About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

47 Ohio St. L.J. 333 (1986)
Secular Humanism and Scientific Creationism: Proposed Standards for Reviewing Curricular Decisions Affecting Students' Religious Freedom

handle is hein.journals/ohslj47 and id is 343 raw text is: Secular Humanism and Scientific Creationism: Proposed Standards for Reviewing Curricular Decisions Affecting Students' Religious Freedom NADiNE STROSSEN* INTRODUCrION Many of the latest skirmishes in the ongoing struggle to maintain public schools' neutrality concerning religion have involved secular humanism and scientific creationism or creation science.1 Some parents, children, and religious leaders assert that public school curricula promote the religion of secular humanism and inhibit their own religions,2 thereby violating the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.3 These parents, students, and religious leaders view the Darwinian theory of evolution as a primary tenet of secular humanism. Consequently, they contend that their religious freedom is violated when a public school's instruction concerning the origins of the universe and mankind considers only the evolutionary theory. To counter this perceived violation, they maintain that any public school discussion of origins must present scientific evidence supporting the theory of creation, as well as the theory of evolution.4 * B.A. 1972, J.D. 1975, Harvard University. Assistant Professor and Supervising Attorney, Civil Rights Clinic, New York University School of Law. This Article was written specifically for inclusion in the Ohio State Law Journal's symposium issue concerning the appropriate relationship between government and religion. The author gratefully acknowledges the comments of Professor Lawrence Herman, the research assistance of Scott Whitsett, Michael Rogoff, and Catherine Siemann, and the word processing assistance of Michael Portantiere and Karen Hollins. 1. The meaning ascribed to the term secular humanism by those who oppose its inclusion in public school curricula is discussed infra text accompanying notes 15-30. The background of the terms scientific creationism and creation science is discussed infra text accompanying notes 102-03, and a recent statutory definition of these terms is quoted infra note 105. Some public school officials and others who defend the schools' use of material allegedly promoting secular humanism reject the term as ambiguous and misleading. See, e.g., Davidow, Secular Humanism as an 'Established Religion: A Response to Whitehead and Conlan, 11 TEx. TEcH. L. REv. 51, 55 (1979). Likewise, some who oppose public schools' teaching of scientific creationism or creation science reject those terms as inaccurate. See, e.g., M. LFoum-, CREATIONISM, ScmNcE AND nrm LAw: THE ARKSAxss CAsE 4 (1983) (Mhe coining of the terms 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' represent attempts to gain public credibility, a strategy that relies on the relative scientific illiteracy of most Americans.); Davidow & Wilson, Wendell Bird's Creation Science-- Newspeak in the Assault on the Secular Society, 9 N. Ky. L. REy. 207, 219-23 (1982). The present Article uses these terms simply because they are employed by parties in the ongoing contests about public school curricula. The Article's use of the terms does not imply any view about the accuracy of the meanings that have been ascribed to them by various parties in these disputes. 2. Most of the parties challenging the alleged inclusion of secular humanism in public school curricula appear to espouse fundamentalist Protestant faiths. See, e.g., infra text accompanying notes 32, 40, 52-53, 63, 72. See also text accompanying notes 101-05. 3. The religion clauses of the first amendment provide: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U.S. Co.isr. amend. I. Both clauses are binding on the states. Illinois ex rel. MeCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 211-12 (1948) (free exercise); Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947) (establishment).The two clauses afford interrelated protections to religious liberty, which are to some extent overlapping and to some extent distinctive. See infra notes 159, 258. For summaries of Supreme Court decisions interpreting and applying the establishment and free exercise guarantees in the public school context, see infra text accompanying notes 145-85, 259-79. 4. For an account of the recent movement to eliminate secular humanism from the public school curriculum, which focuses in part on efforts to balance evolution theory with creation science, see D. NuxsN, Scmscs TE:CBooK Co.movEasls a mm PoLmcs oF EQUAL Tim (1977).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most