Creationism, Censorship, and Academic Freedom Author(s): Susan P. Sturm Reviewed work(s): Source: Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 7, No. 40 (Summer, 1982), pp. 54-56 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/688788 . Accessed: 10/01/2012 13:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science, Technology, & Human Values.
http://www.jstor.org
STHV* Summer 1982
54
SUSAN
Creationism,Censorship, and AcademicFreedom IIII
IIIII
P. STURM
Staff Counsel American Civil Liberties Union New York, NY 10036
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Fighting Creationism in the public schools is essential to the preservation of First Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The real issue raised by the campaign to teach Creationism in the public schools is religious freedom. In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and other cases throughout the country, the courts have shown that the covert aim of this campaign is to use creationist doctrine to mask the introduction of religious teaching, contrary to the First Amendment prohibition against any "law respecting an establishment of religion." As Judge Overton noted in McLean v. Arkansas, "The Establishment Clause enshrines two central values: voluntarism and pluralism. And it is in the area of the public schools that these values must be guarded most vigilantly." Many years ago, Justice Frankfurter had captured the particular importance of the Establishment Clause in the context of the public schools: Designed to serve as perhaps the most powerful agency for promoting cohesion among a heterogeneous democratic people, the public school must keep scrupulously free from entanglement in the strife of sects. The preservation of the community from divisive conflicts, of Government from irreconcilable pressures by religious groups, of religion from censorship and coercion however subtly exercised, requires strict confinement of the State to instruction other than religious, leaving to the individual's church and home, indoctrination in the faith of his choice [McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 216-217 (1948)]. "Creation-science" is rooted in a profound desire to circumvent the First Amendment. The creationists' own writings, in fact, attest to their campaign to insinuate religious doctrines in the
I
public schools. For example, a funding letter from the Creation Science Research Center contains the following language: "We already have a Statemandated religion of atheism-of Godlessnessof satanism-and no church training of one hour a week will overcome this onslaught of anti-God teaching in the classroom. The church must get involved." Such clear rejection of the concept of neutrality embodied in the Establishment Clause is evident throughout the "creation-science" literature. The creationists, conscious that this position is not legally or politically defensible, have attempted instead to frame the Creationism debate in terms more palatable to the general public. Judge Overton found this to be the case in Arkansas. The proponents of Creationism showed an awareness that Act 590-the Creationism Act-"is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact." By developing a pseudoscience that plays on the public's fear and ignorance of science, the creationists thus disguise their true purpose. They avoid direct references to God, use labels and catch phrases to disguise the religious aspects and publish differing public and private school editions of their materials. How, then, do the creationists approach lawyers, scientists, and educators who are unlikely to be misled by the pseudo-science? First, the creationists have attempted (and to some extent successfully) to confound the legal and academic communities by posing the creation-science issue in terms of censorship and academic freedom. This approach ignores and distorts the meaning of those concepts, and is but a thinly veiled challenge to the First Amendment. When attention is focused not on the political statements and characterizations of creationists,
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, & HUMAN VALUES, VOL. 7, NO. 40, SUMMER 1982 0162-2439/82/030054-03 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
$02.50/0 ? 1982
Sturm
but insteadon the substanceof creation-science, it is apparentthat there is no merit to the creationists' chargeof censorship.The claim is, in fact, basedon the faulty and dangerousassumption that creation-scienceis science and not religion. This assumption cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny.
2 rt
Nowhere was this clearerthan in the courtroom in Arkansas.There, a group of parents, teachers,and clergybroughtan action challenging the constitutionalityof Act 590, which required "balanced treatment" of "creation-science"and "evolution-science." In the courtroom, the proponentsof the Creationismact could not rely on labels, catch-phrases,or political sympathies.Their claims and contentionswere subject to scrutinyunder the rules of evidence and the legal standardsdevelopedto determineviolations of the EstablishmentClause of the First Amendment: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;second,its principalorprimaryeffectmust be one that neitheradvancesnor inhibits religion, finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive governmententanglementwith religion.'
Followingthis standard,plaintiffsundertookto is religion,andthat provethat "creation-science" there is no secular justificationfor includingit in the public school curriculum. Enactmentof Act 590 was religiously motivated; "creation-science"is not science, and it has no educationalmerit as science. But it was the creationiststhemselves who providedproof of the religiouspurpose,eitherthroughtheir correspondence(introducedas evidence)or through the testimony of the proponentsof the Creationism act. Eminenttheologianstestified about the natureof Fundamentalismandthe religiouscharacterof creation-science.Reputablescientiststestifiedconcerningcreation-science's failureto meet the criteriaof science. Prominenteducatorstestified concerningthe harmfuleffect of teaching creation-science. The state, seeking to upholdthe constitutionality of the Creationismact, called a series of
55
witnesses who identifiedthemselves as creation scientists and claimedto show that creation-science is genuinely scientific. Most of their testimony consisted of criticism of variousscientific theories they labelled as "evolution-science." Based on their critique of molecular genetics, paleontology,radiometricdating,astronomy,and other scientific disciplines, the witnesses concluded that evolution was disproven,and that this in turn proves the validity of the creation theoryembodiedin the Bookof Genesis.Indeed, most of the "creation-scientists"who testified had,as a conditionformembershipin a creationscience association, taken an oath stating that the Bible is the written word of God, and its assertionshistoricallyand scientificallytrue. A theologiantestifyingfor the state attempted to minimize the religious content of "creationscience" by drawinga distinction between the belief in God and the belief that God exists, a distinctionwhich, as the Courtfound,is contrary to commonunderstandingandcontradictssettled case law. The judge'sopinion clearly demonstratesthat creation-scienceis religion,not science. He finds that the evidence"establishesthat the definition of 'creation-science'containedin [theAct] has as its unmentionedreferencethe first eleven chapters of the Bookof Genesis.' He foundthat "the two-modelapproachof the creationistsis simply a contriveddualismthat has no scientificfactual basisor legitimateeducationalpurpose."He concluded that creation-sciencehas no scientific merit or educationalvalue as science, and that "the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion." It is in this light that the creationists'contention that keepingCreationismout of the public schools violates academic freedom and constitutes censorship-a contentionthat has no basis in law or fact-must be evaluated.The defendants in the Arkansascase attemptedto suggest that the scientific community censors creation scientists. The judgeput this assertionto rest, noting that no witness producedevidence of a scientific article that had been submitted to a scientific journal and been rejected.Thus, the creationistsdidnot sustainthe claimof censorship. Moreimportantly,claims of academicfreedom and censorshipare red herrings.To the exten.~ that creationists'work presentsvalid andscientificcritiques,hypotheses,or experiments,it may be included in the science curriculum;but, the
56
STHV* Summer 1982
critiqueof science-to the extent that there is any validity to it-is simply the first step of creation-science.The secondstep is the leapto Genesis, which embodiesthe organizingprincipleof Creationism. The FirstAmendmentexists to preventindoctrinationof a particularreligious view. By prohibitingthe teachingof Creationismin the public schools,the courtsare not implyingthat science is more corrector more importantthan religion orany otherway of understandingthe world.Nor does the FirstAmendmentprohibitionstifle creationist thought or publication of their ideas. They have substantialresourcesand intellectual freedom."Creationism"may be (and,indeed,is) vigorouslypresentedand advocatedin the appropriateforum.Rather,the exclusion of "creationscience" from the public schools preservesthe rightsof individualsto be free from the imposition of a state-sponsoredorthodoxy. Preservation of FirstAmendmentprinciplesto which the AmericanCivil LibertiesUnion is dedicatedthus requiresoppositionto the teachingof "creationscience"in the public schools.
MajorCreation-ScienceAssociations Citizens for Fairnessin Education(est. 1978} 2820 LeConteRoad Anderson,SC 29821 CreationResearchSociety{est. 1963) c/o MembershipSecretary 2717 CranbrookRoad Ann Arbor,MI 48104 CreationScience ResearchCenter(est. 1970) P.O.Box 23195 San Diego, CA 92123 Institute for CreationResearch(est. 1972) 2100 GreenfieldDrive E1Cajon,CA 92021 Studentsfor OriginsResearch P.O. Box 203 Goleta, CA 93116 Selected Creation-SciencePublications Duane T. Gish. Evolution-The Fossils
Say No!, public school edition (San Diego, CA: Creation-LifePublishers, 1978). Henry M. Morris. Scientific Creationism
(SanDiego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers,1974);public school edition publishedin 1976. Gary E. Parker. Creation: The Facts of
Life (SanDiego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers,1979).
JohnC. Whitcomband HenryM. Morris. The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA:
The Presbyterianand Reformed PublishingCo., 1961).
R. L. Wysong. The Creation-Evolution
Controversy(EastLansing,MI: InquiryPress, 1976).
