In 1981, the state of Louisiana passed a law requiring that “creation science” be taught in the
public schools whenever ”evolution-science” was taught. No school was required to teach either
“creation science” nor “evolution science,” but if either were taught, then so must the other.
Critics of the law complained that this law violated the prohibition in the First Amendment
against the establishment of a state religion. In order to pass muster under this clause, all three
of the following tests must be met: (1) the state legislature must have adopted the law with a
secular purpose; (2) the primary effect of the state law must neither advance nor inhibit religion;
(3) the state law must not result in excessive entanglement of government with religion. The
U.S. Supreme Court concluded, in a case called Edwards v. Aguilar in 1987, that the statute
failed each test. It said that the pre-eminent goal of the legislature was to advance a particular
religious viewpoint promoting creation science, a view not held universally by all religions.
What will be an ideal response?
1. Discuss whether you believe the law passes each of the three tests listed. Look carefully
at the terminology in each test, as you would use it.
2. Now, three decades later, a new effort in Louisiana to regulate science education is
being proposed that would require the teaching of "intelligent design" whenever evolution
is taught in the public schools. Critics claim that "intelligent design" is nothing but a new
name for creationism or "creation science". Supporters say that students should learn of
all the different approaches to explaining the universe. Should state legislatures have the
right to insist that public schools teach intelligent design or creationism as an alternative
to evolution? Should students who do not accept any of those religious views be forced
to study them in the public schools? Consider the philosophical perspectives of religious
freedom and individual rights in developing your answers.
3. In 1990, in a case called Webster v. New Lenox School District, the public school
district's policy prohibiting the teaching of creation science was challenged. The school
district said it was trying to ensure, consistently with Edwards v. Aguilar, that religious
beliefs were not injected into the public school curriculum. A teacher sued, claiming that
this policy violated his rights to free speech as a public school teacher. The school
district argued that the teacher was engaging in a prohibited form of religious advocacy
in a public school. Develop arguments supporting the teacher, using philosophical
arguments. Then develop a critique of those arguments, again using philosophical
reasoning.
4. Capistrano School District in California adopted a policy that required that evolution be
taught in biology classes. John Peloza, a teacher in the school district, challenged the
policy, claiming that "evolutionism" is a "religion," and thus violated his right to the free
exercise of his own religious views, which rejected "evolutionism." The Federal appeals
court, in 1994, sided with the school district, concluding that it was merely requiring a
science teacher to teach a scientific theory in a biology class, not forcing him to adopt
any particular religion. Develop arguments supporting the teacher, using philosophical
arguments. Then develop a critique of those arguments, again using philosophical
reasoning.
You might also like to view...
Extreme realism is the position that claims that
a. only physical objects are real. b. universals exist in reality. c. universals are merely names in our language. d. the problem of universals is a pseudo problem and of no consequence.
Fred Sommers argues that a moral philosophy which emphasizes reason to the exclusion of the moral sentiments __________
a. weakens decency b. honors the divine nature of man c. leads to human flourishing d. supports kindness and compassion
Ewing's Innocent Criminal thought experiment is intended to show that utilitarianism conflicts with our notions of justice.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Science can prove claims beyond all possible doubt.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)