Science, houses, stones, and creation …

We had a lively debate today in Constitutional Law regarding a series of cases regarding creationism in school science curriculum. The primary case is Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, (1987), a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1987. In it, the Court struck down a Louisiana law that required ‘creation science’ to be taught whenever evolution was taught as part of science curriculum, and vice versa. The Court held the law was a violation of the Establishment Clause, part of the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …” It held that the law was passed specifically to require teaching of creation science in public schools with the purpose of advancing and endorsing a particular religious doctrine.

Also mentioned was a more recent case from Pennsylvania in which a school district required ‘intelligent design’ to be taught in science classes. That law was struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause by the local Federal district court because, among other reasons, evidence existed that the textbook publisher cut ‘creation science’ and pasted ‘intelligent design’ in its textbook after Edwards. One typo, as relayed in class, was “crintelligent designce.”

The point of my post is this: Creationism is not science and does not belong in a science curriculum. I’m glad courts have been able to see past the smoke and excise creationism from public school science curriculum. Even my Catholic high school taught evolution in science classes without any need to add disclaimers or to limit the scope of the subject. Then again, it was college preparatory with an eye towards building young men who were ready for college.

Here is a good quote I just ran across that I think sums the whole debate of creationism versus evolution in school:

“Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.” – Henri Poincare

Seeing that quote is actually what prompted me to make this post.

I’d like to make an additional note regarding this case. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, showed he really doesn’t care as much for original intent as he claims he does in other cases and his public speeches. He says in several places that determining original intent is nearly impossible.

  • “discerning the subjective motivation of those enacting the statute is, to be honest, almost always and impossible task.”
  • “legislative histories can be contrived and sanitized, favorable media coverage orchestrated, and postenactment recollections conveniently distorted.”
  • “determining the subjective intent of the legislators is a perilous enterprise.”

Fun stuff. 😉