The Supreme Court Decision and its Meaning
by Wendell R. Bird, J.D., Attorney
The impact of the long-awaited decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
in striking down the Louisiana "Creation Law" can perhaps
best be evaluated in terms of the following news release, provided
by Wendell Bird, lead attorney for the creationists in the case
(see February Acts & Facts for a summary of the hearing
in Washington last December 10). Mr. Bird's news release is as
follows:
The U.S. Supreme Court held on June 19 that Louisiana's "Act
for Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science and Evolution"
is unconstitutional because it had an unconstitutional legislative
purpose.
However, the Court Ruling was narrow and did not say
that teaching creation-science is necessarily unconstitutional
if adopted for a secular purpose. In fact, the Court
said the exact opposite:
"Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the
origins of human-kind to school children might be validly
done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness
of science instruction" (p. 14).
The Supreme Court recognized that teachers "already
possess" a flexibility . . . to supplement the present
science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides
evolution, about the origin of life (p. 8), and are "free
to teach any and all facets of this subject" of "all
scientific theories about the origins of humankind" (p.
9).
A powerful dissent by Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist
argues that "there is ample evidence that the majority
is wrong in holding that the Balanced Treatment Act is without
secular purpose" (p. 10). They carefully analyzed the legislative
history (pp. 10-17), and then the sufficiency of the secular
purpose for the Act (pp. 17-27). That dissent acknowledged that
creation-science can be scientific (p. 20):*
The Act's reference to "creation" is not convincing
evidence of religious purpose. The Act defines creation science
as "scientific evidence," and Senator Keith
and his witnesses repeatedly stressed that the subject can
and should be presented without religious content.
". . . We have no basis on the record to conclude that
creation science need be anything other than a collection
of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly
appeared on earth. See n. 4, supra. Creation Science,
its proponents insist, no more must explain whence
life came than evolution must explain whence came the inanimate
materials from which it says life evolved.
The dissent also stressed that evolution is not unquestionable
fact (p. 25):
Infinitely less can we say (or should we say) that
the scientific evidence for evolution is so conclusive that
no one could be gullible enough to believe that there is any
real scientific evidence to the contrary, so that the legislation's
stated purpose must be a lie.
Finally, the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia and the Chief
Justice excoriated the majority of its "Scopes-in-reverse"
"repressive" position (p. 25):
In this case, however, it seems to me the Court's position
is the repressive one. The people of Louisiana, including
those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled,
as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence
there may be against evolution presented in their schools,
just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific
evidence there was for it. . . . Yet that illiberal judgment,
the Scopes-in-reverse is ultimately the basis on which the
Court's facile rejection of the Louisiana Legislature's purpose
must rest.
The majority opinion leaves open at least two alternatives
to indoctrination in evolution and censorship of scientific
alternatives: (1) the right of teachers to teach "a variety
of scientific theories" and to bring Scopes-type
lawsuits if punished or prohibited, and (2) the right of schools,
school districts, and perhaps legislatures to encourage or require
teaching of "all scientific theories . . . about origins."
The Creation Science Legal Defense Fund has announced
its determination to continue defending creationist victims
and unbiased science instruction. Contributions to it are tax
deductible at P.O. Box 78312, Shreveport, LA 71137.
ICR EVALUATION
The ICR staff concurs with Attorney Bird that the Majority Opinion
of the Court does not preclude teaching the scientific
evidences for creation, as long as this is done with the "secular
purpose" of good science and good education, rather than
the "religious purpose" of supporting belief in a supernatural
God. Teachers have always had this right, and did not need the
Louisiana law to give it to them. We can be thankful that the
Court did not go so far as to ban this, as well. We can also hope
that some future test case will ameliorate the present opinion
and not make it still worse, but the history of previous attempts
to promote creation by legislation is not encouraging.
This development was not altogether unexpected. Most judges (as
well as other lawyers) have long been taught in their law schools
that evolution is a fact--including the idea that even the law
and the constitution must evolve along with life and society--so
all but the most conservative judges will tend to decide cases
involving broad issues largely on the basis of sociological goals
and political expediency. For this reason, ICR has consistently
maintained that creationism can best be promoted through education
and persuasion rather than through legislation or litigation.
In the meantime, school boards and teachers should be strongly
encouraged at least to stress the scientific evidences and arguments
against evolution in their classes (not just arguments
against some proposed evolutionary mechanism, but against evolution
per se), even if they don't wish to recognize these as
evidences and arguments for creation (not necessarily as
arguments for a particular date of creation, but for creation
per se). To do anything less is equivalent to making humanistic
evolution an article of faith, and this would be an establishment
of religion! It is important to note that the teaching of "theistic
evolution" is no more permissible under this decision than
is "theistic creation" since both concepts require the
production of human beings by God. Theistic evolution has always
been both unscriptural and unscientific, and now it is also illegal,
so it would seem that those theistic evolutionists who have argued
against having creation taught in the schools have hurt their
own cause at least as much as they have that of the creationists.
Christians should encourage the development of parental home
schooling and private Christian/creationist schools more than
ever before, resisting every effort by secular educationists to
influence the teaching in these schools through the pressures
and controls of secular or governmental accrediting agencies.
Christian churches and publications, as well as the institutions
and agencies of other monotheistic faiths, should repudiate all
compromising postures on creation, recognizing evolution in any
form as the unscientific and harmful religious philosophy that
it really is. They should teach their constituents the validity
and vital importance of true creationism at every opportunity.
The cause that has suffered most at the hands of the Court by
this decision, however, is that of truth. God did not need
the permission of Justice Brennan, et al, to create this
world nor to convey His Word, the Holy Scriptures, to the world.
He has greatly blessed our nation for over 200 years because it
was founded on the truth of creation and redemption through Jesus
Christ, as revealed in the Bible, and because it has been the
greatest national center for spreading the true gospel to every
other nation. But now the Court has come perilously close to identifying
the United States as an atheistic nation and, as it were, telling
our Creator His presence in our national life and public schools
is no longer wanted. This does not bode well for the future of
our country.
It is futile to continue discussing whether creationism is science
or religion. The fact is that supernatural creation is truth,
the basis of both true science and true religion,
whatever an ill-formed court may say. Evolution is contrary to
all the real facts of science, and is the basis of a plethora
of false religions and harmful philosophies. Above all, it is
contrary to the Word of God, and, as our Supreme Court justices
have now implied, even incompatible with belief in any kind of
supernatural God at all.
Maybe the Court has done us a favor, after all, by showing to
the whole world what evolution really is!
* "Creation-science" is the scientific
evidence supporting abrupt appearance in complex form. That evidence
includes the abrupt appearance of complex life in the fossil record,
the systematic gaps between fossil categories, the genetic limits
on possible change, and the vast information content of all living
organisms. Seven judges of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals (the
lower court decision) forcefully agreed, in a dissenting opinion,
that creation-science indeed is scientific, as well as that balanced
treatment for a creation-science and evolution indeed is constitutional.
This article was originally published August, 1987. "The Supreme Court Decision and its Meaning", Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/274/ (accessed December 04, 2008).
Want to use this article? View our Ethical Use Policy. To receive more articles from ICR, signup for a free subscription to our online and print publications.