1987 was a turning point in the battle over teaching creationism in public schools. Prior to that year, those who supported inserting a literal reading of Genesis into science classes felt little need to disguise their religious intent. The Supreme Court decision in Edwards vs. Aguillard changed all that.
The case was brought in response to a “balanced treatment” law in Louisiana, requiring that creationism be taught alongside evolution. A similar law in Arkansas was struck down by the 1982 decision in McLean vs. Arkansas, which argued that “creation science” did not meet the criteria of actual science and thus failed the “Lemon test,” which determines whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. The decision in Edwards argued further that creation science was a specifically religious doctrine, and therefore an unconstitutional endorsement of religion with no “secular legislative purpose.”
A Possible Loophole
The majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, however, was seized upon by creationists as perhaps leaving a loophole through which they could attempt to repeat their attempts at promoting creationism. It read, in part:
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
Soon after the Court’s ruling, various “alternative” theories to evolution began to appear, most clearly taking much of their content from creationist arguments, but studiously avoiding mention of religion or a divine creator. Wendell Byrd, a lawyer, weighed in almost immediately with his book The Origin of Species Revisited, which advocated for something he termed “Abrupt Appearance Theory.” While his work was cited in creationist literature many times shortly after its publication, by the mid-1990s another competing “theory” had come to the fore: Intelligent design.
Intelligent Design Ascendant
While the roots of the modern intelligent design movement predate Edwards by about three years, the phrase didn’t achieve critical mass until 1991, with the publication of Darwin On Trial by law professor Phillip Johnson. Johnson’s secular credentials insured him a mainstream hearing that many creationists writing for non-academic organizations would never receive. Darwin On Trial was reviewed (and roundly criticized) by scientists in the press, but some conservative Christians were convinced by its veneer of scientific integrity. Also successful in this regard were the works of Michael Behe, a biochemist whose notion of “irreducible complexity” gave seeming ammunition to those who wished to see the hand of a divine intelligence working in nature.
Though many proponents of intelligent design do not call themselves creationists, and indeed disagree with so-called “young earth creationists” in matters of geology and sudden appearance of species, the goal of the two groups is essentially the same; namely, to introduce doubts about evolution that can be explained through religious doctrine. In light of McLean and Edwards, open proclamations of “creation” are anathema; many intelligent design arguments consist mainly of pointing out perceived weaknesses in the theory of evolution by natural selection.
In 2005, supporters of intelligent design were dealt another blow with the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which ruled that intelligent design, too, was a religious position, thinly veiled as a scientific theory, and therefore unconstitutional. It remains to be seen what further actions the supporters of divine creation will take.
Additional Source:
Scott, Eugenie C. (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. University of California Press.
ISBN-13: 978-0520246508
