DOCSLIB.ORG

Creationism in the United States: I. Banning Evolution from The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Creationism in the United States: I. Banning Evolution from The Creationismin the United States I BanningEvolution from the Classroom Randy Moore Keepyour Biblein the worldof theologywhere it belongs tific, educational, intellectual, and media and do not try to ... put [it] into a courseof science.- establishments." Dudley Field Malone, shouting at prosecutors during the Scopes trial; July, 1925 * A national study of science teachers found that 45% support the inclusion of creationism in the A LTHOUGH evolution is the unifying theme for classroom (Affannato1986). Many biology teach- understandinglife and "one of the best docu- ers avoid teaching about evolution or present it mented, most compelling and exciting con- poorly (Monsour 1997). Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/60/7/486/10317/4450533.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 cepts in all of science" (Gould 1983), it is being * In some states, over half of the science teachers challenged-not by new discoveries,but by the evan- and school board presidents favor the inclusion gelical zealotry of religious fundamentalists.Despite of creationism in the classroom (Zimmerman consistently clear court-decisions,extensive discredit- 1987; also see discussion in Taylor 1992). ation of creationism, and overwhelming evidence Several supporting evolution (see Prelli 1989; Hays 1983; schools now use the Bible as a textbook Scott 1997; and references therein), creationism has for "history" courses, and many teachers refuse to discuss evolution in become an increasingly popular belief (e.g., Sinclair their classes because they fear and Pendarvis 1998; Monsour 1997). For example, a politically powerful creationists.Similarly, many poli- and recent poll conducted by the National Science Board ticians administrators subvert the teaching of (1996) reported that most adult Americans reject the evolution by requiring the insertion of disclaimers that evolution is a in idea that humans developed from earlier species of (e.g., stating "only theory") classes and textbooks.!Some teachers animals. Similarly, a 1991 Gallup poll found that biology biology rejectevolution altogether see Lewis Per- 47% of Americans believe that "God created man (e.g., 1997). haps this is to be expected; after it has pretty much in his present form at one time within all, always been important to many people-scientists and non- the last 10,000years." Only 9%believe that "Man has scientists alike-that nature and natural vali- developed over millions of years from less advanced history date us, both as individuals and as a species. For forms of life. God had no part in this process" example, people refused to abandon Aristotle's (Gallup & Newport 1991). By comparison,a majority pur- poseful and perfect universe, as well as of scientists take the naturalist view shared by only Ptolemy's positioning of Earth in the center of the 9% of Americans. It is hard to imagine any other universe, despite Galileo's evidence both. The issue for which there is such a difference between against most personal aspect of the secularizationof the universe- laypeople and experts (see discussion in Shermer that is, Darwin's nonpurposeful explanation of life's 1997). diversity-has generatedthe most opposition because Given the public's acceptance of creationism, it it addresses some of our most basic questions:where is not surprising that creationists' beliefs (and the we came from, how life and how we're antievolution claims that accompany them) are developed, related to other organisms. Most people will not becoming increasingly common in classrooms. For accept the fact that humans evolved from (and are example, therefore related to) other forms of life. Many more Eve and Harrold (1991) concluded that "over a people are offended by the idea that if nature reflects quarter-and perhaps as many as half-of the nation's high school students get educations lThese disclaimers are ostensibly to promote "critical thinking." shaped by creationist influence-in spite of the However, on 8 August 1997 the U.S. District Court for the Eastem overwhelming opposition of the nation's scien- District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud such a disclaimer when they taught about evolution (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997; the disclaimer said that the only "concept" from which Randy Moore is Professorof Biology at the Universityof Louis- students were not to be "dissuaded" was the biblical story of ville, Louisville,KY 40292; e-mail: [email protected]. creation). The court's decision also noted that proposals for "intelli- edu. gent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science." 486 THEAMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 60, NO. 7, SEPTEMBER1998 the characterof a Creator,then God-at least the one Understanding the rhetoricalfeatures of issues such of CharlesDarwin's world-acts randomly, amorally, as the evolution/creationism controversy can also and cruelly. reveal aspects of science that are not otherwise readily Many teachers have misconceptions about the his- perceived (Prelli 1989). tory and legal aspects of the evolution/creationism controversy.For example, most people (and virtually Darwin'sIdeas in the Courts all biologists) think they know what happened at the infamous (and enormously influential) Scopes Charles Darwin's monumental On the Origin of "Monkey Trial," but they usually don't (Pigliucci Speciesby Meansof NaturalSelection refuted teleology 1998);views of that trial-which many people incor- and purpose as explanations of life's diversity, and rectly believe resulted in a long-lasting victory for suggested that humans are not exempt from processes evolutionists that transcended the fact that Scopes that affect other organisms. Despite Origin'smessage was, in fact, convicted-have been influenced far and implications, there was considerable acceptance more by inaccuratemedia reports and the admittedly of Darwin's ideas by American Protestants. That fictitious Inheritthe Windthan by what actually hap- acceptance resulted largely from the advocacy of pened.2Similarly, many teachersbelieve that the U.S. Darwin's ideas by Harvard'sAsa Gray,an evangelical Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is not Christian who was America's leading botanist and Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/60/7/486/10317/4450533.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 science. It has not. president of the American Association for the This series of articles presents a brief legal-history Advancement of Science (AAAS). Gray, who es- of the evolution/creationism controversy as a means poused a progressive,God-driven evolution, arranged of highlighting the issues involved in this controver- for the initial publication of Darwin's Origin in the sial clash of two powerful constituencies.Understand- U.S. (see Moore 1997 and references therein).4When ing the legal history of this controversycan be useful Gray proclaimed that he had reconciled God and to teachers because it can be used to show students: evolution, many American Protestants were put at ease and accepted the idea (Scott 1994). However, * how scientists respond when their most valued that acceptance didn't last long, for by the end of ideas are challenged by nonscientists, World War I, religious attitudes had shifted; a collec- * what arguments scientists use to convince the tive nostalgia for the relative simplicity of prewar public and a nonscientific legal system of the life, combined with a perceived decline in morality, merits of their ideas, and led many people to rely increasinglyon their religious * the importanceof the creationism!/evolutionclash faith for stability and comfort.Religious fundamental- as a culturalstruggle for the public schools, which ism, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, are key to a particularcultural vision's hegemony became very popular.5Although creationistsdisagree (Taylor & Condit 1988).3 on some of the details (e.g., see Scott 1997), the essence of their beliefs is summarizedin the following 2Scopes'trial was the basis for Inheritthe Wind,a long-running, three-actplay written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee in six tenets, each of which arises from a fundamentalist 1950. The play, which opened on 10 January1955, got its name Christianinterpretation of the creationstory in Gene- from Proverbs 11:29, "He that troubleth his own house shall sis (Shermer 1997; Taylor 1992; and references inherit the wind, and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."Lawrence and Lee (1955)wrote the popularplay in response therein): to the threatto intellectualfreedom presented by the anti-Commu- nist hysteria of the McCarthyera (the Scopes trial, then safely a * Evolution cannot adequately account for the generation in the past and no longer perceived as an ongoing development of life and its various forms. threat, was used to examine the anxiety and anti-intellectualism * The universe, energy and life were created sud- in the 1950s). In the highly inaccurateplay, the principals of the trial were given sound-alike names (e.g. Scopes became Cates; denly from nothing by a Creator. Darrowbecame Drummond;Bryan became Brady).The screenplay of the script (written in 1960), which starredSpencer Tracy (Dar- most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no row), Frederic March (Bryan), Gene Kelly (Mencken),and Dick activity of the state is it more vital to keep out divisive forces York (Scopes), downplayed the academic and theological issues than in its schools ..." while emphasizing the trial's circuslike atmosphere. In 1988, a 4Gray's First Lessons in Botany and Vegetable Physiology (1857; made-for-televisionmovie (staringJason Robardsas Darrow,Kirk later renamed The Elements of Botany) was the leading botany text Douglas as Bryan, and Darren McGavin as Mencken) appeared of the late 19th century, and was the first high school text after on NBC. Readers of Inheritthe Wind often overlook the authors' the publication of Origin to include Darwin's ideas about evolution. disclaimerin the preface:"Inherit the Windis not history" (Law- Gray, who was America's foremost Darwinist, was the only Ameri- rence & Lee 1955).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Analysis of Article "21 Reasons to Believe the Earth Is Young" by Jeff Miller
    1 Critical analysis of article "21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young" by Jeff Miller Lorence G. Collins [email protected] Ken Woglemuth [email protected] January 7, 2019 Introduction The article by Dr. Jeff Miller can be accessed at the following link: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5641 and is an article published by Apologetic Press, v. 39, n.1, 2018. The problems start with the Article In Brief in the boxed paragraph, and with the very first sentence. The Bible does not give an age of the Earth of 6,000 to 10,000 years, or even imply − this is added to Scripture by Dr. Miller and other young-Earth creationists. R. C. Sproul was one of evangelicalism's outstanding theologians, and he stated point blank at the Legionier Conference panel discussion that he does not know how old the Earth is, and the Bible does not inform us. When there has been some apparent conflict, either the theologians or the scientists are wrong, because God is the Author of the Bible and His handiwork is in general revelation. In the days of Copernicus and Galileo, the theologians were wrong. Today we do not know of anyone who believes that the Earth is the center of the universe. 2 The last sentence of this "Article In Brief" is boldly false. There is almost no credible evidence from paleontology, geology, astrophysics, or geophysics that refutes deep time. Dr. Miller states: "The age of the Earth, according to naturalists and old- Earth advocates, is 4.5 billion years.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Beliefs Versus Knowledge: a Necessary Distinction for Explaining, Predicting, and Assessing Conceptual Change
    Beliefs Versus Knowledge: A Necessary Distinction for Explaining, Predicting, and Assessing Conceptual Change Thomas D. Griffin ([email protected]) Stellan Ohlsson ([email protected]) Department of Psychology, 1007 West Harrison Street (M/C 285) Chicago, IL 60607, U.S.A. Abstract needed to explain how new knowledge representations can be created that will not be distorted by the Empirical research and theoretical treatments of conflicting prior concepts. They suggest that activation conceptual change have paid little attention to the of conflicting prior concepts activates related abstract distinction between knowledge and belief. The concepts that are not in direct conflict with the new distinction implies that conceptual change involves both knowledge acquisition and belief revision, and highlights information, and that can be utilized in constructing an the need to consider the reasons that beliefs are held. We accurate representation of the new information. These argue that the effects of prior beliefs on conceptual aspects of the conceptual change process become more learning depends upon whether a given belief is held for important when we consider how beliefs differ from its coherence with a network of supporting knowledge, knowledge. or held for the affective goals that it serves. We also contend that the nature of prior beliefs will determine the Belief Versus Knowledge relationship between the knowledge acquisition and the belief revision stages of the conceptual change process. The present paper defines knowledge as the Preliminary data suggests that prior beliefs vary in comprehension or awareness of an idea or proposition whether they are held for knowledge or affect-based ("I understand the claim that humans evolved from reasons, and that this variability may predict whether a early primates").
    [Show full text]
  • Is Creationism Still Valid in the New Millennium? George T
    Perspective Digest Volume 10 Article 5 Issue 3 Summer 2005 Is Creationism Still Valid in the New Millennium? George T. Javor Loma Linda University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Javor, George T. (2005) "Is Creationism Still Valid in the New Millennium?," Perspective Digest: Vol. 10 : Iss. 3 , Article 5. Available at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Perspective Digest by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Javor: Is Creationism Still Valid in the New Millennium? BY GEORGE T. JAVOR* when they show that their explana- The supposed conflict between tions work better than those of evo- religion and science is a recent lutionists. Their goal should be to invention and a distortion of histor- develop their paradigm so well that ical realities by a class of historians people will have to admit, “Nothing whose agenda was to destroy the in biology makes sense except in the influence of religion. The currently light of creationism.” popular secularism in science may IS CREATIONISM STILL With that as a background, con- only be a detour in the history of sci- sider a few aspects of Creationism ence. still valid for 21st century thinking Christians. What are the Perceived Liabilities VALID IN THE of Creationism? Is Creationism a Religiously Creationism originated in a pre- Motivated Paradigm? scientific world, where myths Yes.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionism, Creationism, and Treating Religion As a Hobby
    Duke Law Journal VOLUME 1987 DECEMBER NUMBER 6 EVOLUTIONISM, CREATIONISM, AND TREATING RELIGION AS A HOBBY STEPHEN L. CARTER* Contemporary liberalism faces no greater dilemma than deciding how to deal with the resurgence of religious belief. On the one hand, liberals cherish religion, as they cherish all matters of private conscience, and liberal theory holds that the state should do nothing to discourage free religious choice. At the same time, contemporary liberals are com- ing to view any religious element in public moral discourse as a tool of the radical right for the reshaping of American society, and that re- shaping is something liberals want very much to discourage. In truth, liberal politics has always been uncomfortable with reli- gious fervor. If liberals cheered the clerics who marched against segrega- tion and the Vietnam War, it was only because the causes were considered just-not because the clerics were devout. Nowadays, people who bring religion into the making of public policy come more fre- quently from the right, and the liberal response all too often is to dismiss them as fanatics. Even the religious left is sometimes offended by the mainstream liberal tendency to mock religious belief. Not long ago, the magazine Sojourners-publishedby politically liberal Christian evangeli- cals-found itself in the unaccustomed position of defending the evangel- * Professor of Law, Yale University. A nearly identical version of this essay was delivered at the Third Annual Duke Law Journal Lecture on February 26, 1987. For publication, I have added a sprinkling of footnotes (most of them citations), clarifed a few points that I learned from the ques- tion-and-answer session had not been put as precisely as they might have, and reintroduced a brief discussion, deleted at the podium, of the work of Mark Yudof and Bruce Ackerman.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching the Theories of Evolution and Scientific Creationism in the Public Schools: the First Amendment Religion Clauses and Permissible Relief
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 15 1982 Teaching the Theories of Evolution and Scientific Creationism in the Public Schools: The First Amendment Religion Clauses and Permissible Relief J. Greg Whitehair University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation J. G. Whitehair, Teaching the Theories of Evolution and Scientific Creationism in the Public Schools: The First Amendment Religion Clauses and Permissible Relief, 15 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 421 (1982). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol15/iss2/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TEACHING THE THEORIES OF EVOLUTION AND SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: THE FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION CLAUSES AND PERMISSIBLE RELIEF Traditional methods of religious training and transmission of moral values have been irreversibly altered by the changing role of the family, the church, and the public school.1 The expanding role of the public school in this training triggers concern that these traditional moral and religious values are being displaced.1 As a result, the appropriate role of religion in the public schools has become the subject of ongoing, heated debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change
    religions Article Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change K. L. Marshall New College, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH1 2LX, UK; [email protected] Abstract: In the century since the Scopes Trial, one of the most influential dogmas to shape American evangelicalism has been that of young-earth creationism. This article explains why, with its arm of “creation science,” young-earth creationism is a significant factor in evangelicals’ widespread denial of anthropogenic climate change. Young-earth creationism has become closely intertwined with doctrines such as the Bible’s divine authority and the Imago Dei, as well as with social issues such as abortion and euthanasia. Addressing this aspect of the environmental crisis among evangelicals will require a re-orientation of biblical authority so as to approach social issues through a hermeneutic that is able to acknowledge the reality and imminent threat of climate change. Citation: Marshall, K. L. 2021. Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Keywords: evangelicalism; creation science; young-earth creationism; climate change; Answers in Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Genesis; biblical literalism; biblical authority; Noahic flood; dispensational theology; fundamentalism Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change. Religions 12: 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020133 1. Introduction Academic Editors: Randall Balmer The 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial is often referenced as a metonymy for American and Edward Blum Protestantism’s fundamentalist-modernist controversy that erupted in the years following World War I. William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer and politician who argued in favor of Received: 25 January 2021 biblical creationism1—in keeping with his literal understanding of the narratives in Genesis Accepted: 12 February 2021 Published: 20 February 2021 1 and Genesis 2—was vindicated when the judge ruled that high school biology teacher John Scopes had indeed broken the law by teaching Darwinian evolution in a public school.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 17 Article 2 Issue 2 Symposium on Religion in the Public Square 1-1-2012 Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Kent Greenwalt, Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, 17 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 321 (2003). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol17/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS IDEAS: EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN KENT GREENAWALT* I. INTRODUCTION The enduring conflict between evolutionary theorists and creationists has focused on America's public schools. If these schools had no need to teach about the origins of life, each side might content itself with promoting its favored worldview and declaring its opponents narrow-minded and dogmatic. But edu- cators have to decide what to teach, and because the Supreme Court has declared that public schools may not teach religious propositions as true, the First Amendment is crucially implicated. On close examination, many of the controversial constitu- tional issues turn out to be relatively straightforward, but others, posed mainly by the way schools teach evolution and by what they say about "intelligent design" theory, push us to deep questions about the nature of science courses and what counts as teaching religious propositions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Creationism
    The evolution of creationism David R. Montgomery, Quaternary Research Center and Dept. of (354–413), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), and John Calvin (1509– Earth and Space Sciences, Box 351310, University of Washington, 1564) all endorsed reason as the way to learn about the world. Seattle, Washington 98195-1310, USA, [email protected] Augustine was among the first to caution against advocating for biblical interpretations that conflicted with what one could I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed observe for oneself. Centuries later, Aquinas praised the pursuit of us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their knowledge and insight gained from experience reading God’s use. —Galileo Galilei other book—nature. Writing at the time of the Reformation, Calvin, too, considered ABSTRACT the revelations of both nature and the Bible as fundamental truths. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), Calvin For centuries, natural philosophers, their scientific successors, explicitly embraced the idea of respecting natural truths revealed and theologians alike sought to explain the physical and natural through the study of nature: “If we regard the Spirit of God as the world. The now common cultural narrative of perpetual conflict sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor between science and religion simplifies the arguments and despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the struggles of the past and overlooks cross-pollination between Spirit of God” (McNeill, ed., 1960, p. 273–274). those who embraced faith and reason as the keys to understanding Calvin believed in keeping an open mind when it came to earth history.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Face of Creationism: the Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution in Public Schools
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 54 Issue 6 Issue 6 - November 2001 Article 7 11-2001 The New Face of Creationism: The Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution in Public Schools Deborah A. Reule Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Deborah A. Reule, The New Face of Creationism: The Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution in Public Schools, 54 Vanderbilt Law Review 2555 (2001) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol54/iss6/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The New Face of Creationism: The Establishment Clause and the Latest Efforts to Suppress Evolution in Public Schools 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 2556 II. HISTORY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ....................... 2563 A. The Three Tests .................................................... 2565 1. The Lemon Test ......................................... 2565 2. The Endorsement Test .............................. 2567 3. The Coercion Test ...................................... 2568 B. Anti-evolution Legislation.................................... 2569 C. Balanced-TreatmentLegislation ........................... 2572 D. Recent Legislative Action
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Scientific Creationism in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Response
    The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 2 Print Reference: Volume 2:I, Pages 143-146 Article 26 1990 The Impact of Scientific Creationism in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Response A. James Melnick Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Melnick, A. James (1990) "The Impact of Scientific Creationism in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Response," The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: Vol. 2 , Article 26. Available at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol2/iss1/26 THE IMPACT OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM IN THE SOVIET UNION AND THE SOVIET RESPONSE A. JAMES MELNICK P.O. BOX 2567 SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22152 ABSTRACT Increasing references to scientific creationism in Soviet athei stic publications indicate that it is having an impact. Attacks on creationism in Soviet publications have not ended with gla snost', but concurrently, this policy-- which allows greater press freedoms and more ; mportat i on of mater; a 1 pub 1 i shed in the Wes t - -may eventua 11y expose more persons in the Soviet Union than ever before to the concepts of scientifi c creationism.
    [Show full text]