Source: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/courtrulings.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:30:00+00:00

Document:
The following rulings are some of the most significant court decisions regarding State-Church Separation and Creationism.
In 1961, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court held that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The Court unanimously ruled that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause. See Article VI., Clause 3, of the US Constitution.
In the 1980 case of Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments cannot be posted within the public schools. The ruling stated that the Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985, the high court voted 6-3 to strike down an Alabama law requiring public schools to set aside a moment of silence for meditation or prayer. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: "Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Mohammedism or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of con science protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."
The following rulings are some of the most significant court decisions regarding Evolution and Creationism.
In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine.
In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the Court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its anti-dogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class distinctions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how," not "ultimate cause," and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to widely disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning issues of origins.
In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science." In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science," the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution. While the subject of life's origins is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator.
In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held, 7-2, the Louisiana's "Creationism Act," unconstitutional. This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science." The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught.
In 1990, in Webster v. New Lennox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated, and religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science," since it is a form of religious advocacy.
In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism," the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class.
In 1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that it specifically stated that the only concept from which students were not to be dissuaded was "the Biblical concept of Creation," and that students were already urged in all their classes to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to... other religious views." Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science." On August 13, 1999, the 5th circuit court of appeals affirmed the ruling. On June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Board's appeal, thus letting the lower court’s decision stand.
 FFRF - Is America a Christian Nation?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.