1 / 9

The Teaching of Evolution

The Teaching of Evolution. Pages 69-75 By Gerald Card. Title and Citation. Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 482 U.S. 578. Level or Type of Court. Supreme Court of the United States. Facts.

donna-reese
Télécharger la présentation

The Teaching of Evolution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Teaching of Evolution Pages 69-75 By Gerald Card

  2. Title and Citation • Edwards v. Aguillard • Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 • 482 U.S. 578

  3. Level or Type of Court • Supreme Court of the United States

  4. Facts • Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in public school instruction Act adopted as Law in Arkansas and Louisiana La.Rev.Stat.Ann.17:286.1-17:286.7 • Law states Biblical account of creation • is a scientific theory and deserved equal • time in the classroom • It forbids teaching evolution unless • accompanied by creationism

  5. Issue • The sponsor Senator Bill Keith meant to narrow the curriculum by eliminating both • The act supplied creation science guides, research services, only creation scientists could serve on panels for resource services, and the act protects creationism teachers and not evolution • Epperson v. Arkansas tried to stop evolution without adding a religious aspect-it was denied because of their motivation was to stop the only theory that denied divine creation

  6. Holding • 1st Amendment – State cannot require that teaching and learning be tailored to principles and prohibition of any religious sect • Creationism has a supernatural creator and conforms to belief of a particular religious viewpoint • Acts violates the 1st amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of the government to achieve a religious purpose

  7. Holding • Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist felt the act constitutional even though the motivation behind it was unconstitutional ultimately defeated 7-2.

  8. Legal Doctrine • The 1st Amendment-prohibition against establishment of religion • The courts decision affirms the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment because it took the motivation of the proposed law into account. The motivation was not to teach creationism, but to stop the teaching of a topic that denies creationism. If this was found constitutional the U.S. Government would have been backing religious ideals.

  9. Significance • Creationism has evolved into Intelligent Design • The battle continues with Freiler v. Tangephoa Parish Board of Education, 185 F. 3d 337 (5th Cir 1999) A disclaimer is issued before teaching evolution. Found unconstitutional because it protected and maintained a particular religious viewpoint. • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (PA.2005) involved pointing out the gaps and problems in evolution and intelligent design. Found unconstitutional because ID is coupled with creationism and is not a science.

More Related