Warning Stickers on Textbooks???? Is this constitutional???? Why or why not?

Warning Stickers on Textbooks????

Is this constitutional???? Why or why not?

The Controversy over Teaching Evolution in Public Schools:

The Scopes Trial & Beyond

Focus Questions:

Why did the teaching of evolution in public schools create controversy?

What was the significance of the Scopes Trial of 1925?

How has the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue in more recent years?

The Controversy over Teaching Evolution in Public Schools:

The Scopes Trial & Beyond

The Scopes “Monkey” Trial, 1925

Creationism vs. EvolutionFundamentalism vs. Modernism

Fundamentalism & Creationism• Fundamentalists insisted on the divine inspiration

of every word of the Bible, the Genesis version of Creation.

• Therefore, fundamentalists opposed the theory of evolution.

Modernism & Evolution

• Modernists accepted the scientific theory of evolution.

• Charles Darwin wrote about his theory of evolution in his famous book On the Origin of Species (1859).

•The Scopes Trial was a highly publicized trial in Tennessee that brought the debate between religious fundamentalists in the rural South and the modernists of the northern cities to the world’s attention.

•Fundamentalist legislatures in 20 states introduced bills to prohibit the teaching on evolution in public schools in 1921-1922.

•Tennessee was one of several southern states to make it illegal to teach evolution in public schools.

Fundamentalists React

The Defendant: John Scopes

The charge: Teaching evolution

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recruited Scopes to teach evolution to his biology class in order to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

The Lawyers

Defense: Clarence Darrow

Prosecution: William Jennings Bryan

Hundreds of reporters were present for the trial. The radio was used to report the proceedings. It was estimated that 10,000 visitors from near and far overran the town daily during the trial. The trial lasted from July 10-July 21, one of the hottest and driest Tennessee summers on record. It was so warm and crowded in the courtroom that the trial was moved outside under the shady willow oaks on the side of the courthouse.

• Scopes was convicted, but the conviction was overturned on a technicality.

• Laws banning the teaching of evolution remained on the books for years, although rarely enforced.

• The northern press asserted that Darrow and the modernists had discredited fundamentalism

• The basic question of religion in public schools remains controversial today.

Decision and Aftermath

Supreme Court Cases

• In Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional an Arkansas law that prohibited the teaching of evolution because it served no secular purpose.

• This led to the so-called “balanced treatment laws” requiring the teaching of both evolution and creation science.

Supreme Court Cases

• Louisiana’s “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction” aka the “Creationism Act” was passed in 1981.

• It never went into effect because it was immediately challenged by teachers, parents, and religious leaders.

• In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s law as unconstitutional.

Constitutional Issues

1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause:“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Three-pronged “Lemon test”: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

1. Law must have a secular purpose.2. Primary effect must not advance nor inhibit

religion.3. Must not excessively entangle the gov’t w/

religion.

Edwards v. AguillardMajority Opinion of the

Supreme Court“The Louisiana Creationism Act advances religious doctrine by requiring either the

banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the

presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the

First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support

of government to achieve a religious purpose.”

Warning Stickers on Textbooks????

Is this constitutional???? Why or why not?

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require studentsto learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution andeventually to take a standardized test of which evolutionis a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to betested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is nota fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is noevidence. A theory is defined as a well-testedexplanation that unifies a broad range of observations.Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of lifethat differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, OfPandas and People, is available for students who mightbe interested in gaining an understanding of whatIntelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged tokeep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion ofthe Origins of Life to individual students and theirfamilies. As a Standards-driven district, class instructionfocuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiencyon Standards-based assessments.

Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005)

Questions to Think About:

• Is it a violation of the Establishment Clause for a biology teacher to discuss with her students the reasons that she believes in intelligent design theory?

• Is it a violation of the Establishment Clause for a biology teacher to tell his students “the story of creation in Genesis is hogwash and here’s why?”

• May a school system allow Fundamentalists to opt out of classes in which evolution is discussed? Would that be a reasonable solution to the controversy?