IMPACT No. 170

The impact of the long-awaited decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down the Louisiana "Creation Law" can perhaps best be evaluated in terms of the following news release, provided by Wendell Bird, lead attorney for the creationists in the case (see February Acts & Facts for a summary of the hearing in Washington last December 10). Mr. Bird's news release is as follows:

The U.S. Supreme Court held on June 19 that Louisiana's "Act for Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science and Evolution" is unconstitutional because it had an unconstitutional legislative purpose.

However, the Court Ruling was narrow and did not say that teaching creation-science is necessarily unconstitutional if adopted for a secular purpose. In fact, the Court said the exact opposite:

"Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of human-kind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" (p. 14).

The Supreme Court recognized that teachers "already possess" a flexibility . . . to supplement the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life (p. 8), and are "free to teach any and all facets of this subject" of "all scientific theories about the origins of humankind" (p. 9).

A powerful dissent by Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist argues that "there is ample evidence that the majority is wrong in holding that the Balanced Treatment Act is without secular purpose" (p. 10). They carefully analyzed the legislative history (pp. 10-17), and then the sufficiency of the secular purpose for the Act (pp. 17-27). That dissent acknowledged that creation-science can be scientific (p. 20):*

The Act's reference to "creation" is not convincing evidence of religious purpose. The Act defines creation science as "scientific evidence," and Senator Keith and his witnesses repeatedly stressed that the subject can and should be presented without religious content.

". . . We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on earth. See n. 4, supra. Creation Science, its proponents insist, no more must explain whence life came than evolution must explain whence came the inanimate materials from which it says life evolved.

The dissent also stressed that evolution is not unquestionable fact (p. 25):

Infinitely less can we say (or should we say) that the scientific evidence for evolution is so conclusive that no one could be gullible enough to believe that there is any real scientific evidence to the contrary, so that the legislation's stated purpose must be a lie.

Finally, the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia and the Chief Justice excoriated the majority of its "Scopes-in-reverse" "repressive" position (p. 25):

In this case, however, it seems to me the Court's position is the repressive one. The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it. . . . Yet that illiberal judgment, the Scopes-in-reverse is ultimately the basis on which the Court's facile rejection of the Louisiana Legislature's purpose must rest.

The majority opinion leaves open at least two alternatives to indoctrination in evolution and censorship of scientific alternatives: (1) the right of teachers to teach "a variety of scientific theories" and to bring Scopes-type lawsuits if punished or prohibited, and (2) the right of schools, school districts, and perhaps legislatures to encourage or require teaching of "all scientific theories . . . about origins."

The Creation Science Legal Defense Fund has announced its determination to continue defending creationist victims and unbiased science instruction. Contributions to it are tax deductible at P.O. Box 78312, Shreveport, LA 71137.

The ICR staff concurs with Attorney Bird that the Majority Opinion of the Court does not preclude teaching the scientific evidences for creation, as long as this is done with the "secular purpose" of good science and good education, rather than the "religious purpose" of supporting belief in a supernatural God. Teachers have always had this right, and did not need the Louisiana law to give it to them. We can be thankful that the Court did not go so far as to ban this, as well. We can also hope that some future test case will ameliorate the present opinion and not make it still worse, but the history of previous attempts to promote creation by legislation is not encouraging.

This development was not altogether unexpected. Most judges (as well as other lawyers) have long been taught in their law schools that evolution is a fact--including the idea that even the law and the constitution must evolve along with life and society--so all but the most conservative judges will tend to decide cases involving broad issues largely on the basis of sociological goals and political expediency. For this reason, ICR has consistently maintained that creationism can best be promoted through education and persuasion rather than through legislation or litigation.

In the meantime, school boards and teachers should be strongly encouraged at least to stress the scientific evidences and arguments against evolution in their classes (not just arguments against some proposed evolutionary mechanism, but against evolution per se), even if they don't wish to recognize these as evidences and arguments for creation (not necessarily as arguments for a particular date of creation, but for creation per se). To do anything less is equivalent to making humanistic evolution an article of faith, and this would be an establishment of religion! It is important to note that the teaching of "theistic evolution" is no more permissible under this decision than is "theistic creation" since both concepts require the production of human beings by God. Theistic evolution has always been both unscriptural and unscientific, and now it is also illegal, so it would seem that those theistic evolutionists who have argued against having creation taught in the schools have hurt their own cause at least as much as they have that of the creationists.

Christians should encourage the development of parental home schooling and private Christian/creationist schools more than ever before, resisting every effort by secular educationists to influence the teaching in these schools through the pressures and controls of secular or governmental accrediting agencies. Christian churches and publications, as well as the institutions and agencies of other monotheistic faiths, should repudiate all compromising postures on creation, recognizing evolution in any form as the unscientific and harmful religious philosophy that it really is. They should teach their constituents the validity and vital importance of true creationism at every opportunity.

The cause that has suffered most at the hands of the Court by this decision, however, is that of truth. God did not need the permission of Justice Brennan, et al, to create this world nor to convey His Word, the Holy Scriptures, to the world. He has greatly blessed our nation for over 200 years because it was founded on the truth of creation and redemption through Jesus Christ, as revealed in the Bible, and because it has been the greatest national center for spreading the true gospel to every other nation. But now the Court has come perilously close to identifying the United States as an atheistic nation and, as it were, telling our Creator His presence in our national life and public schools is no longer wanted. This does not bode well for the future of our country.

It is futile to continue discussing whether creationism is science or religion. The fact is that supernatural creation is truth, the basis of both true science and true religion, whatever an ill-formed court may say. Evolution is contrary to all the real facts of science, and is the basis of a plethora of false religions and harmful philosophies. Above all, it is contrary to the Word of God, and, as our Supreme Court justices have now implied, even incompatible with belief in any kind of supernatural God at all.

Maybe the Court has done us a favor, after all, by showing to the whole world what evolution really is!

* "Creation-science" is the scientific evidence supporting abrupt appearance in complex form. That evidence includes the abrupt appearance of complex life in the fossil record, the systematic gaps between fossil categories, the genetic limits on possible change, and the vast information content of all living organisms. Seven judges of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals (the lower court decision) forcefully agreed, in a dissenting opinion, that creation-science indeed is scientific, as well as that balanced treatment for a creation-science and evolution indeed is constitutional.