Supreme Court Hears ‘Creation Science’ Case

An attorney representing Louisiana told an apparently skeptical Supreme Court on Wednesday that a state law requiring the teaching of “creation science” was intended to bring “only scientific material, not religious material,” into the classroom.

But his opponent said creationism is a “pseudoscience” pushed by religious fundamentalists who want to “give God equal time” whenever evolution is discussed.

‘Balanced Treatment’

This case is the first time the high court has been called on to decide whether a law requiring “balanced treatment” between creationism and evolution violates the Constitution’s ban on legislation affecting “an establishment of religion.”

However, for more than 24 years, the justices have frowned on state efforts to inject religion into public schools. They struck down New York’s mandated school prayers in 1962, an Arkansas law barring teaching of evolution in 1968, a Kentucky law requiring schools to post the Ten Commandments in 1980 and an Alabama law requiring a daily “moment of silence for voluntary prayer” in 1984.

Wendell Bird, Louisiana’s lawyer, arguing that the 1981 state law sought to promote “academic freedom,” said: “The Legislature determined that students were not receiving all the evidence, just the evidence in favor of one view,” which is the evolutionary explanation.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in one of several pointed questions by the court about the law’s purpose, asked incredulously whether Christian fundamentalists “had nothing to do with this statute.”

Bird conceded that some legislators voted for the law because they “had a desire to see the teaching of religious doctrine in the classroom.”

In addition, Bird was hard pressed to explain why the law contained no definition of “creation science.” Critics of the law say this explanation was omitted to avoid any references to religion or a divine creator.

Jay Topkis, a New York lawyer representing parents and religious leaders who oppose the creationism statute, scoffed at the notion that the law was enacted to further science or academic freedom.

“It was passed by people whose objectives are plain. They are fundamentalists . . . opposed to godless evolution,” he said.

At one point during a lively argument that included references to Aristotle, Spinoza and Alice in Wonderland, Topkis said Bird seemed to “play Tweedledum” by trying to make words mean only what he wanted them to mean.

“That didn’t fool Alice,” he said, “and I doubt very much if it would fool this court.”

At this, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist leaned forward in his chair and replied dryly: “Don’t overestimate us.”

May Be Last Chance

For the creationists, Wednesday’s hearing may be the last chance to get a federal court hearing for their cause. An Arkansas law similar to Louisiana’s was rejected by a U.S. District Court in 1981 and the action was not appealed.

Louisiana has been barred from enforcing its law since 1981, and a federal District Court later struck it down without holding a trial. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that summary dismissal last year on an 8-7 vote.

The high court is expected to rule in the case (Edwards vs. Aguillard, 85-1713) by July.