AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion

Events: AAAS Annual Meeting Symposia

Constitutional Principles and Legal Strategies in the Creation and Evolution Debates
19 Februrary 2006

Organizers:

• Gilbert Whittemore, Rath, Young, and Pignatelli and American Bar Association Section of Science & Technology Law
• Connie Bertka, AAAS Science and Policy Programs

There is a resurgence of debate over what should be taught as biological science concerning the origins and development of life. Many of these disputes are moving from public debate to the courts. When courts are asked to resolve these debates, they do so not only in light of the scientific, philosophical, and religious positions presented, but also with regard to legal precedents regarding separation of church and state in constitutional law. Litigation also introduces questions of strategy and tactics peculiar to the courtroom but distinct from public policy debates. This session will complement the scientific perspective by providing an overview of cultural and legal history and then examining in detail legal doctrines and strategies which are now being applied. The ABA has applied for CLE Credit in all mandatory CLE states.

Moderator

• Connie Bertka, AAAS Science and Policy Programs

Speakers

• Ray Eve, University of Texas, Arlington
  Creationists’ Views of Science: Insights for the Creation and Evolution Debates
• Jay Wexler, Boston University School of Law
  Intelligent Design and the First Amendment
• Steven Gey, Florida State University College of Law
  Field Strategies: What Proponents of Evolution Need To Know

 

Available Abstracts

From Dayton to Dover: Legal Issues in the Evolution Teaching Controversy
Author: Edward J. Larson, School of Law, University of Georgia

The legal phase of the evolution-teaching controversy began in 1925 with the sensational trial of John Scopes for teaching human evolution in violation of Tennessee's controversial new anti-evolution law. Scopes was convicted and the law upheld as constitutional. During the 1950s and 1960s, however, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment's Establishment Clause to place strict limits on religion in the public education. Ever since, courts have had to deal with the constitutionality of various local and state restrictions on the teaching of evolution. Over the past three decades, for example, some states and localities have mandated balanced treatment for evolution and creation in the classroom while other have decreed that evolution be presented as "only a theory." The result has been a steady stream of lawsuits.

In his presentation, Larson places these evolution-teaching lawsuits in historical context, beginning with the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, and ending with the 2005 legal challenge to the Dover, Pennsylvania, requirement that school administrators inform students that "intelligent design" represents an alternative explanation for organic origins. Creationist legal strategies have evolved over the past 80 years in response to changes in the legal, religious, and cultural environment. Popular opposition to the theory of evolution persists, however, and appears to be increasing. Through a study of the lawsuits, we can learn more about the underlying issues and ways to address them.

Intelligent Design and the First Amendment
Author: Jay Wexler, Boston University School of Law

Intelligent design, a purportedly scientific theory that has been advanced as an alternative to evolution, has finally made the courts. In September 2005, a federal judge in Pennsylvania began overseeing the first federal trial involving a challenge to an intelligent design policy in the nation’’s public schools. In this talk, I will examine the legal issues relevant to assessing intelligent design’s constitutionality. Although the question of whether introducing intelligent design into the public school curriculum violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is a difficult one, and the relevant analysis will differ depending on the particular circumstances giving rise to any specific case, proponents of intelligent design have many obstacles to overcome to establish the constitutionality of their policies. Specifically, the talk will address three questions:

(1) whether intelligent design should be considered a religion for First Amendment purposes;
(2) whether teaching intelligent design would constitute an unconstitutional endorsement of religion; and
(3) whether individual public school teachers have any First Amendment academic freedom right to teach intelligent design contrary to clearly stated school policy.

 

Creationists' View of Science: Insights for the Creation / Evolution Debate
Author: Ray Eve, University of Texas at Arlington

The central argument of this paper is that nearly all current debates over designed human origins vs. purely naturalistic descent with modification explanations are misguided. This is so because nearly all such debates assume that the main issue is good scientific evidence or proper scientific procedure. This paper will instead demonstrate that such arguments are better conceptualized as a struggle by status groups competing for control of the means of cultural reproduction, and that as such the debate is of an intensely sociological nature. The creationist and intelligent design positions will be argued here to represent a social movement of the type anthropologists refer to as a revitalization movement. Further, we will note the similarity of creationism and intelligent design theories to classic myths, and will argue that the former arise to serve the same functions that myths often do in preindustrial societies. Survey data from college students and other sources will be presented here in support of this paper’s main arguments.

This paper will attempt to show that regarding a very large proportion of the adherents of creationism and intelligent design theories, their position is best understood by use of sociological paradigms relevant to the study of social movements and countermovements. The current creationism vs. evolution controversy is shown below to have major congruence with past anti-alcohol crusades, anti-pornography campaigns, pro-prayer in school initiatives, and the like. Therefore, we will ultimately demonstrate that the creationism vs. evolution debate is, for the most part, a nonscientific one. Exceptions to this general position will be noted, in particular with respect to a small number of intelligent design advocates.

Strategies From the Field: What Proponents of Evolution Need to Know
Author: Steven Gey, College of Law, Florida State University

On several occasions during the last eighty years states have attempted to either prohibit the teaching of evolution in public school science classes or counter the teaching of evolution with mandatory references to the religious doctrine of creationism. The Supreme Court struck down examples of the first two generations of these statutes, holding that they violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Boards of education and legislators in various jurisdictions around the country have recently begun to consider a third generation of creationist proposals. Under this new version of creationism, science teachers would present so-called “intelligent design” theory as an alternative to evolution.

Intelligent design differs from earlier models of creationism by avoiding the biblical literalism that was common during the era of the Scopes trial. Intelligent design proponents do not leave themselves open, as earlier creationists did, to a detailed challenge about the precise contours of the day on which God created the earth. But two central claims of earlier creationist theories remain at the core of intelligent design: First, the claim that biological entities in the physical world have not evolved naturally from lower-order to higher-order beings, and second, the claim that a supernatural intelligence intervened in the natural world to dictate the nature and ordering of all biological species. The irreducible core of intelligent design theory remains what the Court has called the "manifestly religious" concept of a God or Supreme Being. This session addresses the strategies for addressing intelligent design creationism within the constitutional framework used by the Court to invalidate earlier creationist mandates.