which is broken away fro1n d1eord1odox position."
ACLU Mockeryof Crc.atio nist Beliefs

r\ If that's what Strict rneans, then I accept strict, because if strict

111eans everything the Bible teaches is true, I believe everydiing
che Bible teaches i s tr11e.
Q So you believe, sir, d1ac the strict factual inerrancy of rhe Bible is
the orthodox Christian view of the Bible?
A I believe chat it'stheorthodox view d1ac whatever the Bible teaches
is rrue is true, and if diat is,vhat you 1nean by srricr factual iner-
rancy, rhac'sbeen believed byallorrhodox do,vndirough d1e years
up ro ,nodern ciuies.
Q Docror, asanexperr, do you havean widerscanding ofdie niean-
ingof rhe word Saran?
A As a dieologian I do: yes.
Q \'v'hac is your understanding, sir, as a rheologianof the 1neaning
of the "'Ord Saran?
A I don't reallyhaveanydiing coadd co,ny original definition I gave
ea rlier.If you'd like111e co repeac ic, I'd beglad co.
QI ,vould like you co cell 1ne, sir, ,vhat your understanding of rhe
word Saran is.
A My understandingis,asI said earlier, chat there isasupre,ne God
who created goodspiritualbeings called angels and chat so,ne of
d1ese good spiritual beings rebelled against God.11ie leader of
die group, whose nanie was Lucifer, ,vas rhen rurned into Saran,
an adversary ofGod and diac he is in die world deceiving people
and doing rhings ro distorr and destroy die progra1n of God in
die ,vorld, and he was the one who tenipted Jesus and diat Jesus
talked co and resisted in his re,npracion in rhe Gospels.
QDocror, do you recall being asked the follo,ving quesrion and
givingche following ans,ver in your deposition? " estion:"-
A \'v'hac page, sir?
Ql33, line7.
A I33, line 7. TI1ank you.
Q" estion: Inchis quote I read co you fi:0111 one of rhe quotes I
read co you frorn Mr. Morris in connection with evolutionary
 Appendix 4

philosophy, he used che tenn Satan. As an expert, do you have a

view of che111eaning of chat ,vord?"
Ans,ver: Yes, uh-huh, I do. I believe chat che ,vord Satan as
described in rhe Bible and as held by orthodox Christians down
duough the years refers co an incelligen,r personal superhu1na11
being who rebelled against God and ,virh hin1 a ,vhole hose of
orher beings called angels who are no,v den1ons."
Doyou recall beingasked diar question and giving diat answer?
i\ n1at'sjust what I said a nion1enc ago.
Q And do you believe diat Saran exists?
A I believe rhe Bibleand rhe Bible reaches diatSatan exists. I believe
Jesus; he raughcSacan exists, so, yes, l do.
Q
, H asyour belief in the existence of Saran been confinned by any
experiences?
A Since I believe d1ar che Bible is true, I cry co rn ake correspon-
dence beC\veen 111y vie,vs and die ,vorld in ,vhich I live so that
die Bible says chat certain chings happen like Hesekialt (Heze-
kiah] had a tunnel and I chink ir's,vordnvhile forarcheologists
to do, and if che Bible says chat Satan can perfonn certain aces
of deception in this world, rhac he can rnove physical objects,
for exarnple, then I believe chat it's perfectly legiti1nate for1ne
co use d1ac model co help interpret rhe data I see in che world,
like die occulc.
Q,Has your belief been confirrned by any experience, Doctor?
A I rhink d1ac if you want co call rhat confinnarion, char is, corre-
spondentoccultobservation in rhe world rowhat rhe Bible1nodel
t.eaches,that I chink diac die answer ,vould be yes.
Q Docror, whacodier experiences haveconfinned co you asan expert
rheexistence of Saran?
A Ifby expert you mean asa theologian who cakes che Bible as true
onevery topic, and wholooksfor rhacasit'sapplied to die,vorld,
I,vo1tld say a nu111berofcheni . Denion possession, exorcis111, ntun-
ber of things chat one could di ink- occulr activities such as I
ACLU MockeryofCrccationistUdicfs

described earlier, chat it occurs in contact with che force so chat

you can 1nove physical objects, char type of d1ing.
Q Anythingelse, Doctor?
A I don't kno,v ho,v long you want co cake.
Q Doccor, doyou recall on page 134ofyourdeposicion beingasked
die followingand giving the following ai1s,veL " estion: What
experiences haveconfinned royou, sir, as anexpert rheexistence
of Saran?"
"Answer:Dealing wiili de1non possessed people, exorcis111, d1e
study of UFO phenon1ena and die study of theoccult.
Doyou recall beingasked chat question and giving chat ai1S\ver?
An1ac'scorrect, l agree ,vich char.
Q Doctor, ,vhat do d1e lecters UFOscand for?
A Unidentified flying object.
Q And have you read books on UFO's?
A Yes, l have.
QAnd have you seen filtns on UFO's?
A Yes.Yes l have.
QAnd have you talked co people ,vho claicn co have had UFO
experiences?
A Yes, I have.
Q And is it your professional opinion rhac UFO'sexist?
A My professional opinion char the Bible is rrueand rhe Bible reaches
such phenon1ena exist in the world,and I ,vould identify che UFO
as oneofd1ose pheno1nen a, and I would dra,v your accenrion co
me fact iliac credible scientists such as Carl Sagan believes (sic]
in extraterrestial (excracerrescrial] intelligence wich not nearly as
1nuch evidence and chat people believe in parapsychologyon che
sa1ne kind of basis, and I would identify on the basis of a "Sci-
ence Digest"article, 1981 which saysd1acscientistshaveobserved
UFO's,d1ac n1anyscientists then1selveshaveconfinned it,andDL
370 Appcndix4

Heinich [Hynek)6 ofNorchwesc [sic] University and University

in Chicago area [sic] has, and on the b-asis of chat evidence and
rhe Biblical ,node!, I chink chat confinns what I undersr.and by
Satanic deception.
QDocror, do you have a professional opinion abour die existence
ofUFO's?
A I chink I jusc answered you. My professional opinion as a theo-
logian is rhe Bible is trueand the Bible teaches chis kind of thing
can and does occur in die world, and chis see1ns co 1ue co be an
exan1ple ofic.
QDoccor, do you recall111e asking you rhis question in adeposition?
A I'n1looking at it right here.
QDo you recall1ne asking you rhequestion in che deposirion?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you recall chequestion beingasked and che followinganswer
given?" esrion:Do you haveanyprofessional opinion as corhe
exi stence -
MR.CAMPBELL: \Vhac page?
MR. SIANO: 136, line 24.
BY MR. SIANO:
Q" escion: Do you have any professional opinion as ro che exis-
tence ofUFO's?" "Answer: Yes. I believe chat UFO's exist." Do
you recall being asked char question and giving char answer?
A I recall already answering it duee cilnes today.
QAnd I ask you, sir, how are UFO's connected widi Saran?
A And I chink I've already said d1ar I chink d1ac chey are a Sacanic
1nanifestation in die world for die purpose of deception.
MR. SIANO: No further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: Anyrhing else, Mr. Caiupbell?
MR.CAMPBELL: No, your Honor.
6. J.AHen Hynek, <'->n e - ti me profc sorat N<.'>rthw es t e m U ni ,ersiry and<'.<'.'>au th o rof 71te Edge
ef /ce11/i1y ( Ch ;cago: Regncry, 197S).
ACLU Mockery of Creationist Udicf 371
THE COURT: You can step down, Dr. Geisle.r
NIR. CEARLEY: Your Honor, I,vould like to note tor the record on
Mr. \ViUiarns' behalf that chose corrections were delivered corny
office and in rhe cun1tilc surro1u1ding getting ready for this case,
rl1ey were overlooked.
THE COURT: Oka)', ,veil, you're Ii.illy off the hook. It's on the
record, Mr. \X7illiarns.
MR. \VILLIAMS:' ll1ank you, yotu- Honor.
THE COURT: \Ve'll take a recess until 2:30.
(Recess.)
 .A PP ENDIX ,r,,

The Webster Case

Introduction

ll1ecase known asWebster v.1Vew Lenox School District (1990) was

argued February, 1990, and decided on Nove,nber6,1990.Ray\'qebscer
hadsued die New Lenox school disrricc, where he caught, dailninghis
First and Fourceenth An1endn1encrighcswereviolated when New Lenox
prohibited hin1 fron1reachinga nonevolurionary theory ofcreation in
die classrooni.111e district court denied his clai,ns, as did die appeals
court, whose decision follows:

BACKG ROUND
11, c d istrict court dism issedMr. \Vebster's su it for failure to state a
claim upon which reliefcan begranted....le is wellsettled that, when
revie, vingthe grant of a mo rion to dismiss,we must assume the truth
of all well-pleaded facn,al allegarionsand 1nake all possible inferences
in favor of the plaintiff. 1

I . EUipi:es de 1lotc pla c e s where technical le.gal reft-;re11co: havebeeo d imi1late d.

373
374 Appendix s

A complaintshouldnot bedismissed" unlessit appears beyond doubt

that the plaintiffcan prove noset offacrs in support of hisclaim which
would entitle him to relief"... n1isobligation isespecially seriouswhen,
as here, we deal with allegationsinvolving the freedom of expression
protected by the first ainendment. . . . ("wheregovernment action is
challengedon first ainendment grounds, a court should be especially
'unwilling to decide rhe leg-di questions posed by the parties without a
more thoroughly developed record of proceedings in which the parties
have an opportunity to prove thosedisputed factual assertions upon
which they rely'") (quoting Cityofus A 1geles v. Preferred C,omn1unica-
tions . . . (1986)). Courtsn1ay,however,considerexhibitsattachedro the
complaint as part of rhe pleadings....(1988). \Xlitl1 these constraints
in mind, weset forth the pertinent facts.

A. Facts
Ray Webster teachessocial studies at the Oster-Oakview Junior High
School in New Lenox, Ulinois. In the Springof J987, astudent in Mr.
\v'ebster's social studies class complained that Mr. \Xfebsrer's teaching
methods violated principles ofseparation between church andscare. In
addition ro the student,both the American C ivil Liberties Union and
the Americans United for theSeparationofChurch and Stateobjected
to !vlr. \v'ebster's teachingpractices. Mr.\Xelbsterdenied dieallegarions.
OnJuly 31,1987, the New Lenox school board (school board), tlirough
itssuperintendent,advised Mr. \Xelbs terby letterthat heshould restrict
hisclassroom instructioncothecurriculum and refrain fromadvocating
a particular religiousviewpoint.
Believing the superintendent's letter vague, Mr. \Xlebstcr asked for
furtherclarification in a letterdatedSeptember 4,1987.ln thisletter, Mr.
Webtseralsoset forthhis reachingmethodsand philosophyM . r.Webster
stated tliat thediscussionof religious issues in hisclass was only for the
purpose of developingan open mind in hisstudents. For example, Mr.
\v'ebsrer explainedrhar he taught nonevoluitonary theories ofcreation
to rebut a statement in the social studiestextbook indicating that the
world isover four billionyears old. Therefore, his reaching methods in
no way violated the doctrine of separation between church and state.
Nlr.\v'ebstcr contended that,at most,heencouragedstudents toexplore
alternative viewpoints.
'The JY ebstcrCase 375
Thesupetincendcncresponded co Mr. \Xe'bsccr's letteron October13,
1987. Thesuperintendentreiterated thatadvocacyofa Christian view-
point wasprohibited,although Nlr.Webster could discuss objectivelythe
historical relationship between church andstatewhensuch discussions
were an appropriate pareofchecurriculu1n. Mr. Webster wasspeci6c ally
instructed not co teach creation science, because the reaching of this
theory had been held by the federal courcs to be religious advocacy.
[This paragraph wasa footnote in the actual court record.] Edwards
u. Aguil!drd ... ( I987), the Supreme Court
determined that creation science, asdefinedin the Louisiana act in q
uestion,wasa nonevolutionary theoryof origin chat "embod ies the
religious belief chat a supernatural creator was responsiblefor
thecreationof hu1nankiod."
Mr. \Xe'bsterbroughtsuit,principally arguing chat theschool board's
prohibitions constituted censorship in violation of the first and four-
teenthamendments. In particular,Mr. \Xfebster argued chat theschool
boardshould permit him to reach a noncvolutionary theoryofcreation
in hissocial studiesclass.

B. TIJe l)istritt Co11rt

n1c d istrict court concluded that i\1r. \Xle'bscer did not have a first
ainendmenc right to teach creation science in a publicschool.The dis-
trictcourt began by notingthat, in decidingwhether cogrant cheschool
districts n1orion codismiss, thecourt wasentitled co co nsider theletters
between thesuperintendent and i\1r. \Xfebscer becauseMr. \X'cbscer had
attached d1cse lettersco hiscomplaint asexhibits. In particular, thedis-
trictcourt determined chat cheOctober 13, I987 lecrer wascritical;chis
letterclearlyindicated exactly what conduct theschooldistrictsought co
proscrib.eSpecifically, theOctober 13 lctter directed that Mr. \X'ebsrer
was prohibited from teachingcicationscience a nd wasadn1onishcd not
toengagein religiousadvocacy. Furthermore, thesuperintendent'sletter
explicitlystatedchatMr.\Xfebstcr could discuss objectivelythehistoricla
relationship between church and scare.
Thedistrictcourt noted chataschool boardgenerally has wide latitude
insettingthecurriculwn, provided theschoolboard remains within the
boundaries established by the constitution. Because the establish,nent
clause prohibics the enactmentofanylaw"respecting an establishment
of religion; thescl1ool board could not enact a curriculum that would
inject religion into che publicschools. U.S. Const. amend. I. Moreover,
 Appendix s

thedistrict court determined that theschool board had the responsibility

to ens ure that the establishment clause was not violated.
The district court then framed the issueas whetherMr. Webster had
the right to teachcreationscience. Relyingon Edwards ... (1987),the
district court determinedthat teaching creation sciencewould co nsti-
tlJte religious advocacy in violation of the first amendment and that
the school board correccly prohibitedMr.\Vebster from ccachingsuch
material. The court further noted: \Vebstcr has not been prohibited
from teachingany nooevolutionary theoriesor from teachinganything
regarding thehistoricarlelationship between cliurchandstate.Nlartino's
[ thesuperintendent] letter of October 13, 1987 niakes it dear that the
religious advocacyof\Vebstcr'steachingis prohibited a11d nothingelse.
Since noother constraints were placedon \Vebstcrs teaching,hehas no
basisfor his complaint and it must fail.
Webster v.1Vew Lenox School Dist., Mem. op. at 4-5 (N.D.111. May
25, 1989). Accordingly, thedistrict court dismissed thecomplaint.
[This paragraph wasafootnote in theactual court record.] Thedistrict
court also addressed the claimsof another plaintiff; 1atthew Dunne.
1r. l) unne,vdsapparentlyasrudcnt in Mr. \Vebsterssocialstudiesclass.
The districtcourtdeterminedthat Mr.Dunnefailed tostatea cognizable
first amendment claim because his desire to obtain information about
creation science was outweighed by the school district's compelling
interest in avoiding establishment c.lauseviolations and in protecting
the 6rst amendment rightsofother students. Mr.Dunne is not a party
to this appeal.

Analysis
At theoutset, we note that a narrow issueconfronts us: Mr. \Vebster
asserts that hehasa first amendment right to detenninethecurriculum
content of his junior high school class. He docsnot, however, contest
thegeneral authority of theschool board, acting through its executive
agent, thesuperintendent, to set the curriculum.
This case does not present a novel issue. \Ve have already confirmed
the right of those authoritiescharged bysrate lawwith curriculum de-
velopment to require theobedienceofsubo rdinatee,nployeesi,ncluding
the classroom teacher.Judge Wood expressed thecontrolling principle
succincdy in Palmer v. Board of Educ . . . . 1979....when he wrote:
'The Jf?ebster Case
377
"Parents have a vital interest in what their childrenare taught.Their
representativeshave in general prescribed a curric.ulum. There isa com-
pellingstare interest in the choice and adherence co a suitable curricu-
lum for the benefit of our young citizensand society. It cannot be lefi:
to individualteachersto reachwhat they please." Yet Mr. \Vebster, in
effect, argues that the school board must permit him to teach what he
pleases. The first a mendment is " not a reacher licensefor uncontrolled
expression at variance with establishedcurricularcontent."... (hol ding
that individualteacher has noconstitutionalprerogative tooverride the
judgnient ofhissuperiors as to proper coursecontent.) ... (1973).Clearly,
theschoolboard had theauthority and the responsibility coensure that
Mr. \Xlebs terdid nocsrrny from che established curriculum byinjecting
religious advocacy into the classroom. "Families entrust public scliools
with the education of their children, bur condition their trust 011 die
undersranding that checlassroom will not purposelybeused roadvance
religious views that may conRict with the private beliefsof the student
and his or her family." Edtllf1rds . . . (1987).
A junior highscliool students inunarurc stage of intcllcccual devel-
opment imposes a heightenedresponsibility upon the school board to
control the curriculum. See Z.rka11 v. J#inaw Commu11i r School Corp.
. . . (1980). We have noted diar secondary schoo l teachers occupy a
unique position forinlluencingsecondaryschosotu l dents,thus creating
a concomitant power in school authorities to choose the teachers and
regulate their pedagogical methods. Id."TheStareexerrsgreatauthority
and coercive power through mandatory attendance requirements,and
because of rhc srudcnrs' emulation of teachers as role models and die
children's susceptibility ro peer pressure." Edwards. . . . (1987)
Ir is true that chediscrecionlodgedinschtlolboards is not completely
unfettered.For example,schoolboards maynocfire teachersfor rando,n
classroom comments. Zykan. . . . Moreover, schoolboards may nor re-
quire instruction in a religiouslyinspired dogmato theexclusion ofocher
poinrsofview. Epperson v. Ark,msas. . . ( 1968.)Thiscomplaint contains
noallegation rharschool authorities haveimposed"a pall oforrhodoxy"
on d1c offerings of die entire public school curricuulm, Keyishi,111 v.
Bo,zrd of Regents ... (1967),"which might either implicate thestatein
r.he propagation of an idencifiable religious creed t)r ocherwise impair
permanently thestudent'sability to investigate matters thatarise in die
natural course of intellectual inquiry." Zykan ....' D1erefore,this case
 Appendix s
docs nor pl'csenr the issue of whether, or under what circumstances, a
school board maycompletelyeliminate material from rhe curriculum.
Cf Zykan. . . . (school,nay nor Aarlyprohibit teachers from mentioning
relevant material). Rather, rhc principle rhar an individual reacher has
no righr ro ignorerhedirectivesofdulyappoinrededucation authorities
is dispositive of this case. Today, we decide o nly that,giventhe allega-
tionsof thecomplaint, theschool board hassuccessuflly navigated the
narrowcharmclbetweenimpairingintellecrualinquiryand propagating
a religiouscreccl
Herc, thesuperintendentconcluded thatthesubject matt.ertaught by
l\1r. \Vebsrercreatedseriousestablishment clauseconcerns.c;( Edwards
. . . ("TheCourt hasbeen particularlyvigilant in monitoringcompliance
with the EstablishmentClausein elementaryand secondary schools.)";
Epperson ... (sch ools may nor adopt programs that aid or opposeany
religion). As rhe district court noted, the superintenden'ts letter is di-
recr.cdto thisconcern. "Educatorsdo not offend the l'irsr Amendment
. ..solongastheiractions arc reasonablyrelatedtolegitimate pedagogi-
cal concerns." Haulwood School Dist. v. Kuhbneier . . . ( I988 ) . Given
the schoolboard's important pedagogical interest in establishing rhe
curriculum and legitimate concern with possible establishment clause
violarions, the schoolboard's prohibition on the reaching of creation
science ro junior high students was appropriate. Sec l'a'1ner v. Board
of Educ....(197)9(school boardhas "compelling" interest in setting
the curriculum). Accordingly,the district court properly disnl isscd Mr.
\Vcbster'scomplainr.1

Conclusion
1he sa1ne biases of che court are evidenc here as in McLean (1982),
EdUJards (I 987) , an d D over(2005).Ourco111111e11cson chose cases,viii
not be repeated here (see chapters 3, 5,7, and 8).

2. H/ebsur v. Neru Lenox School Diilria, 917 F. 2,l 1004 (7, h C ir. 1990).
 - - - - - - - - - A ee E=N
.ruX 6
Only Two Views
of Origin Events

conunon objectionevolutionistslevelat creationistsisthat.

their belief diat there are only two vie,vs of origin- cre-
ationand evolution- leadsto a-use duaJisn1. C reationists
disagree,of course, but the courts haveagreed ,vid1evolutionisr.s. \Xle
will now look at two wrong conclusions d1at both evolutionistsand
d1e co urts ofi:en d raw because of their belief in th is falsedualisn1on
mepare ofcreationists.
First Wrong Conclusion: "IfCreation IsTaught,
Many Other Views Should Also Be Taught"

Creaitonistsofi:en argue d1ar only evolution istaught inschools,and

creation is the only other vie,v,and therefore, creation shouldalso be
caught.Evolutioniscsolie n respond by noting that there are n1anyot her
views of origin, and ifcreation is taughc, then all d1ese od1e r religious
379
 Appendix6

vie,vs (e.g., Buddhist, Hindu, Polytheist, etc.) would have co be taught

coo. Creacioniscsrespond as follows:
First, creation science or intelligent design are not religiousvie,vs
(seechapter 8). lnall che rnajorcou rtcasessinceScupes ( 1925) crearion-
isrs have proposed co reach origins only fro1n a scientific point ofvie,v
and have proposed laws explicitly forbidding the use of any religious
sources as a basis for reaching creation. So, theevolurionisrs' objection
is ascra,v1nan.
Ofcourse there is truth in the objection char rhere is n1ore than one
view ofcreation.So,necrearionisrswane youngeard1andcarasuophisrn
(flood geology) caught as well (see A1cLea,n1982). Ochers, asin theEd-
wardscase(1987) lefi: chisour of theirla,v.Further, therearecrearionisrs
who believe diar the intelligent designer is,virhin me universe (such as
Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickran1asinghe,and Francis C rick). Mose ocher
creat ionisr.s arguing in rhe U.S. courts have believed d1ac rhe schools
should be open to hearing evidence for a supernatural creator outside
the universe. Evolutionists ask:\Xlhich creation viewshould betaught?
If,ve allo,v one, then will we nor have co allow all?
Ho,vever, creationists point out that the san1e problern exists ,vith
evolution,,vhich includes ,nore than onevie,v."H ' 1ereare Darwinists and
neo-Darwinisrs.n1erearegradualistn and punctuated equilibriu1nisn1.
\Xlhich one should be caught?' (he answer is bodi. Any evolutionary
vie,v d1ar has scienrific evidence co offer should be allo,ved ro offer it.
Like,vise, any crearionisr vie\\ rhac hasevidence ro offer should not be
refused d1eopporcunicy co offer it.

S econd Wrong Co nclus ion : "Evidence Agains t Evo lu tion

Is Not Evidence for Creation"

Even 1nore iniporranc co d1edebate is d1eevolutionists' contention

rl1ar ,vhat argues against evolution does nor necessarily argue far cre-
ation.n1eabsenceofevidence fora nacwal cause does not auco111acically
n1ean d1ar there n1ust have been a supernatural cause. 1l1e absenre of
evidenceis nor evidence farabsence of a natural cause.1l1ere 1nay bean
unknown narural cause, and scientists should not give up looking for
O n ly Two Views of O rigin EYcntS

it. In response to chis argu1ne nt, it is in1porcanc co re1ne1nber several

things.
First, ,vhen ,ve break down rhe o rigin dispute inco ics chree 1nain
issues-che origin ofche universe, dieorigin offirst Ufe,and dieorigin
of new life fonns- we can see chat, logically, diere can be only one of
f\VO possible vie,vs on eacl1 issue.

On the origin ofthe universe, it has eidier a natural cause or a supe r-

natural one. There are no ocher logical alcernarive.sSo, if ic ,vas noc a
natural cause, rl1en ic1nust have been asupernatural cause.niis is pre-
cisely,vhy even agnostic proponents ofdie BigBang cheory, like Robert
Jasc.ro, v,are willing to say: "'TI1at diere are what I or anyone ,vould call
supeniatural forcesat,vork is no,v, m I ink, ascientifically proven fact."1
For if, as the BigBang rlieory concludes, die universe had a beginning,
rhen rhe cause ofir ,vould have co be beyond die nanu-al ,vorld and
would, chen, by definition be asupernatural cause.
On the origin offirstltfe,even evolutionists agree chac there are only
rwo possiblecauses: nacuralarid intelligent. Fan1ous evolutionist George
\Vaid aflinned: "'TI1e reasonable viewpoint was ro believe in spont ane-
ous generation; die onlyalcernative, co believe in asingle, pri1nary ace
of supernatural creation. n1ereis no diird possibiliry."2 Even Charles
Darwin speaks of the cwo opposing views as"the rlteory of creation"
and "die theory of evolurion."3Jastrow agreed, saying: "Either Ufe was
created on dieeardi by che willofa beingoutsidediegraspofsciencific
unde rstanding, or it evolved on our planer spontaneously, mrough
clien1ical reactions occurring in non living matrer lying on rlte surface
of die planer [or sonie ocher place]."4 There are no ocher alrernarives.
Ontheorigin ofnew liftfonns, thereareonly cwo possibleviews:con1-
n1on ancestry or a con101on creacor. Eid1er ne,v life forn1s eo1erged by
natural processes (like natural selection),vicho ut any direct intelligent
t. RobertJastrow. "'A Scientist Caught lk rwec-n Two F.tiths...inceni<:w b )' Bill Durhi1), i1'1
Cln "i,titmity Tod11y ( August 6, 1982), IS.
2. George\X'11d . Sti r.mif c Am er,io (August 195 4) .
3. Charle.s 0 :.1rwl1l:, 1he De.iCt!IJ/ of 1\111,11 in 0 111Ju OriginofSpede:ia ntithe Destl!lll of,Y/1,111
vol. 49of Great Hoo ks of the Western World{Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19 52).
234, 235.
4. RobertJaso-ow, fVlu 11th e S,m Dies(New York: Norton.1977). 62.
38l Appendix6

incervencion, or theywere caused byspecial acesofan intelligent creator.

There are only c,,,o possible views.
Second, ofcourse rhere are subvie,vs wirhin both evolution and cre-
ation, but chisshould not eli1ninate eithervie,v being caught inschools.
Evolutioniscs do nocagreeon che n1eans ofevolucion. And crearioniscs
do not agreeon d1e rin1e or precise nan1re ofcrearion. Bue d1is isbeside
the point, which is chac there are only nvo basic views on all dispured
points oforigin. Hence, allowing creation does noc open che door for
any views orher than evolurion, nor does allo,ving evolurion open rhe
door for any view ocher than creation.
'Il1ird, d1isalsoanswers rheobjection ofi:en pucforward by evolution -
ists chat rhe creacion/evoluciondichoco1ny does noc allow for cheiscic
evolution. le does, for it allows for any con1binacion of chc rwo and
only nvo views on every point of origin (as sho,vn above). So, for ex-
an1ple, one could believe in a supernarural cause of che universe or of
the universe and fuselife, and still believe in evolution (narural causes)
of new life fo nn s.
Fourd1, when rhere areonly nvo vie,vs, chen whac arguesagainst one
isanargun1enc.for cheorher. Manyevolucioniscs recognize rhis; Danvin
did. He kne,v chat 1nissinglinks argued againsc hisview. Healso knew
chac iinmediace appearance of new forn1soflifeargued against hisview.
Hence, ,vhen crearionists argue fro1n rhe sudden appearance of fully
fonned, h1Uy funcrioning ne,vlifefonnsin rhefossil record, it is noc just
an argu1nent against evolution; it isalso an argu1nent for creation.
Fifi:h, cheevolucioniscclain1chat checreacionisc vie,v is builtsin1plyon
the absence ofevidence forevolurion is con1plecely wrong. le isnot the
absenceofevidence chat leads cocreacioniscs' conclusions. Forexan1ple,
it is not che absence ofevidence for a natural cause ofche beginning of
the universe rhac leadsco positinga supernatural cause. Rather, it isthe
presence of1nultiple evidences chat che universe had a beginning.
1he presenceofevidence faracauseofthe universe. Astronon1ers point
co 1nany lines of evidence rhac converge co denionscrace char che enrire
n1acerial universe caine into exisrenceson1e finite a1now1c of cin1e ago.
S.SeeCharles Darwin, On the OriginofSp ies{6th ed., 1 872 ; N ew York University Pres .
1988). JS4.
OnlyTwc.) Viewsof Origin EYcnts

"H1isincludes I) the second la\v of d1ennodyna1nics, 2) che expand ing

tu1iverse, 3) the radiation echo, 4)Einstein'sgeneral relativity,6 and 5) d1e
large 1nass ofenergy discovered by the COBE spacetelescopein J992.
The preesnceof evidence for an intelligent cause offirst Lift . Lil<e,vise,
it is not the absence buc the presenecofevidence chat leadscreationists
co posit an intelligent cause of first life. And it is evidence based on
two well-establishedscientific principles: me principle ofcausality and
die principleof uniforrnity. Respectiveyl , I) every event hasan ade-
quace cause; 2) the kind of causes kno,vn by constant conjunction in
the present t.o causecertain kinds of events are ass111ned to be the kind
of causes rhar produced lil<e evencs in d1e pasr. And ic iskno\vn by re-
peatedexperience in che present diat onlyan intelligent cause produces
specified coniplexity, irreducible cornp le xicy,and anticipatory design
(such as life has). Hence, it isreasonable to posit an intelligent cause for
the beginningof life in che past. n1e scientific evidence for diis is d1e
evidencefor the principle of uniforn1ciy, narn ely,d1isis the kind ofcause
we regularly and repeatedly see connected ,vich these kinds of events
in che present. So, it is not die lack ofevidence for a natural cause but
che presenceof evidence for an intelligent cause d1ac leads creationists
co posit an incelligenc cause for first life. To illuscrace, when we con1e
upon an old book in the attic,,ve naturally assu1ne that so1neone wrote
ic;,ve don't assurne mac it ca1ne co be by rnere chance. n1e assurnption
that sorneone wrote the bookdoes not con1e about because ofany Lack
of evidence char ic carne ro be by chance. Rarher, our assun1pcion of a
luunan author is based on dieevidence ofspecified coniplexity (in chis
case, written language) char the book exhibits.
The p1esenceufevidence jotan intelligentcauseofnew liftfarrns. Space
does notperrnit exhaustive elaborarion o n thisfinal po int, but diesame
logicapplies asin regard cofirst life. \Xeihaveeither acom1non ancestry or
aconunon creator. And since, od1er cl1an c reation, d1ereareonly natural
causes toaccount for d1eappearance of new lifefo nn s, rhen whacargues
against one vie,v argues tor ilie od1er vie,v. Furcl1er, positive evidence
based on me principleof1u1iforn1itychat argues for an intelligent cause
6. Sec Ro bertJastro w. Gotl1111d the A $t rr>110:11U1'J (New York: Norton, 1978 ); and Hugh
Ross.11,eCr,11tor a11dtheCosmos (Co lo r,,do Springs:Navl'rc5'., I99S).
 Appcndix6

of new life fonns is further proof for creation. Creationists believe chis
is not based ,nerely on rhe absence ofa particular n1eans for explaining
evolution (because there111aybeocher unknown natural explanations),
but it iscl1e presence ofpositive evidence (based on unifonnexperience)
thar leads us ro posit an intelligent cause for ne,v life fonns.
Evolutionists haveevery righr co concinue ro find natural causes for
,vhatever they can, based in unifonn experience. Bur in rhe absence of
all known natural causesand in cl1e presence of kno,vn causal connec -
tions benveen new life fonns and intelligent causes, creationists have
every right co present cl1eir evidence tor an intelligent cause of new life
fo rrns.\Xfhen chis is applied consiscencly,creationists believe the result.
is fair for both sides. For it turns our chat n1icroevolucion is based on
repeated observatjonal evidence in the present, but u1acroevolucion is
nor, for rwo reasons. Firsr, n1acroevolurion involves nor current evenrs
bur past, unobserved events.Second, rhereare no kno,vn forces regulaily
producing d1especifiedand irreduciblecon1plexiry inalivingfonn.And
in die light of fossil evidence for che sudden, fully fanned appearance
of ne,v life fonus, it is reasonable co posit an incelJigenc cause of d1en1.
Orher evidence &0111 the nature ofco,nplex syscen1s, interdependence
of basic forms of life, anticipatory design in nature, and the like also
point co an incelligenc cause. And rhere is no reason chis should not
be presented as one vie,v, along,vid, the opposing vie"' in high school
science classes.

Concl usion
TI1ere isa valid basic dualis,n berween creation and evolurion.n1ere
areonly C\voviewsoneacli point oforigin. And whatever argues against
one is rhereby an argu1nenr for d1e od,er . Bur n1ore man d1at, iris nor
rhe rnere lack of kno,vn natural causes that leads creacionisrs to posit
an inrelligenr cause oflife. Ir is rhe presence ofevidence chat poincs co
an incelligenc cause.
Ofcourse, it isalso trued1ac whac argues against one n1eans (n1echa-
nis1n) for evolution does noc cl1ereby refiJCe evolurion. Orher narural
causes ruay bepossible, bur ic isup co cl1eevolutionist co find d1en1. Bue
Only Two Viewsof Origin EYcnrs

when there are nokno,vn n1echanisnJs, then111aybe there are nonatural

causes. And ,naybe creationiscs are righr.And where diereare noknown
natural n1echanisn1s and there are known positive evidences for intel-
ligent design, then evolutionists (and courts) have no right to disallo,v
the presentation of a creationist's explanation for origins.
One final point. \W'hile there ,nay be ocher narural explanations for
die nJeans (n1echanis1n) of evolution, there is only one alternative co
narural explanarions- anddiat isan intelligentcause. And whatargues
against d1ere beingany nacural cause (since there isonly oneod1er kind
ofcause), isanargun1enc forcreation. And,vhatargues positively for an
intelligent cause is also thereby an argun1necagainst any natural cause.
A basic dualis111 cannot be avoided, and ,vhat argues for one argues
against rhe ocher, since rhey are rn ucuallyexclusive. For either new life
forrns appeared by purely natural forces, or diey did not. And if rhey
did nor, d1en the cause niust have been an intelligent one, d1ere being
no ocher kind ofcause.
 Bibliography

Books
Bacon, Francis. Nwum Organum. New York:Co lonial Press,1899.
Barbour, Ian. h.mes ill Scie11ce alltl ReligionN
. ew York: Harper & Row, 1966.
Bcd,with, Francis.Ulw, Dmwinism,and Public Etl11c11tion. New York: Rowman&
Liulc lidd, 2003.
Behe, Michael.Danvins Blafk Box. New York: Free Press, 1996 .
Hers man, Jerry, and Gco rs c Howe. "VestigialOrg1111s'' Are Fully Functional: A !-li_;-
1ory1tndEva/11atio11ef1heVe.<tigi,,l Orga" Origins Concep.tKansas C ity: Crc.1tion
ResearchSociety Books, 1993.
Bergson, Henri. C,eati,,e Euolution. Translated b)' Arthur /v! itchell. New York: lv(a-c
millan, 19(1.
Blackstone, \Villiam.Ct>mmentaries t>n1he Law .<ofE11gla,ul.C hicago: Universityof
Chicaso Press,2002.
Budziszewski, J. flow to Stay Christian in Colleg.eColorado Springs: NavPrcss,
1999.
Campbell. John Angus, and Srcphen C. lv!cyer, eds. D11ri11i11i.w1, Dc,,ign,md Public
Education. East Lansing. /v!ich.: /vliclugan State University Press, 2003.
Conk in, Paul K. When All 1he Gods Trembled : D11n 11i11i.vn, Scop es,and .l1111e1ican
Inu llea" al<. NewYork: Rowman& Littlefield, 1998.
Darwin, Charles. On1he O,igin ofSpecie.t 6 th Edition, 1872. New York: New York
University Press, 1988.
---.OntheO,igin of Speciesand the Descentoflv!a11. Great Books of the \Vcstcrn
\Vorid. Vol. 49. C hicago: University ofChicago Press, 19 52.

386
13ihliography

Davis, Percival, Dean Kenyon, and Charles B. Thaxton. 0/Ptmdas and People: The
CentrniQ}'estion of lliological O,igins. Dallas: Haughton,1993.
Dawkins,Richard. The Blitul Hi1tch11111ker.New York: Norton, 1987.
Dcmbski, \Villiam. 1he Design Reuol1t1io11: A,wveringtheToughest Que.<tiom About
fntellige11t Design. Downers Grove, Ill.: lmerVarsity Press,2004.
Dcmbski, \'{fiJliam,ed.i\llere Crention: Science, Fnith,,md ln1elligent Desig11.Downers
Grove, lll.: lntcrVarsicyPress, 1998.
Dcmbski, \VilJia m, and l'vlic hacl Rusc,cds. Debati11g Design: Fn,m Darwi11 to DNA.
New York: Cambridge Ulliversity Press, 2004.
Dewe.yJo hn.A Common Faith.New Haven, Conn.: Yale Universiry Press,1960.
Dc\'\flof. David,John \Vest, Carey Luskin, and Jonathan \Vitt. 1i11ip,ingi11to Evolu-
tion: Intelligent Design ,wd the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Dedsio11. Seattle: Discovery
L,stitute Press, 2006.
De\Volf. Davdi, ct al."TeachingtheControversy: lsIt Science, ReUgi on,orSpeech?"
L1 Darwini.m,, Design, anti Public Ed11ca1ion.Edited byJolu1 A. Camp bell and
StephenC. l'vleyer. East Lansing, l'vlich.: l'-1ichigan State Unjversity Press, 2003.
Dreisbach, Daniel L 1hom11sjifjer5onnntlthe J#rllo/SepamtionBetween Church ,mt/
Srate. New York: New York University Press, 2002.
Frair, \Vay11e. Biology ttntl c , ation: An lntn1tluaion Reg11.-di11g Life ttnd Ifs Origin..,
Chino \/allci1Ariz.: Crcarion Research Society Books, 2002.
--. 1he CllSe fa.-c , 111ion. Chicago; ?vloody, 1976.
---.Science and C, 111itm: An !111roduaitm 10 Some Tough l;.<ue.<. C h ino Valley.
Ariz.: Creation Research Society Books, 2002.
Geisler,Norman. ls ,11an theMeasure?An E1111!11tttio11ofContemporm'Y llum ttni.m,.
Grand Rapids, l'-lic h.:Baker, 1983.
---.Kwwing the1iuth About C,eation. Eugene, Ore.: \Vipf& Srock, 2003.
---.1\1irncles1111tltheMode171 J.1intl.Grand Rapids, l'-1ich.: Baker, 1992.
Geisler, Norman, and Kerby Anderson. Origin Sciente: A Prt,p.o<tt! ji1>theCre,itiOTJ
Evolution Co11trove>-Jy.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1987.
Geisler, Norman, and William Nix. A General ln1.-od11t1ion to 1he Bible. C hicago:
Moody, 1986.
Gcislcr, Norman,and FrankTu rck.I Don Have Enough F'llitbta Bean Atheist. \Vhc-a
tOn,111.: C rossway,2004.
Geisler, Norman, wi th A.F. Brooke II,and ?.lark Keough.71,e Creator in theCou>t
,vo111. l'vlilford, l'vli ch.:?.Iott l'--ledia, 1982.
Gentry,Robert. C.-entions Tiny ,11syte,y. Knoxvlile: Earth ScienceAssociation, 1988.
Getting the Facts Sh-aight: A Viewers (;uide ta PBSs Evolurion. Seattle: Discovery
lnsrirutc Press,200I.
388 Bibliog raphy

Gilkey,Langdon. Crratio11ism011Tritt!:E110l111io111111dGod11tlJ11lc Rork.Charlottesville:

University of Virginia Press,1998.
- - .1\,/akerofl-leauenand Earth. Garden City, N.J.:Anchor, 1965. Reprint, Lan-
ham. Md.: Uni,crsity Pressof America, 1985.
Gish, Duane. Evolution: 17Je Fo.slisS11_y No!San Diego: Creacio-n Lifc,1973.
Goldberg, Bernard.Bias.\'ilashingron,D.C.: Rcgncry, 2002.
Haeckel, Ernst. Th, Riddleof/heUnive,,e111theCloseofthe Nineteenth Centmy . New
York: Harper & Brothers,1900.
Hilleary,\'ililliam, and Oren \V. lvlet1.ger. The H11rl,ls1\1ost F,1mousCo11r1 1iial:1en-
ne.<see Evolution Case.Cincinnati: National BookCompany, 1925.
Hi tchcock,JamesT. heS11premeCo11rt11111l Religionin Amerit11n Life.Vol. l. Princeton,
N.J.: PrincetonUniversit')Press,2004.
Hitler, Adolf.1\1ei11 Kampf New York: Reyna! & Hitchcock, 1940.
Hodge, Charles. "\'ilha, Is Darwinism?' In Vh11tl i Danvini.m,? Anti Other lVril
ing,011Scienceand Re/;gion. Ed. lv!ark A. Noll and David N. LivingsroncG . rand
Rapid,slv!ich.: Bake,r 1994.
Hume, Da,id.11,eLette, ofDauid l-/11rne. 2 Vols.F.d.J. Y.T. Greig. New York:Gar-
land, 1983.
- - - . 1Vcu1 l.ettc11of Davidl-f11m e. Ed. Raymond Klibansky and Ernes, Campbell
lv(ossner.Oxford: Clarendon Press,1954.
Hunter,Cornelius G.D,trwir/sGod:E,wl11tionn,ulthe Problnr,ofE11il. Grand Rapids,
lv!ich.:Brazos Press,200l.
Hunter, George \Villiam. A Civic Biolog_y. New York: An1erican Book Compa11y,
1914.
H uxley.J ulian. ReligionUl/thout Revelatio.nNew York: Harpe,r 19 57.
H ynek, J.Allen. The Edgeof Reality. Chicago: Regnery, 1975.
Jastrow, Robert. God and 1ht A s11rmomc11. New York: Norton, 1978.
- - - . 1Vhen 11,eSun Dies. New York: \ r.\'il . Norton, 1977.
Johnson, Phillip. Danvinon Thnl. \'ilashington, D.C.: Rcgncry, 1991.
- - - . Deflating Danvinism. Downers Grove, Ill.: lnccrVarsicy Press, l99 7.
- - - . The Vedgeo.f l, 1a h: Splliling theFo,md111ionsofJ.1l1111ralism.Downers Grove,
IU.: bucrVarsity Press,2002.
Kenny, Anchony.The Five fVa.rs: St. 1bomas AquinasProofi ofGods Existence.New
York: Schocken, 1969.
Kolenda, Konst:tntin. ReligionWithout God.Buffalo, 1\.Y.: Prometheus, 1976.
Kurtz, Paul,ed. f-{111111mi.<t1\1anifestosIand II. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus,1973.
Bibliog raphy

Laplace, Pierre.,f PhilosopihcalEss,ry 011 Prob,,bi/ities. Tramlatcd by A. I. Dale. New

York: Springe-rVerlag, 1995.
Larson, Edward J.S1m111Jerjor the Gods: 1/,e Scopes T,i11l ,uu l A TJJerica 's Contin11ing
Debateove,Scic11ct 11nd Religion. New York: Basic Books, 19')7.
- - - . T>ialand Enor:1heAmerican Co111>-ove1syoverC,eati onand Evolution. New
York: Oxford Urtiversity Press, 2003.
Landan, Larry. "Scienceat the Bar-Causes for Concern: in B111ls ft Science? d.
?v!ichael Ruse. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, I996.
Levin,1'1ark R. fefenin Black: flow the Supreme Co11nls DestroyingAmerica. \Vash-
ingcon, D.C.: Regncry, 2005.
Limbaugh. David. Po1ecution. \Vashnigton,D.C.: Rcgncry, 2004.
Livingston, David. Dan vins Forgottt11 Defanders. Grand Rapids, ?vlich.: Ecrdma ns,
1987.
Lubcnow. ll1arvin l . J+om Fish to Gish.San Diego: C reation-Life, 1983.
?vfaritain,Jacques.TheDreamofDe ,irtes.Translated by?vlabelle L.Andison. London:
Editions Pocrry,1946.
Marx. Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Mm:tand EngelsOn Religion.?vloscow: Progress,
1957. Reprint, New York: Schockcn, 1964.
?vkycr, Step hen C.11,c Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent: In
71,e Creatio11 l-lypothesis. Ed. J. P. Moreland, Downers Grove, Ill.: lncerVarsity
Press,1994.
?v!oncgomery, John \Varwick.77,,.La,v Aho-vc th e La,v: 11/hy1/u Lazv Needs Biblical
F<>tm dations,Ho,v Legal Tho11ght S11ppor1, Christian Thtth, lncl11di 11g Gree11/ca('.;
Tes1imo11y o/1he E11angelis1,. Mirmeapo lis: Bethany. 1975.
Moore.JamesR. 1hcPost-1),irwinianContrtY,;ersies. New York:Cambridge Univesrity
1>rcss, 1979.
1'4oore, Jolu1 N.,and Harold SeimIt, Slusher,eds. Biology: A Searchfa,Ort/er ill
Complexity.Grand Rapids,1'4ich.: Zo ndcrvan, I9i4.
?vlo rris,Henry. Studies in the Bibel and Science. Grnnd Rapids,?vlich.: Baker, 1966.
?vlo rris.Hcrtry,ed.Scientific C, ationism. El Cajon, Ca lif.: Creation-Life. 1974.
O'Leary, Oeny1ac. Design o, By Chance? 71,e Growing Conh1Xll!1SY qn th e Originsof
lifa in the Unive, c.?vlinncapolsi: Augsburg,2004.
O' Neill. Jo hnJacob.ProdigalGenii: Tl1t Li.faof Nikola Tesla. New York: \'(/ashburn.
1944.Rcprir,r. Blue Ridge Summit, Pa.: Brorl,crhoodof Life, 1994 .
Roberts, Jon H. Darwinism and the Di1,in e in ATJJe>ica: Protestant J111ellec11,a L<and
Organic Evol11tion, 18 3 9- 1900.?vladison: University of \Visconsin Press, 1988 .
Repri nt, Norrc Dame, Ind.: University ofNorre Dame Press, 2001.
Ross, Hugh. The Creator a,ulthe Cosmo.,.Colorado Springs: NavPrcss, 1995.
390 BibJ;ogrnphy
Russcll,Jcffrcy Burton. hwenting the Fla.I E11rth: Col11111b11s 11nd i\ fode11, 1-listorian.,.
\Vcsrporc, Conn.: Pracgcr, l 997.
Schaeffor, Francis.A Ch,i.<tian1\1a.nifauo. \Vesrches,cr,Ill.: Crossway, 1982.
Sears, Alan, and Crnig Osten. Ihe ACLU v. America. Nashville: Broadrnan & H ol-
man, 2005.
TiUich, Paul. Sy.<tematic Theology. 3 Vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1973- 1976.
- - - . Ul1im111e C o11ce,11.New York: Harper & Row, 1965.
l<,rrey, R. A.,ed. 1he l-imt!an1e111ah. Los Angeles: Bible Institu te of Los Angeles,
I 917.
\Vells,Jonachan.7he Politica./(y l11wn ect Guide to Danoinism and /11telligentDesig11.
\Vashingron, D.C.: Regncry, 2006.
Whitcomb,Jolm C.,and HenryMorris. 1he(;ent1is Flood: Ihe lliblir,1/Reronl 11ntllts
Scie11tijic l111plic111io1is. Phillipsburg, N.].: Presbyrerian & Reformed, 1961.
\Vhitch:cid, Jolm \Y/. 1he Separation lllmi oll. Milford. Mich.:1--!ott1--(cdia, 1982.
Wiker, Benjamin,andJonathan \Vier. A ,\1,,.,11in g fiillVorl,l: HowtheArtsmu/ Scienct1
Reveal the Geniuso/JVll/ure.Downers Grove, ill.: IJ\terVarsity Press, 2006.
\Voodward, lhomas. Douhts Abo111 Darwin: A /1is10,y of!melligent Dt1ig,1. Grand
Rapids,1--!ich.: Baker, 2004.

Articles

Agassiz, Louis."Professor Agassiz on the Origin of Species." America,,.fomn d of

Scienc.r.30(June 1860):143-147.
Asimov, Isaac.' AsimovonScience Fiction." Science Dige.<1 ( O ctobe r 1981).
Asimov, Isaac,and Duane Gish."TI1e Genesis \Var." Sciencel)igcst (O ctober 1981).
Beckwith, Francis. "Public Education, Religious Esrablislunem, an,l the Challenge
oflmclUgenr Design." Notre Dame]o11r11,1/ ( l aw, Eth,ia and Public Polciy 17/2
(2003:)461- 519.
Bird, \VendeU R."Freedom from Esi;1blishmentand Unneurrality in PublicSchool
lnsrrucrion and Religion School Regulation." /-farv 11-rtl ]omn11lof Lmu,md Public
Policy(J une 1979).
---."Freedom of Religion and Science IJ,srrucrion in Public Schoo ls." Yalr.J,:uu
]011rn11l87 (January 1978): 515- 570.
Cheng, Andrew."l l ic lnhcrcm Hosrility ofSecular Public Education loward Reli-
gion:\X1 hyParental Choice Best Serves the Core Values of the ReligionClauses."
Uniue11i1y oflla,uaii Law Review19(1997).
13ihl iography 391
Cornelius, RichardM."TheTrial'I harJVlade lv!onkcysOutofrhc\'(lorld ." USA'/od,1y
Mag,zzine (November 1988).
De\'(lolf, David K. "Academic FreedomAlter Edwards." Regent University /.Aw Review
13(2000- 2001).
Foste,r!vi. 8. "l h e C,h i stian Doctrine of C reation an,d he Rise of lv(odcrn Narural
Science." Mind 43/172{1934).
Frair, \'(layne. EAccrs o f the 198I ArkansasTrial on the C reationist 1'1ovcmcnt." In
Proceeding.< efthe Fourth in ternational Conference on Crelllioni.vn,August 3-8,
1998.' lcchnicalSymposiumSessio ns. Ed. R. E.\Valsh. Pittsburgh:CreationSci-
ence Fellowship,1998.229- 239.
Geisler,Norman."AScientific Basis forCreation:n,cPrincipleof Uniformity." Cre-
111ion E vo/111ionJ011171af 413 (Summer 1984).
Ho nse) H . \'{!ayn.c..:Da rwinismand the Law:Can No n..Natu ralistic ScientificTheories
Sur vive Consti tutional Challenget Regent University L,uv Review 355{Spring
2001).
Jastrow, Robert. "A Scientist Ca ught Between Two f aitl1s. Ch,'i.<tianit)' Toti4y{Au-
gust 8, 1982).
Lewin, Roger., v here Is the Science in Creation Science?" Stierue 215 (January8,
1982): 141- 146.
Lewontin, Richard. "Billio ns and Billions of Demons."i'lew York ReviewofB(J(Jks
(January9, 1996).
O' Neill, !v(ichacl R. "Government's Denigration of Religio n: ls God the Victim of
Discriminatio n in Our PublicSchools ?" PepperdincLaw Review21 (1994).
\Vaid,George."The O rigin of life. Scientific America 191 (August 1954).
" \ 1allace,Alfred." In 11,e Encyclopedia of Phi/,;sophy. Vol.8. d. Paul Edwards. New
York: Macmillan, 1967.
\'(lhirehcad,John,and John Conlan."T he Esrablishmenrof rhc Religion ofSecular
Humanism and Its First Amendment Implications." TexllS Tech Law Review I
(1978- 1979).
Yocke,yHerbert. s clf..O rganization Originof LileScenarios and lnfonnationTheory."
}011rnalofTheoretical Biology 91 (1981):13-31.

Legal Cases
Abington School District v.Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
Aguillard v.Treen, 440 So.2d (1983); 720 E2d (CA5 1983);634 f. Supp. (ED La.
1985).
392 Bibliography
Barcds v. State of Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923).
BethelSchool Dist. No.403v. Fraser, 478 U.S.675 (1986).
Bisho,p , _Aronov.926 E 2d 1066( I Ith Cir.1991).
Board of Educacio n v.Allen,392 U.S. 236 (1968).
Brandon v. Board of Education, 487 F. Supp. 1219, 1230 (N.D. N.Y.), afia., 635 F.
2d 971 (2nd Cir. 1980).
C antwell v.Co nnecticut, 310 U.S. 296(194-0).
Celote.x Cor p. v.Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 ( 1986 ).
Chti ler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S.281 (1979).
Clements v. ]' ashing, 457 U.S.957(1982).
Committee for Public Education & Religious Libertyv. Nyquist, 413 U.S.756(1973).
Committeefor Pnblic Education & Religious Liberty v. Reagan, 444 U.S. 646( l980).
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890).
Dred Scott v.Sanford, 60 U.S.393(1857).
Edwards v.Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
Engel v.Vitale,370 U.S. 421 (1962).
Epperson v.Stateof Arkansas,393 U.S.97 (1968).
Everson v. Board of Educationof Ewing, 330 U.S. I (1947).
Fed. Energy Admin. v.AlgonquinSNG, l.nc., 426 U.S. 548, 564(1976).
Flcrchcr v. Pec k,6 Cranch87{1810).
Freiler v.Tangipahoa Board of Education, No.94-3577( l 997).
Grand RapidsSchool District v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985).
Harris v. leRae.448 U.S. 297 (1980).
Ha,.dwoodSchool District v. Kuhlmcier, 484 U.S. 260(1988).
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida, 480 U.S. 136(1987).
!Uinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340(1987).
Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S.345 (19 56).
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. \Vilson,343 U.S. 495 (1952).
Keith v. LouisianaDepartment of Education, 553F.Supp.295 (Jvll) La. 1982).
Kcyishian v. Board of Regents,38S U.S. 589 (1967).
Kit zmille,r, . Dover Area School Districc,400F.Supp.2d 707(lVI.D.Pa. 2005).
Larkin v.Grendel's Den, b1c.,459 U.S. 116 (1982).
Le,e, . \Vcisman, 505 U.S.577(1992).
LeVake v. b1dcpcndcnt School District,6S6,CX-99-793 (
D.lvli1m.2000). Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602( 1971).
Bibliog raphy 393
Levitt v. Co mmi11ccfor Public Educarion & Religious Libercy,413 U.S. 472(1973).
Los Angeles[City of] v. Preferred Co mmunications,476 U.S.488(1986).
Lynch v. Donnelly,465 U.S. 668(1984).
lvfarsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783(1983).
lvlcColJum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S.203 (1948).
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Unio n of Kenn,cky,545 U.S. 844
(2005).
lvlcDonald v. Board ofEleetion Conun'rs ofChicago, 394 U.S. 802 (1969).
lvlcGowan v. Seate of Maryland,366 U.S.420(1961).
lvlcLean v.Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F.Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982).
lvleek v. Pittenger,421 U.S.349(1975).
lvleyer v.Stace of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390(1923).
lv!odrovich v.AlleghenyCou nry,385 F.3d 397 (2004).
Moore v. Gaston Co unty Board of Educarion, 357 F.Supp. 1037 (\V. 0. N. C.
I973).
lv!o,.crcv. HawkinsCount y Board of Educatio n, 827 F. 2d 1058 (1987).
lv(uellcr v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388(1983).
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Seed Corp., 301 U.S.1 (1937).
l)almerv. Board of Education of the City ofChicago.603F.2d 1271(7th Cir.1979).
Pahner v.n,ompson4 . 03 U.S. 217 (1971).
Pdoza v.C apistrano Unified School District, 917F. 2d 1004 (1994).
Pierce v.Society ofSisters, 268 U.S.510( 1925).
PlannedParenthood v.Casey, 505 U.S. 833(1992).
Recd v. Van Hoven, 237 F.Supp. 48(\V. D. MI 1965).
Richardsv. UniredStar<-s, 369 U.S. 1 (1962).
Roe v. \"{1adc,410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (198 1).
Scopes v.State of Tennessee.105,120, 289S.\V. 363,367 (1927).
Segraves v.StateofCalifornia, Ca.Super.Ct. 278978U (1981).
Shelton v."Tucker,364 U.S.479 (1960).
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398(1963).
Smith v. Stare of Mississippi. 242So.2d (1970).
Seate of Tennessee v.Jo hnScopes, 5232 (1925).
Sccdc v.\Vacers,527S.\V.2d 72 (1975).
Sco ne v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39(1980).
lcxas Educarion Agcnc)' v. Leeper, 893$. \V. 2d 432 (Tex. 1994.)
394 BibHog raphy

Thomas v. Review Boa rd, Ind iana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707
(1981).
Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971).
Tinker v. Des1'1oi.nes Independent Commu nitySchool District, 393 U.S. 503(1969).
Torcaso v.\Varkins, 367 U.S.488 (1961).
United Scares v. Emmons,410 U.S.396(1973).
United Stares v. O' Brien, 391 U.S. 367(1968).
United Stares v.Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) .
Van O rdcn 1. Pcny,545 U.S.677(2005).
Villageof Arlington Heights v.!vfctropolitan HousingCorp.. 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
\'i'aUace v.Jafli-cc, 472 U.S. 38(1985).
\'i'alzv. Tax Co mm'n of New York City,397 U.S. 664(1970).
\'i'ashingron EthicalSociety v. District ofColumbia, IO1 U.S. App. D.C. 371. 249
F.2d. 127 (1957).
\'i'arson v.Jones, 80 U.S.( 13 \V.111.) 679,728(1872).
\'i'cbstcr 1. New LenoxSchool District,917 F.2d. I004(7th Cir. 1990).
\Vidmar v. Vinccm, 454 U.S. 263(1981).
\'i'illoughbyv. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D. D. C. May 18, 1973), affd. 504 F. 2d 271
(D. C. Cir. 1974),ccrt. dcnicd,420 U.S.(1975).
\'i'isconsin v.Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
\'i' ittcrs v.\'i'ashingcon DepartmentofServices for Blin,I. 474 U.S. 481(1986).
\'i'olman,. \Valrer, 433 U.S. 229(1977).
\'i'right v. Housron Lldcpcn dcm School Distric t, 366 F.Supp. 1208(S.l). 1972).
Zorach v. C lauson,343 U.S. 306( l952).
Zykan v. \Varsaw (Indfana) Comm unity School Corporation and \Xfarsaw School
Board of T rusrees,631 F. 2d. 1300 (7th Cir. 1980).
 Index
Abingto11Sthoo/.Di1ni<1 t'. Srhnnpp ( 1963). SS.
88.99.102. 105.144. 145.188.189,190.
191. 192. 197. 269.274. 303.307
ACLU,,. Amoic,,, 7/Jr.{Scars;mdOncn).31Jn3S
Agassiz. Louis. 32.32116. 68
Aguihtr FdtOJI ( J98S), 211
Ag,,,11,ml v. T>= ( 1983),187.196
Alito.S:i.mud.209. '293,297
Altizer.Thomu J.J..153
A1nericanAssodation for the Ad\'ancanent of
Scic.rKc' . 21nl
Americ:m ChiJ LibertiC$ Union (ACLU).35,
zn.305: Acadeinic f-recdom Coounin,
308
amhropic principle.250, 300
anri-cvohnion Jaws. 22, 177
Aquinas.Thomas. 170, 217. 366
archaoology. 256:and th< Bible,133.179. 270
Ari,t0de, 135, 159,161, IS i, 207,265-266,301
atheism. I53
attorne-y.strainingof in f=in t Amendment issues.
296-297
Augustine.3<'.-<i
Bacon, Francis. 165. 166.258-259
Bubour. lao.133
Bands" Stateoflow,r ( 1923),84
llche, Mich,cl, 25- 26. 217, 218.219, 224, 226-
227.246n 13. 251nI 9
lkrgwn, Henri. 32,273n52, 286
&rhdSdwol Dis.tNo.403v.. f-hue,( 1986) . 188
Bia,(Goldb<rg).304
Bible: incrr:mcy of. 173. 366 - 367: andliccnlism.
173;:u the sourceor scientific discovery. J33.
179.270
Bible Sct(nc(' Association, lOl
BigB,ngrhoo,y. 168.257.260, 268.381
Biological Sciences Curriculum Snidy ( 8SCS}.
100
flqi /q,gy A SarrbforOrderi11Comp/exit:,, 112
Bird. w,nddl. 91. I17. 127. 127nl2. 137. 139.
186
Hl:1cks:roncs Comme111,1da, 267
Bliss, Rkhud ll., 112
8r1mJ,m r1. /Jo111'(/ of Edu(111ion ( 1980 }. l IS
Bryan,\Villia1n)<'nn ings.34. 36. 176: first s.ixcch
of in Scopes trial. 56- 58; l3$t speech of in
Sropnrri2t72: asa witnessinSroptstrial.
70-71
Buddhism. 153
Bud:r.iszc wski.J.. 306
Bucll,Jon. 23- 24, 183
Gu1111,,d/ ,,. Comurticut ( 1940), 196
Ca.rd,Orson Scon.247
ciuuJity.principleot: 249.2'>8-259, 267.268.
299
Ce/o,rx Co,-p. Cam: Jt( l986). 199
Chittick . Donald. 121. 304
'"Christi:m Ooccrinc of Creation and the Riseof
Modenl NamralScienc:c.The'"(Foster).271
CJnisti.111i.\11111ifo10,.'.I.(Sdt1cfl'e-.r),317
Chry$/e, C.Ot-p,,,,uitmv. Bto:,11( l 979) . 102
Cirizcns for F:1irncss in f.ducation,91
CiJJ of Los Angdts u. Pnfe,rt'AO,nm1unir111fom
(1986).374
39S

C;v;,8iol,gy,A (Huntet), 53,57
chil rolcr:mcc argument, 24, 291-292
Coffin, I larold, 12l
Cole,F.iy-Cooper,67
"CoiningNew Rdigion of Ilu1na.nis1n.1he"
(Huxley), 156
Commiltu f Public Educatio11 d,.Rdigious Lib-
err;,v. Nyquur (l 973). !OJ
Common h1ilh A(Dcwc)'), l S-i
Coyne,Jerry, 244n9
creation. 240-24 I. 242:Americans' beHefin.,
2nnSS:comparisonofrolbr nh ,icw.
263: ;as dcfo\ed. in courtcasc.s. 276:asa
minority view. 246n13, 247: nercot)'peof
ppctr.te<I by the p r(.sS, 331;suppression of
cre:uionisu, 247;,icwsof, 3SO;wh)' reach-
ingit should be;a:llowod in public.schools.
276-280.Su.also imdligcm <lcsign (ID);
r'C$pOnse tO rdigi<>us arguments ;aga.inn ccach-
ingcr tion; response:roscientific argmncnN
;aga.inn tchingcreation
Cre,uio11 Et'(Jh'1io11 Co 11rnn .ot'>7, 1be(W'y$0ng).
362-364
cre:uion/ c,'Olurion oials:-andconhuion of mo-
tivesand purpo1es, 282-283:courtca.sc-1
bc:ari.ngon the i.ssue, 2 ln2:3Jld"rdigion \'$.
science," 73 - 74. &e alsospecific trials:logical
fuUadcs in creation/ c\'o]urionlegalopinions
Creation Re1(archSockty (CRS). IOI. 109
creation science, JOI
CreationScience Rese.arch Center (CSRC), 101
Cre,uille Eoolmiq11(Bergson), 32, 273nS2, 2S6
Cren10,i111/uC!.usn>om, 1ht (Geiskr.with
S rookc. , nd Keough),30nl9,127012
Crick, frJnds, 380
Curt1$.\Vinterton C. 68
D,now,Cb re.n . 3/4.36, 158. 288-289.:;.H-
34$:first -speechof in &opa triaL-46-49: last
speech ofin$(Xlpts triil.73
D.rw;n,Charle,.31,3Inl. 34,S7. 134,135-
136n2l, 157.270,279.305-306.381.382'
opposition tO vaccinuions, 24S.Su ,,/soC\O
lution. l)arwin$ five rcneuof
D11rwh1on 1;ial(Johnson). 2S
Dirwinism.261.262:erhic:al eons]_uences of.33
D,,n,h1's Bl,uJ.Box(lkhe),2$-26.2Slul9
J>,,.;,v.&.,.,, (l 890).294-295
D,wltin,. Richard, 242,249n16,261
D<ithofGod moveinenr, 152. l 53
Dl,mttion J!mkpmdnue, l 38,26 J, 266.2< .
270,309
Def'enti11g D11rwinism (Johnson), 306
Demb,k;,Witl;21n,26.218,219. 221,246n13
Dennett.Daniel. 26l
lntici:
Des<:1rra. Rent.166-167.270.275
Destn11oJA-f,111,7/ (Duwin).34.57
Dewey.John, 154,302
DtW'olfe. Da"id, 2i 6nS7
Discovery lnstiruce_.29
lJi,,i,uJ\fi/im,1/Jef'foilh:mlde Chardi11). 152
DNA. 240,251;and knersequencing. 249-250.
2551121,300
Doolittle. Russell.244n9
DM1nci sc SeeKinn,illn,,. Do t ie,An11S(ho(I/
Dis1ri,r(2005)
D,,d Scott,,.S,m(wd (1857).290
Drrisbach. 0,uli J.28406
Edw,1Yrls Agi,;//,,,,J(J987).2t 25-26,26-27.
74, 126. 148.217, 218-219, 220-221,224.
230.233.234.236,240, 243. 265,272.
282.290.291,293.308. 30Sn34.349,375.
376.377.378,380::anorn,w$ llwolvcd in..
186:lxi:ckgroundof.183-l84:commcms
on. 200-203;definirion ofcrc.tion in. 276;
ScaHf1dientingopinion in.205-21J. 266.
275,30S: US.SupremeCourt rulingin,
184-200,305
Einstein.Albert. 299n2J
Eli,de. Mirceo, 151
Ellwanger, P,ul,9l. 108.124, l3l.l32
endorsement test.216
&,gelv. V,r,,/,(1962),85.99,189.200
Epf""'" u. A*''"'"'(1968),22-23,76.91.102.
ll7.140. 183,187. 189.192,193. 194.195.
198.200.203. 217.234.283,289.290.293.
305-306.377,378:backgro<m<l of, 79-81;
e\'aluation of:86-89:influenceof Scop trial
in.87:US.SupremeCourt rulingin,81-82..
82-86(rcn)
Evmtm 11. B1JJrdofEdutilfitm of Ewing( 1947).
79- 80, 84,86. 96. 99. 118,141-142, 144.
283,283n4.284
C\-Olurion:ambiguity of thercrrn "'cvo1mion7 75;
biological e..ulurion. 243;chemic.a) ew,lu-
rion, 243; cosmicC\-'OJurion,243:Darwin's
fi\'etcneuof.242:definition of, 241-243:
m,rnxvolution,69n26. 75.242,355. 384:
microevolution.75.242.384; and \'cstig.fa)
organs."' 246; viewsof.380.Sr.e,dso Darwin-
istn: theisticcvolurioil
EvolNti on- 1ht f'.,,;1,S.ry ,V,!(Gi,h). l 12-l13,
365
Fed.Ene>F:f A.dmi11. u Algo11quh1SNC,bu.
(1976). 102
First Amendment,S6.138, 144, 266.2SS;couru'
misinrerpret.1rio11of. 283-289: interpre.ta-
lnclex
tiomof. 137- 139:original imencof.283n'1:
,iobrionof, 269
l'osr.M. JI..271
Found:uion forThough, and Ethics,23- 24. 220
Fourteenth Amendment, 46, 86, 283n4.288
Frair, \Xlavnc. 147.148.304
froemarket of ide.as, 308-309
..Frdom from Esrablishment and Unncmra1ity
in Public School lnsrrucrion and Rdigion
School Regubrion" (Bird). 137
'"f.rttdom of Religion andScience tnmuction in
PublicScl>oob"(Bird), 117, 137
freedom of sp<-cch.7S-76.277: private rdig:ious
speech,294-295
l?"dlu 7lmgipaiX>a &mJ efl!.Mrariq11 ( 1997 ) ,
2S, 221
fund:.1menr.alis1n/fundaJncm:Jisrs,88. 100,
100-101, l24, 174-176, 176-178; bclid'in
dispensationalism.134:general public's nega-
tive ,.;cwof. 314; and 'Jbe Fumi..-,mem,t!s., I35,
176. in
Geisler.Norman L. 30n l9, IOS. J27n12.
263n37,29Sn20,306: ACLU cross-cxamin:t
rionof, 350- 371 (text):Christi,mity Today
:mid(':on A1rU,m trial,342-347(ten);
letter coCh1istia1. 1it y Today, 339 (tc:n}:lcccer
to Disrqr,i,,-magazine, 330-331 (rcxc); tesri
rnonvat AfrLe,m v. Arka.1JSJts&an{ ofF.dua,
,fon(l982), J47- l48.180-JSJ.14S-J80
(text),305.318
Genesis, b<x,k of: and rt-etllioex nihilo, 104: and
rhedefinition ofcreation science, 179::md
the flood..104:imerprentio,uof. In --174:
and Ne,u E..stem ari:h;a.cology.179- 180
Ce-nffiJ Ffl>qd, 1he(\Xi'hitcomb ind Morris). JOI,
13l
Gentry.Robert. 110-111.132, 339n2
Gilkey. Langdon.. 104.145. 160- 161.171. 181.
274.301.310
Gish. Duane.104, IOS, 112- 113.127. 148.216.
365
"God"(the term). 170, 171- 172, 268-269
Goldberg. Bernard.304
Gould.Stephen Jay.32, 108, 261
Cnmd R,,p;d,Sdu, l D;,n'ia" &//(1985). 188,
211
l lacckcl. Ernst, 32.134.158
Ha.le Edward f,\'erctr.312
Hnn-isv.;\lrR1tt.( 1980).27S
11.tu/twQd S<hDisttia,,. K#hlmeier( 1988).
376
HegelGcocg \v'iU,dm Friedrich. 152
1litchcock.James.79-80
397
Hitler.Adolf.33. 175.177.261- 262
I lodge.A.A.,74. 174
Hodge.Charles.32-33,174
How10 Su:,Cbtiltian in CQ/ltge (Butilim wskj),
306
Hoyle. Fred,380
humanism.140-141, 153.154-156.157.269.
279:mr,l belief, of.142-143. 1n. 279:"
a rcligion.111-142,302
Humanist 1/J.r., I S6
Humanist ,i\1,mifes:o I (1933). l4 J. J41n24.142,
143, 154-156.177. 301
I luma,Ust 4\fm1ifes10 fl (1973). 141.l4 ln24.142.
143.154-156.177
Hume. David,251, 259
Munrcr,George \Villfam. 53,57
Huxley.Juli,n.134.141. 154. 156. 163.1n .
269n45.286.302
Hynek,). Allen,370,370n6
I Dv11illat-'e E11ough Fait/,M &,111A1htist
(Geisler and Turck), 306
hmirute forCreation Research (ICR). 10I. IOS
i.nrelllg,:mdc,ign (ID),25-26.218.219:defi,
1titio1 of. 240: diff(t<'nce,s frotn scientific
creationism. 26,236;diverseconstintcncy
ot26n11:meaningof rhewotdtnrdJigcm."
239n2 uscof ncutril terms.234.240n3.24 l.
24 ln6. 268:and the,UfdgeDoeummt,218,
224. Su,tl.so 01'A:irreducible complexity:
specified complexity
irredudbtero,npkxity. 222.225-226.231. 250,
251.251n19,252.255.300
Is;\[,mthe ;\[msun ! ( Gctder), 298n20
Jastrow, Robert. 170.257- 25S. 260,381
},,:,,,. &yd(l956).194
Jeficrron,Thomas,79-80.284-285
Johnson.Phillip. 25.218.219. 306
Joseph Bwo,:,n, Int. v.IViL<on(1952),85
Keith v. louisi,m,1 Depmw,mtofEdura1io11
(1982). 196
Kekulc,August,133. 167. 270
Ke1llly, Anthony. 2.68
Keyish;,,,, v. &,1rd (&gmts (1961 ). 84.85.267.
2S9,3n
Kittmil/n-u.DMl(IArr.1Seli11fll Di.uriM (200S),
2,7 28.29-30. 148.200.240. 290.291.
3J l: backgroundof. 2 l3-2l4:rom.mcnu
on, 233-23S:dc6nition of creation in, 276:
rC$ponseof the f-ound2tion for1l ought
and Ethics ro.23S-237: US. DistrictCourt
n.1lingin, 214-232:wordingof rhcn1ling.
233n39
Kolenda. Konsr.1min, 14J

bpl:a<:c. Pktrc, 2S9
l1rlti11u.Ort:mld's De11,ltu.(1982,}200
l.:tnon. Edwardj.. 3S
Lu v. Hiim11111 (1992), 294
L pnv.1h, Sr,,u{ 1899). 50
U,mmu.Kunq111111( 1971) , 99.102, lSS.200.
202.208.210.2I5.216: the lm/011 m, t 114.
189, 196, 229-230.282, 284
Ld{,l:ev. !11depmrlo11S rhool Distria (2000). 28.
312
Lewonrin. Richa rd. 255-256-.260
Lichter, lind:1, 122
Lichter. Robert. 122
Limbaugh, David.88 n8
logic.I fallaciesin ercarion/C'\'Olutionlegalopin-
ions: mplu siiing the accidcna ]. 134- 135:
cq,ui "OC"arion, l36: the generic fallacy, 133:
cod-of-the g:ips," 25I, 253; misimplci2rion.
133-134:'"Karnre-of-thegap,'"252.2S3:11(111
sequit, 11'$, 136- 1 37 ; o, erlookin,g he esscmi:al,
I 35:petitioprindpii{begSing rheq ue,nion).
137;re"1,c1iq,uJ,1bs11rtlu.m,135 : spcci:al plead-
ing, 136:,iolarion of the lawof the excluded
middle, 136
Ly11rh D,nn,lq(1984). I89
Madison.Jarne-s. 261, 272.282
1\f,1kerofl-lt11W1J ,md Emth{Gilkey).160-161
Mann. Horace-, 2'72. 282
1\ f,m 'sOrigin, ;\!,m's[),siillJ (Smith), 363
Marsden.Goorgc. 158.175, 341
1\fm1'1a. Ch11111bn-s ( 1983), 196
Marx. K:.trl. 32
Mather. Kirdc.y R.67-68
Mathews.SJuiler,65
,\ltC,llum ,,. B,.url ofd,,ta,;,,,(1948),85.99.
118.188.272.282.284.307
,\ltC,e,u-.,C,nmry ti, Anu,i(IIII c;,,;JLibenieJ
ll11i(mofKo 11J.:y{2005), 282: ScaJia'sdis-
$Cmingopinion in. 282
,tt,Gutv,m Stauof,\l flryla11d ( l 96 1). JOl-J 02,
275
,\td. .m f.'. A,k111uns &m1ofl:.dur,llio11( 1982).
23- 24. 76.198.200. 2l7. 218- 2 19. 224.
225.234.240.243.265. 267. 269.272, 274.
290.291.380:ACLU eron-ex:uni:narion of
Geisler,350- 37 1 (tci t): ln ckgroundof(Act
590).91- 92. 92-96(ten).258.342-344:
Chrisrian media co,-cr.1gcof. 353-340:co,-n
mrouon thejudge.129-131:eommencson
thc j11d1,r,csrnling. 131- 146: co1ninem.s on
trial:mon1ey$, 127-129:defend:mc.s in. 97:
ddinirio-n ofcreation in. 276:evaluationof
Ac t 590.123-127:ex:unples of the$C'.Cular
media'sbiasin. J18-J23,313-331:Geislers
In d ex
ClmJ1ianiry 10,LIJ :irrkleon. J12-J.17{text):
CcislcrS testimony in, 147-148, 180-JSI,
l48-l80(tcxt),305,318: iudgc's rul;ngin, 97 -
l lS, ( en ), 284: plaintiffs in , 97
mcd;a bi,- 248.303-305.331:examplesof
secubr media's bi:asiu ;\ /d.,,umrria!_, 1 18 - 123.
313-331: how Chris ri.inso n respond,
306-307
,\!tdi-,liliu, 71e, (Lichter. Rohman, and Lichter),
122
,\la.kv. Pi11mger(l91S), J88
1\1611 Kmnpf(Hid.cr). 33, 175, l i7
,\ln1'.' Cn:,11io11 (Dcrnbski). 26
Mccc:1lf, Maynard.68
1ncthodologkal naturalisin.222- 223, 254
,\fryn o. Suu,ofNdmu/u,( 192.1),46, 50,84,289
Miller. Kcnne rh. 244n9
minoriry ,;ews,76.125,246,255, 276- 2i 7, 309.
345:346
1\fimdl'J ,wd tlJ.I' Afoder,,Afind(Ccidcr).263n37
,\f<>tin,1.lithv. All<g/JmyC011111y(2004).215
Moncxl,J2cques.261
Moorc-.Jam , cs, J SS
1\{Qt,nt v. G,,mo11 CounlJ &,,,-d of&/uouio11
( 1973), 21
Morr; Henry M., 101, 104. 109,113. 131,218,
360-361
Morrow.\V. Sc0t, 123. 131
,\f<>u, 1 u.ll mvkin.sCou1117&,trd of Et/uratirm
( 1987), 24, 291
Murken, i L E.. 66
,lfytluojOr;g;,,( fJ;adc,) 151
N-uional Ac.-adcrny ofSckncc(NAS).223.
224-225.226
Narional S<:iencc l undation. 100
Nelson.\ ' ii bur A.,67
ncutl'alit)' tC::-$t, 87.283
New Religion of Hutnani1sn,1hc" (Huxley}, l56
Ncwm:ut. HoratioHicken.68-69
Newton.Jsaac, 165.166, 2S3
Nlerm ht . Ftiltkh. 34.152.364
N<wum O,i,wwn{Bacon).165, 166
OfRuul.u mu/ Pc"p/dDavis ind Kenyon), 23.19.
214.218.219.220.223.228.235
0111lJe O rigi11ofSpis { Darwin),3I, l 35. l 35 -
136n2I. 157. 158,279,305-306
originevcn-a. l68. 169-J70,24 l, 244:only
cwovie.w,oi; 132. 136. 170. 206.209. 23,5
264-265,269.357- 358n3,379- 385:origin
of fi11t !if(.381,383: otiginofnew Hf(forin$.
381-382.383- 384: originof the univc-rsc,
38I. 382-383
Origin Sdmu(Geisler and Anderson), 298
lnclcx
Orig;,,s(8 ,s), 112
Orr,j,mc,,74.13S, 177
Os-ren,Cn.ig.31Jn3,8
Pale,,,Willi,m, 217. 252
PJ/ 1e, 11.&,anlofEdur 11iq11ojthe CilJ o/ChitJg<I
(1979).37(,378
p.ncmhcism, 265
pamhcis1n.265
Parker, urry, 117. 307-308
P,](Jt,;t C.tpismvw ll11ified 5(/,()(JLDisn icl
(1994). 27-28,303,312
f>D'lhution(Limbaugh),88n8
Pierre v. $0<ie,y ofSiS1t1'S ( 1925). 50
Plumed P.rm1tb()(Jd v. C,sey( 1992). 286
Pbro, IS9, 161. 181,266,301
Plorinus.1$2
PQJt D,owi11ia11 Co11rrovet'l..,(Moore), J5S
Priluipk,1W111hen11uir.,(A.'\Vhitth e.ad and Rus-
scU), I6S
prexes,theology, 152
Provine, \'v'illiam, 261
R:amsey. hn, 153
.Ru d ti. lfm Hwm (196S).144
rdigion, 286;and comminnent co an ultirn:irc,
135.145. 151. 154.160. 162.262.266.
273-274. 301, 302;defo,;rion of. 151-152.
I53-154,301-303; and God, I53-154.
159-160, 161, 164. 207-208, 268-269;
naturalistic,267.276:no1Hlatur..tlistic(supcr-
narural), 267. 276:scc1.ilar purposeot:271.
282.285: traditional definition of,301-302;
;u)d tramceoden. l Sl- 154
Rdigiou 1-Vitho.ur GM (Koknda). 14 l
R.digitm IVith()uf Revel,uitm ( Hu:dey}2, 69n45,
286
&ligious H11,111miJ1, 141
Rdigious L1mgu11ge(Ramsey),1S3
r<:$ponse to religiout.irgumenn .igainst teaching
creation:creation come.s frorn a religious
.source(the Bible).269-271: ..rc.ationfrtlln
no th ing isan inhere.mlyrcligiom bclic:17'
267-269:creation)$ partofjudeo-Clirisdan
rdigions.."27 2- 275: "afirstcauseor creator
if inher(:ndy 2 rdig-iot1sobject." 265-267:
""teach ingcrearion in schoolsisinspiredby
rd igiou.s motives; 271-272
rt.spou setO S(:itntificargumtnts ag:aimt teach-
ingcrc1tion:aUowing crtttion ncces.:sit3t<".:s
aUowingother \icwsoforigins," 264-265:
"'creation docsnot rn.r thecritcl'i.i of sd-
(t'JCe; 243-244:'"creation hasunaccqH
.iblethoologi1.4l :md rnor::il implications.
260-263:"creation isa 'God.of-the-Gaps'
399
view: 251-253:"cr(.a'tionis not o b.scrv.1bleor
r('pc::i bl<":,"248-250:"'crenion is rtjocr d by
thescientificcommunity," 24 6- 24 8: '"creation
places'No Trcs-plSsing' signson sciemi6c
re.search," 2S3 - 25S: "crc-;ation theory mikes
no predictiom ;as jcienti6c theoriesdo:'
2S0-25I: "nothing make.s sensein-scieJtle
apart from evolution," 244-246:"science al
lowsonly naturalcauses," 255-256:"'teaching
creation wou]d necessitate reaching other
pseudoscientificviewsaswell.." 263-264; '"to
posit aousebeyond the natural world is no t
.sciencebut philosophy," 2S8-2S9
Rich.ndsv. U11ited$1.11 ( J962). 194
Riley,\V;D;a,n 8ell. I75.175n3
Roberr John, 209, 293. 297
Robinson.John A. T.. l 52
fl<>< ll iuk ( 1973).290
Rosenw:asser. HennaJ1,66
Russell_, Bertrand, 165
Sagn,Cui 273, 369
Saran. 160.161. 367
Scalia,Antonin,20S-2l l, 266.266-26in4 I.
271.275,282.297.305
Sch:idfer, Fr.mds. 347
science: empirk I (opcutioo) ience.75,18l.
222-223. 248, 250. 253, 254, 256,2561124.
263.275, 298-299.29Sn20; founder,of
modem scienceand bcJiefin :a supern::irural
nuse, 133.164-166-247. 257.259,270;
Gcisler'sde finitionof. l67-168:lack of a uni-
\-CUaUyagreeable definitionof.7S, 243-244:
origin ,ei<n<e,75. 136.168.174. !SI.244.
245.248-219,250.254.275,298n20.299-
300:populariry of.75:scientific modcb. 169:
-Strict definition of, )36
Sdemei11 ,heJ\f()demW'orld(A. \Vhitch<"icl).165
scientificcrcationism, 101.131
SeiemijirCM.uitmi$m (Morrit).J13.131
.scientific method.S methodologicalnaturalism
$dentitin. 263-264n38
'"Sco,pes II."Stt AlcLe.111 ,... Arktt1i.(,U &,,nlefJ::du--
tt u ion( l982)
Scopesv. Suueof Jenn.me ( 1927}.82.198
S(3.r$., Alin.3 l ln38
secular humanism. Su humanistn
SuLtt Hunuwi$t Dethmuo i n (1980)..142-143.
I43n31.278,315
Seg,,,,,,es" S1,11efCi,lifamia (198J). 23
Sep.m1tio11 Jllusio11, 1h (J. \Vhitc he.ad ). 137
"'sep.iruion ofc-hurch :ind mtte," 283--285
Shannon.CJ.ude E.. 300
$/;eJt,11 M 7u,Jn(l 960),8-1
Si mpson. George Gaylord.261
 400
Smith.\Vildtt.363
Smithu. S1,ueof,\lissiJsippi{1970).21n2
Socrates,133,166.270. 275
spcdficd complcx;ry, 250,251.252, 255. 300
Spene. Herbert,32. I52.157. I58.I63, I75.
176,270
JMreduisis,87.237: misapplicarionsof. 87.89.
200,289- 291
Suuu,f1imussuu.JiJhnSropa( l925), 21-22..
82,91.246,277- 278. 288.289,290. 308;
actuaJ ncnographic n:cord of(in 1h HinMS
1\IOJt F.mums V/11n Tri11/J, 34n,I l 35: 2ppcal
of thedecision, 63n24.73: attorneysinvol,ed
in. 36; background of thcco m,ro ttS}', 31- 34:
backg;roundo(the trial.3S, 35n13: Bryan's
speeches duriJ1g, 56-58.72: condusion o,f he
tri:d.i6: Darrow's spoechc-1during,46- 49.
73:dcfeiuc2rgumcm in, 39- 42; highlights
from the trial.36- 73:hnplicarions of the
rrfa),73-76; as the mo nkey tri:il," 317: s t:ttc
n:sponsc- t0dC"fcnSC' arguments.42- 44:and
theTennesseelawforbidding rhc rc2chingof
evolution (Burler Act I19251).33.35-36.37
Sud , v. lH,1n,(1975). 11n1
s,.,,,
G,;d,,,m(1980). 99.102. 105, 145.
188-189,190. 191,191,194
Stro ng.Augustus, 74
S11/its in tlJt BibleiU11lSde11,e( !orris). I09
Sulliwn,J. \V. N.. 260
SummoofrheGods(L:irson), 35
r-uarion with<mt rcprcsenrlrion," 88.292- 293.
309
"Teaching rhe Comrovcny"(De\Volf).276n57
' ['eilharddc Ch:.irdin. Pierre. l S2
Ted,.Nikob, 133,167.270
l haxton, Charles. 183
theism.265.353
thcistiC'C\OJution,74, li7, 242n7,264n39, 356,
382
l hirt nrh A1nendmcnt, 290
1homa.Cl,r,nce.293.297
1honuuJef/r.i'1lln mu/ rh.r.w;,/l<!_(Sepnmti<m 8 r-
1wem Cbt1rth ,md StJte ( Dreisb:ich). 28i
Tillich. P,ul, 145.153- 154.160.161.162.181.
262.266.274.286.302
Tinl:n u. DesiWoiJ1es J11depemb.1Jt Commu11ily
Srl,../D;,,.,;a(l%9).188
'!odd.Scott.2S5
1'wtas." Hl,,1k;,,,(1961). 142. HS.181,210.
266.274.279.286.302.303
Tucek. mnk.306
UFOs.unfair focuson ino\fele,m trid.121. 128.
318-324.337.350.369-370
Index
unifotmit)' prindpleof, 249.252.267,299.383:
differcnc<" from uniforrnimianism.249nl7
ui1i1edSt,rrt>Sv . 6,mw,u(l973).102
U,1iteds,.,,, Se,g.,(1964).346
US.Consrirntion: E.st.iblishmcmClause-, !Si.
20S.285- 287: Free Exercise Clausc.287:
Freedom ofSpeechCtausc,287- 289: o n the
SupremeCoun.296.Seea/J11 Firs-t Amend,
mem: fuur-reenth Ameodm<"nt: Thinoth
Amendment
US.Supreme Conn:curbingthe powerof.
295-296: fnis-intcrp rcr.ido n and tnisapplica
rionof the Constitutio11by.290- 29 1. See,J
specificCourt<ascs
l"tmQ,.Jm11. Pe,,y(2001}, 2 ln2
Vill'1geofAdi11g1011 H eigh tJ u Afmopolila11Hous,.
;,,gC"' -P (1 m), 102. 195
w,ld.Geo,g,.381
\Va,Jl ce. Alfrcd.31- 32.134.13/4nl 8. 158.163.
176.286
lfl,,/1,,,,v.j,iff,.,,(198S).l 88.189. 190-191.194.
197.199.200.215
Warfidd.8.8.. 74.135. li4.177.177n4.366
IVashi11gum E1hiral Sorif:ry v. Disnla efUJhvnbit1
(1957).2 ln2.303
111,IS(m tJ,jones ( 1872), 83. 88
I Vdmo r1. N,w Lmqx Sd,f)()/ Dimicr( 1990).
26-27. 148.312.373-378
\Vcikatt. Richard.262
Well<J<>nath,n,214- 241
lf"h.111' Dmtvim"sm? (C. Hodg<"),32 - 33
WMt2ker.,\V lter C.. 65
WMtcomb,John C. 101
Wh;rche:id. Alli-cd North. 133.165
\Vhit<"h<"ad.John,137
\Vickramasinh ge,Chandra. 110. 380
IVidm,rr . Vi11t 111(198l).197
\Vi!Jia,m. Da.,id, 120-121
IVil/ougl;ry" Srtte,( 1973). 117
\V/Jlson.Mari:annc.111.113
\V/isc.M:artha.233n40
lf'r,,-1,/ efUfe 7/,,(\V2Jl,cc).32
IVudd 's A/QSt Famous Co11n 1ii,rl. 1/,e(l.Hil
lcatyand!\-fctiger).34n11.35
Wright.C. E.. 135
\Vrighr. ('.ro rgc Frcdcrick. ln . 1n 114
IViigh1v. Houston /11dep.&hool Dis,.( 1972).
21n2, 117
Wysong.R. L. 362-364
z.muchv. C/,uuon(l952),303
Zyk.u," H{m,,w Comn11mi1_1 Stlol Cot-p,#',,tion
and lffr,Mtv $(/,Of}/ 80,mlefTrwtee.s(1980).
377.378
'"Norman Geisler has always been a cr:1il- blazcr fo,people who wane to s peak our about -
thcil' foith.and Creationand 11,eC ourtsblazes a rrail into the rrurh ofcreation vs.evolution. ..
T hl'Oug h his firsthand pc,sonal experie nce in rhe Scopes 11 trial a nd his exhaustive -
research inroo rhc1simila1 trials. Geisler willdraw )'OUinro rhc woll'dofour legalsysrcm. ...
better preparing you to address issuesof creatio n and evolution."-
Josh D. Mc Dowel l , .,,,,,.,.,,Jip,.k,,
''t\s both an e)'cwirnessin the cou,troom and a highly respected scholar in the classroom. -
Norman Geisler provides a unique perspective roone of rhc mostcriticaldiscussions ,..
of o ur time. Fro m the Scopes trial to rhc1cccnr Dover case. Gl' islc r summ trizcs and..
counters the ofrc11uncxa1nincdassumptio ns left in their wake. T his isan inv tluablc ...
reso urce on thesubjccr. and I cr1thusi:1sricall') 1cco mmcnd ir. ...
Ravi Zacharias, ,u1lm,,11Jsp,,krr
"The concept of intelligent design is being de bated by jurists a,1dscientistsas well as
the media. Norm:ui Gc islc r'sCrc:atio11and the Co11rtsadds to those discussio ns th,e
important pers pective o f:, philosop her. theologian. and biblical sc holar. Of all the -
superb monographs writte n by Ge isler. th is one may be the 1nosrimportant. Every ..
pasto r and theologian sho uld read this volume this year."-
Paige Patt er son, PmfJou.Sou1hwcstrn1 Uapnst Tl1rofogfri.1l.'il'mi,1.:t)'
..Norman Geisler has provided a compilati o n and com mcnr 1r y on rhc issue of evolution. ..
public ed ucation. u,d thecourts that will se rve asan i1npo rr.ant reso urce for decades..
ro come. Dr. Geisle r convincingly$hows that much of the dcb:1rc over this issue is a ..
jurisprudcnti:11mess resulting from philoso phic"lly confused though well- meaning
sc ie ntists and jurists. Heo ffers just thesort of d ariry thisdebate requires.-
Francis J. Beckwit h, 1\.fsiau Prcfw 1r'!fCl111rch-Stt1l( SmJics.B!t) Or Vnfra1il')'.audirml1or
fL.)\\, o.,rwlnl'-111,.111il Jlublk"[du<Jlk)n

Norman Geisler isthe author orcoauthor of over fifty books and numerous arti cles. -
f-or o ver forty }'Cars D r. G ci :-le r has ta ug ht at the univcrsit)' o r g radu:itc le veland has ..
spoken throughout the United Statesand in twenty- five other countries . Dr. Geisler -
cu1Tc ntly $ervc:s:is dean of Southern Evangelical Se minal')'. ..

SCIENCEANOFAITH
ISBN -13: 978 -1-58134-836 -1
ISBN -10: 1-58134-836-3

9; ] IJ[lJll