Significant Court Decisions of the Evolution-Creation Controversy in America The descriptive content of this index page was copied primarily from "Eight Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creation Issues" by Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education. The linked text of the court cases comes from a variety of public sources, primarily FindLaw.1. Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968 • 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)
2. Wright v. Houston I.S.D., 1972 • Students of the Houston Independent School District sued to prevent the Houston Independent School District from teaching the theory of evolution as part of its curriculum and from adopting textbooks that incorporated evolution, on the ground that these actions inhibited them in the free exercise of their religion and constituted an establishment of religion. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The U.S. District 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. Subsequently, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling. (Wright v. Houston I.S.D. (1972) 366 F. Supp. 1208; 486 F.2d 137 5th Cir. 1973)
3. Segraves v. State of California, 1981 • The court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism 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)
4. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982 • A Federal District Court in Little Rock, Arkansas, Judge William R. Overton presiding, 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)
5. Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987 • 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 District Court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding 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 Supreme 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. For this case, 72 Nobel Laureates submitted a famous amicus curiae brief in support of appellees. (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578)
6. Webster v. New Lenox School District, 1990 • 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)
7. Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 1994 • 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)
8. Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 1997 • The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views". Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science". (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997). On August 13, 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision; on June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Board's appeal, thus letting the lower court's decision stand.
9. Rodney LeVake v. Independent School District 656, et al., 2000 • District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case (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.
Steven Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science infoATtxscience.org (substitute @ for AT before emailing) Last updated: 3 October 2003