Home Up Dover ID Trial Evolution Court Cases ID State by State Religion Speaks

Evolution Court Cases
Home Up

 

 

Federal Court Decisions Involving Evolution and the First Amendment

Overview:

The teaching of evolution has been contentious from some in religious circles since Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. Whether or not evolution should be taught in public schools in the United States has been a frequent source of debate, as is reflected in numerous court cases. The first court case over the teaching of evolution occurred in 1925 with the trial Scopes v. The State of Tennessee. The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law prohibiting the teaching of human evolution in a split decision despite noting it “was not drafted with as much care as could have been drafted”. Teacher John Scopes’ misdemeanor conviction for teaching human evolution was later overturned on technical grounds, but teaching human evolution remained illegal in Tennessee until 1967.

There have been 16 fully adjudicated federal court cases involving evolution and the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  The first major court battle over evolution in the federal courts was decided in 1968, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that a state statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional because it catered to a religious doctrine, thereby violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In 1971, Lemon v Kurtzman was decided.  Under Lemon, a government policy is unconstitutional if: (1) it has a primarily religious purpose, (2) it has a primarily religious effect, or (3) it excessively entangles the government and religion. A policy is unconstitutional if it fails the test of any prong.  

In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In Willoughby v. Stever in 1973, William Willoughby sued the National Science Foundation director for using taxpayer money to fund pro-evolution textbooks promoting “secular humanism” as the “official religion of the United States”. The lawsuit was dismissed by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the textbooks disseminated scientific findings, not religion. In 1981 the Sacramento Supreme Court ruled in Segraves v. State of California against Segraves’ claim that class discussion of evolution prohibited his children’s free exercise of religion. In the 1982 decision McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, the US Supreme Court ruled that a law in Louisiana requiring that creationism be taught along with evolution was unconstitutional because it promoted a religious doctrine.

The next major court decision occurred in 1990, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against social studies teacher Ray Webster’s claim in Webster v. New Lenox School District that a prohibition against teaching creationism violated his constitutional rights. Similarly, in 1994, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Peloza v. Capistrano School District that the district did not violate a teacher’s First Amendment rights by requiring him to teach evolution. In the 1997 decision Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring the reading of a disclaimer in biology classes prior to teaching evolution. The court also ruled that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is equivalent to teaching creationism. 

In December of 2005, US Federal Judge John E. Jones issued a blistering ruling saying that Intelligent Design cannot be taught in the Dover Pennsylvania School System.

 

While not a federal trial, the first and most famous evolution trial was the 1925 Scopes trial.    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm is the best account of this trial.  The final court decision can be found at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/statcase.htm .

Federal Court cases:

  1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228 - see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html )

  2. In 1971, Lemon v Kurtzman was decided.  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from establishing religion. In the Lemon decision, the U.S. Supreme Court devised a three-prong test to determine if a particular government policy was unconstitutional. Under Lemon, a government policy is unconstitutional if: (1) it has a primarily religious purpose, (2) it has a primarily religious effect, or (3) it excessively entangles the government and religion. A policy is unconstitutional if it fails the test of any prong.   This was actually three separate cases: Lemon v. Kurtzman, Earley v. DiCenso, and Robinson v. DiCenso. These cases from Pennsylvania and Rhode Island were joined together because they all involved public assistance to private schools, some of which were religious. The final decision has become known by the first case in the list: Lemon v. Kurtzman.  See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602 .  While this case was not a case about evolution per se, it is a case that is a foundation for all of the rest of the cases.

  3. In 1972, in Wright v Houston I. S. D., students of the Houston Independent School District sued to prevent the district from teaching evolution and from adopting textbooks that incorporated evolution. The trial court found unconvincing the students' argument that the school district was violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the court dismissed the students' complaint.  See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wright-v-hisd1.html .

  4. Willoughby v. Stever was a 1973 legal case in which creationist William Willoughby sued the National Science Foundation director H. Guyford Stever for using taxpayer money to fund pro-evolution textbooks "promoting" secular humanism as the "official religion of the United States", thus violating the Establishment clause of the US Constitution. The lawsuit was dismissed by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the textbooks disseminated science, not religion.

  5. In 1975, by a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Tennessee's "equal time" law in Daniel v Waters ( see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/daniel-v-waters.html ).  In the same year, the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in Steele v Waters, followed the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and struck down Tennessee's "equal time" law, based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 3 of the Tennesee Constitution.  See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steele-v-waters.html .

  6. In the case of Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the creationists on October 30, 1980. The case had begun in 1978 when creationists sued the Smithsonian Institution in the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C. The suit charged that the Smithsonian was teaching the religion of "secular humanism" by having an evolution display at taxpayers expense, and that said display inhibited the free exercise of religion of certain Christian fundamentalists. The U.S. District Court refused to accept the creationist description of evolution "as, and only as, part of the religion of secular humanism".  The Court further stated that the creationists' free exercise of religion was "not actionably impaired merely because, should they visit the Smithsonian, they may be confronted with exhibits which are distasteful to their religion." This defeat led the creationists to appeal, but the appeals court, on October 30, 1980, upheld the original decision, further adding that the creationists' appeal was "essentially a challenge to the concept of evolution," and as such was immaterial to the case. 

  7. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its anti-dogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning issues of origins. (Segraves v. California (1981) Sacramento Superior Court #278978 - see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1618/Segraves_vs._California.html .  Seagraves was not a federal case, but directly effects the schools in California.

  8. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution. While the subject of life's origins is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator. (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 U.S. Law Week 2412 -  see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html )

  9. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught. (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578 - see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html )

  10. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy. (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004 - see http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/webster_v_new_lenox.html )

  11. In Bishop v. Aronov (1991) a professor occasionally referred to his personal religious beliefs as part of his lectures. The program chair directed him to refrain. The professor sued, claiming the directive inhibited his right to freely exercise his religious beliefs and constituted an establishment of religion. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that The court held that neither the professor's in-class comments nor his optional class violated the establishment clause because his conduct had a secular purpose, the primary effect of his comments did not advance or inhibit religion, and his behavior did not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.  The court, however, gave several cautionary comments.  It should be remarked that University professors have a wide latitude of conduct far exceeding high school teachers.

  12. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517 - see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html )

  13. In the 1997 decision Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring the reading of a disclaimer in biology classes prior to teaching evolution. The court also ruled that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is equivalent to teaching creationism.  

    Following is the text of the disclaimer that was disallowed:  "Whenever, in classes of elementary or high school, the scientific theory of evolution is to be presented, whether from textbook, workbook, pamphlet, other written material, or oral presentation, the following statement shall be quoted immediately before the unit of study begins as a disclaimer from endorsement of such theory.  It is hereby recognized by the Tangipahoa Board of Education, that the lesson to be presented, regarding the origin of life and matter, is known as the Scientific Theory of Evolution and should be presented to inform students of the scientific concept and not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept.  It is further recognized by the Board of Education that it is the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion and maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter of the origin of life and matter. Students are urged to exercise critical thinking and gather all information possible and closely examine each alternative toward forming an opinion."

  14. In 2000, District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution. Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination. (http://www.michigancitizensforscience.org/pn/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=1&print=1 ).  Both the Minneapolis and US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals.  Handling LaVake's case for him was the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by Pat Robertson.

  15. Pfeifer v City of West Allis - Christopher A. Pfeifer challenged the refusal of the City of West Allis to permit him to use a meeting room in the public library to present a program on creationism. Creationism is a religious doctrine based on an interpretation of the Bible, which purports to explain the creation of the universe and human life.  Pfeifer's version of creationism rejects Darwin's theory of evolution, which holds that over a period of billions of years species evolved into other species ultimately resulting in human beings. The Library denied Pfeifer's application to use the meeting room based on its policy that the room could not be used for religious services or instruction.  In April of 2000, the appeals court ruled that the library's Constitution Room is a designated public forum, and no compelling state interest has been advanced to support the exclusion of plaintiff from using it.  See http://www.lc.org/misc/pfeifer.htm 

  16. In 2002 the Cobb County (GA) School board requires anti-evolution disclaimer in science textbooks.  In November 2004  Jeffrey Selman and 3 other parents bring suit against school district.  In January 2005, at the district court level, Judge Cooper rules that the disclaimer is unconstitutional ( see http://www2.ncseweb.org/selman/Cooper_decision_in_Selman_disclaimer.pdf and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/selman-v-cobb.html ).  On April 11, 2005 the Cobb County Area School District files brief with 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The disclaimer, pasted in science textbooks in the Cobb County school district, reads:  "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."  If the Eleventh Circuit overturns the lower court decision, the Cobb County "warning label" would be considered constitutional, and the language of the label would likely be widely promoted by creationists in school districts across the country. If the decision is upheld, then it will set precedent for future cases dealing with antievolution policies in public schools. This would discourage school districts from employing the "evolution warning label" tactic in the future.

  17. Eleven people whose children attend or plan to attend Dover Pennsylvania schools sued the Dover school board and district, claiming the board's decision to make Intelligent Design part of the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.  The district said it wanted to give fair time to an alternative to evolution theory. Evolution is widely accepted as the unifying concept of biology, and Intelligent Design says evolution can't explain the complexity of life and that an unnamed designer must have been at work.  The trial, after 21 days of testimony, ended Friday, November 4, 2005.  Judge John E. Jones III issued his ruling - it can be found at http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf and at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html .  His ruling was a stinging defeat for the IDC side.  It's the first time a court has been asked to rule whether intelligent design can be taught in public school science class, though the case exactly mirrors the previous cases where creationism was the objective. Experts say the case's outcome will influence how science is defined and taught in schools across the country. The lead defense lawyer said he wants to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but this is doubtful since the Dover school board is tired of the nonsense.  The best site for information is at http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/   The local newspaper which has covered this trial has a page devoted to it at http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology  It should be noted that the eight members of the school board who created this problem were all defeated in the November 2005 election, being replaced by candidates who wanted science taught in the science classroom, and not Intelligent Design.

For similar information, please see an online article by Molleen Matsumura ( http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3747_8_major_court_decisions_agains_2_15_2001.asp ), and an online article by Chelsea Thomas Altrum ( see http://academic.evergreen.edu/t/thoche07/ConferencePaper.htm ).  I have greatly expanded Ms. Matsumura and Ms Altrum's list.  Alex Fletcher gives a great overview of the teaching of evolution in American schools, as well as some of the legal issues, at http://fred.ccsu.edu:8000/archive/00000117/02/etd-2004-6.html .

 

 

[ Home ] [ Personal Lives ] [ New Items ] [ Hinckley Page ] [ DNA & Book of Mormon ] [ Blacks & Priesthood ] [ LDS History Resources ] [ LDS Missouri Period ] [ Crooked River ] [ LDS Religious Links ] [ LDS Scripture Page ] [ Martin Luther King ] [ Evolution & LDS ] [ SBHS Track ] [ SSM analysis ] [ Abortion ] [ Grant Palmer ] [ Intelligent Design ]

Send mail to mel@tungate.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2005 Mel Tungate
Last modified: March 19, 2006