1. The Teaching of Evolution Pages 69-75 By Gerald Card

2. Title and Citation Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court of the United States, 1987 482 U.S. 578

3. Level or Type of Court Supreme Court of the United States

4. Facts Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in public school instruction Act adopted as Law in Arkansas and Louisiana La.Rev.Stat.Ann.17:286.1- 17:286.7 Law states Biblical account of creation is a scientific theory and deserved equal time in the classroom It forbids teaching evolution unless accompanied by creationism

5. Issue The sponsor Senator Bill Keith meant to narrow the curriculum by eliminating both The act supplied creation science guides, research services, only creation scientists could serve on panels for resource services, and the act protects creationism teachers and not evolution Epperson v. Arkansas tried to stop evolution without adding a religious aspect-it was denied because of their motivation was to stop the only theory that denied divine creation

6. Holding 1 st Amendment – State cannot require that teaching and learning be tailored to principles and prohibition of any religious sect Creationism has a supernatural creator and conforms to belief of a particular religious viewpoint Acts violates the 1 st amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of the government to achieve a religious purpose

7. Holding Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist felt the act constitutional even though the motivation behind it was unconstitutional ultimately defeated 7-2.

8. Legal Doctrine The 1 st Amendment-prohibition against establishment of religion The courts decision affirms the Establishment clause of the 1 st amendment because it took the motivation of the proposed law into account. The motivation was not to teach creationism, but to stop the teaching of a topic that denies creationism. If this was found constitutional the U.S. Government would have been backing religious ideals.

9. Significance Creationism has evolved into Intelligent Design The battle continues with Freiler v. Tangephoa Parish Board of Education, 185 F. 3d 337 (5 th Cir 1999) A disclaimer is issued before teaching evolution. Found unconstitutional because it protected and maintained a particular religious viewpoint. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (PA.2005) involved pointing out the gaps and problems in evolution and intelligent design. Found unconstitutional because ID is coupled with creationism and is not a science.