Edwards v. Aguillard

{{title-italics}}{{creationism}}{{caselaw|Edwards v. Aguillard|482 U.S. 578|June 19, 1987}}
'''''Edwards v. Aguillard''''' was a case heard by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in 1987. The Court ruled that a [[Louisiana]] law requiring that [[creation science]] be taught in [[public school]]s alongside [[evolution]] was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

==Stevens and "Academic Freedom"==
During the Supreme Court oral argument, (former) Justice John Paul Stevens challenged the assertion by creation science defender Wendell Bird that the purpose of the statute was to promote [[Intelligent design and academic freedom|academic freedom]]: "May I ask about academic freedom for a moment? Would you say it would advance academic freedom if the school was told you cannot teach a student German unless he's also willing to study French?" Bird eventually replied — after trying to avoid the question several times — "Yes, it would", claiming the purpose was "[[balance fallacy|a basic concept of fairness]], [[teach the controversy|teaching all the evidence]]."<ref>David G. Savage, ''Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court''</ref><ref>[http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513 Oral Argument Transcript]</ref>

==Reactions by the creationists==
[[File:Forrest_chart2_2005.preview.png|thumb|300px|Use of the terms "creationism" versus "intelligent design" in sequential drafts of the book ''Of Pandas and People''.]]

In the creationist textbook ''[[Of Pandas and People]]'', the occurrence of the phrases "creationism" and "intelligent design" drastically changed around 1987, some time right after the trial.<ref>See from 57:20-1:00:45 in this video on youtube: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg Ken Miller on Intelligent Design]</ref>

The creationists didn't [[Burning the evidence|keep records properly]], and thus the [[cdesign proponentsists|missing link]] was discovered between [[intelligent design]] and [[creation science]]. This sealed the fate of 
creation science
 '''intelligent design''' in ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]''.

==See also==
*[[Creationism in public education]]
*[[Intelligent design]]
*''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]''
*''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]''
*[[Scopes trial]]

== External links== 
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html] ''Edwards v. Aguillard decision''
* [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1513/argument] December 10, 1986 Supreme Court oral argument in ''Edwards v. Aguillard''
* [https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/765/765.F2d.1251.85-3030.html] Appeals court decision for ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' complete with text of the offending legislation in the appendix

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{crebox}}

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Assessing pseudoscience]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:First Amendment cases]]
[[Category:Constitutional law]]
[[Category:Teach the controversy]]

Categories: Creationism, Assessing pseudoscience, United States Supreme Court cases, First Amendment cases, Constitutional law, Teach the controversy