About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

19 Rutgers J. L. & Religion 25 (2018)
Evolution, Intelligent Design and the Establishment Clause

handle is hein.journals/rjlr19 and id is 25 raw text is: 







     EVOLUTION, INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND THE
                 ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

                      Roger L. Tarbutton*

      The  teaching of intelligent design (ID:) in public classrooms
as alternative or supplemental to contemporary evolutionary theory
(_Neo-Darwinism:) has been widely rejected by courts on the ground
that it is based on supernatural  forces as opposed to scientific
materialism. However, as recent advances in genetic and molecular
science increasingly challenge the tenets of Neo-Darwinism, the
teaching of non-random, intelligence-based alternatives should be
permitted   under  the  Establishment   Clause   provided  such
alternatives are supported by scientific evidence and are presented
in a secular manner. Under  existing case-law, the terms _creation
science: and  _intelligent design: are often conflated although
creation science has historically been linked to biblical accounts of
creation whereas ID encompasses  non-random  views  of evolution.
One judge  concluded ID was a rebranding of _creation science: by
religious zealots in an attempt to make it appear more scientific.2


     I.INTELLIGENT DESIGN  ANDTHE  ESTABLISHMENT   CLAUSE

       In Edwards  v. Aguillard,3 the Supreme Court affirmed the
holding of a Louisiana District Court that the Balanced Treatment
for Creation-Science  and  Evolution-Science  in Public  School
Instruction Act (the _Act: )4 Violated the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment.  The  Act defined creation science and evolution
science in terms of the scientific evidence and inferences supporting
each and mandated  theteaching of creation sciencein public schools
as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution.' Although the Act
did not require the teaching of either, it required that if one theory
was taught so must the other. In a summary  judgement  decision,

   * University of Missouri at Kansas City, LL.M.; Washburn University, J .D.;
Baker University, B.A. The author thanks the J ournal staff for publishing this
article and for their editorial assistance.
   2 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 716 (M.D. Pa.
2005).
   3 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
   4 Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public
School Instruction Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. f 17:286.1-17:286.7 (1982).
   s Edwards, 482 U.S. at 578.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most