Mclean vs. Arkansas Board of
Education
What is it?
Arkansas approved a statute that required
creation science to be taught if evolution
was taught. Reverend William McLean
and others took offense to the law and
sued the Arkansas Board of Education.
The trial ignited opinions of Christians,
scientists, and others alike.
Background
In 1981, the Governor of Arkansas signed into law
a statue called the Balanced Treatment for
Creation-Science and Evolution Science Act (Act
590). It stated, “Public schools within this State
shall give balanced treatment to creation-science
and to evolution science.” This act essentially said
that in public schools, if evolution was taught so
must creation science be taught. If teachers just
taught evolution in public schools they would be
in violation of the law, because they would have
to dedicate equal time to teaching Creation
Science.
Background
On May 27, 1981, a suit was
filed against the 590 law. The
suit filed stated three pronged
problem: it violated the
establishment clause, violated
the teachers’ free speech, and
violated the Due Process Clause.
Background
The plaintiff consisted to of several different church
representatives such as resident Arkansas Bishops of the United
Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist
Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian
Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist
and Presbyterian clergy. There were also parents and friends of
parents who were plaintiffs. There was also one biology teacher
represented. Different organizations were also listed as plaintiffs
such as American Jewish Congress, the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the
Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of
Biology Teachers and the national Coalition for Public Education
and Religious Liberty, all of which sue on behalf of members
living in Arkansas. Last but not least, there were some plaintiffs
that were Arkansas taxpayers who opposed this law.
Background
The defendants consisted of the
Arkansas Board of Education and its
members, the Director of the
Department of Education, and the State
Textbooks and Instructional materials
selecting committee. Ultimately, the
Pulaski County Special School District, its
directors, and Superintendent were
dismissed from the trial.
What were they really opposing?
Creation science was defined as:
"Creation science means the scientific evidences for creation
and inferences from those evidences. Creation science
includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that
indicate:
Sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing.
The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing
about development of all living kinds of a single organisms.
Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of
plants and animals.
Separate ancestry for man and apes.
Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including
the occurrence of worldwide flood. A relatively recent
inception of the earth and living kinds.”
Plaintiffs’ Testimony
The trial was another monumental religious debate. This attracted attention from
various people of all backgrounds. There was testimony from :
Rev. Kenneth W. Hicks
Fr. Francis Bruce Vawter
Dr. George Marsden
Professor Dorothy Nelkin
Dr. Langdon Gikey
Dr. Michael Ruse
Dr. Francisco Ayala
Senator James Holsted
Dr G Brent Dalrymple
Dr. Harold Morowitz
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould
Dennis Glasgow
Ronald W. Coward
William C. Wood
Ed Bullington
Marianne Wilson
Dr. William Vernon Mayer
Defendants’ Testimony
There was testimony from:
Dr. Norman Geisler
Dr. Larry Parker
Dr. W. Scot Morrow
Jim Townley
Dr. Wayne A. Frair
Dr. Margaret Helder
Dr. Donald Chittick
Dr. Ariel Roth
Dr. Harold Coffin
Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe
Robert V. Gentry
Ruling
On January 5, 1982, the ruling was in. Judge William
Overton concluded that Arkansas Act 590 was not
constitutional. One of the major conclusions he came to
was that Creation Science was not truly a science for the
following reasons:
Science is
1. I t is guided by natural law
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the
final word; and
5. It is falsifiable.
Ruling
In contrast, creation science is
1. Sudden creation "from nothing" is not science because it depends
upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law,
is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is
not falsifiable.
2. "insufficiency of mutation and natural selection" is an incomplete
negative generalization.
3. "changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds" fails as
there is no scientific definition of "kinds", the assertion appears to be
an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species but there
is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural
law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by
natural law.
4. "separate ancestry of man and apes" is a bald assertion which
explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory.
5. Catastrophism and any kind of Genesis Flood depend upon
supernatural intervention, and cannot be explained by natural law.
Ruling
In contrast, creation science is
6. "Relatively recent inception" has no scientific meaning, is not the product of
natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative.
7. No recognized scientific journal has published an article espousing the creation
science theory as described in the Act, and through some witnesses suggested that
the scientific community was “close-minded” and so had not accepted the
arguments, no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been
refused, and suggestions of censorship were not credible.
8. A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or
abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A
theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is
not a scientific theory.
9. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose,
they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the
conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the
course the investigation. The creationists’ methods do not take data, weight it
against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions started in
the Act instead, they take the literal wording of the book of Genesis and attempt to
find scientific support for it.
In the end, the act 590 was unconstitutional and claimed that creation science was not a
factual science free from religious grounds. William R. Overton, the judge, wrote this.
The defendants presented Dr. Larry Parker, a specialist in devising curricula for public schools.
He testified that the public school's curriculum should reflect the subjects the public wants in
schools. The witness said that polls indicated a significant majority of the American public
thought creation science should be taught if evolution was taught. The point of this testimony
was never placed in a legal context. No doubt a sizeable majority of Americans believe in the
concept of a Creator or, at least, are not opposed to the concept and see nothing wrong with
teaching school children the idea.
The application and content of First Amendment principles are not determined by public
opinion polls or by a majority vote. Whether the proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority
or the minority is quite irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no
matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are
the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others.
The Court closes this opinion with a thought expressed eloquently by the great Justice
Frankfurter:
We renew our conviction that "we have stake the very existence of our country on the faith
that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for
religion." Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. at 59. If nowhere else, in the relation
between Church and State, "good fences make good neighbors." [McCollum v. Board of
Education, 333 U.S. 203, 232 (1948)]
An injunction will be entered permanently prohibiting enforcement of Act 590.
It is ordered this January 5, 1982.
Aftermath
After this trial, it revealed a precedent for creation
science. However, even after this there were other trials
that were about creation science. Louisiana also signed
into the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and
Evolution Science Act. Other trials raged on and will
continue to rage on about religious theories or ideas
being in the public eye.
Quiz
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
What belief was questioned throughout the trial?
Science
Intelligent Design
Creationist
Creation Science-
Quiz
2. What was the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science
and Evolution Science Act also called?
a. Act 850
b. Act 750
c. Act 680
d. Act 590-
Quiz
3. Who were the plaintiffs of this case?
a.A biology teacher
b.A reverend
c.Various religious representative and figures
d.Parents
e.Friends of parents
f.Arkansas’ taxpayers
g.All of the Aboveh.None of the Above
Quiz
4. True or False. In creation science’s definition at the time
included believing that there was a worldwide flood.
A.True –
B.False
Quiz
5. True or False. For the plaintiffs’ testimony, it included
people with doctorates, reverends, and others.
A.False
B.True-
Quiz
6. True or False. The defendants’ testimony did not use
any people with doctorates to testify.
A.True
B.False -
Quiz
6. True or False. The defendants’ testimony did not use
any people nationally known scientists and theologians.
A.True
B.False -
Quiz
7. True or False. In the ruling, creation science was
considered not to truly be a science.
A. True B. False
Quiz
8. Which of the following was not considered to be
science’s definition as explained by Judge William
Overton?
a.I t is guided by natural law
b. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law
c. It is testable against the modern world –
d. Its conclusions are tentative
e. It is falsifiable.
Quiz
9. Which is not one of the reasons creation science was ruled not to be used in
public schools?
a.Sudden creation "from nothing" is not science because it depends upon a
supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law, is not explanatory
by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable.
b. "insufficiency of mutation and natural selection" is an incomplete negative
generalization.
c. "separate ancestry of man and apes" is a bald assertion which explains
nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory.
d. Catastrophism and any kind of Genesis Flood depend upon supernatural
intervention, and cannot be explained by natural law.
e. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word –
f. All of the above
Quiz
10. True or false. This case ended the debate and no cases after it ever
consisted of creation science references.
A.False –
B.True
Resources
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/index.ht
m
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas
http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000299
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/mclean-v-arkansas
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/evo/bldec_McCleanAr
kansas.htm