Edwards v. Aguillard

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 schools 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."

The divine comedy
Creationism
Running gags
Jokes aside
Blooper reel
v - t - e
Edwards v. Aguillard
482 U.S. 578
Decided: June 19, 1987

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 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 "a basic concept of fairness, teaching all the evidence."[1][2]

Reactions by the creationists
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[3]. The creationists didn't keep records properly, and thus the 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.

gollark: I think Python is a good language to start learning things with.
gollark: Apparently whoever wrote the specifications for what people learn in "computer science" thought it was important that people know about this, and for consistency or something they designed their own assembly language (which does not actually run on anything).
gollark: (technically a family of them, but whatever)
gollark: Assembly is basically a very low-level language which directly compiles to machine code, which is what the CPU hardware runs.
gollark: The assembly language is actually reasonable and vaguely ARM-like.

See also
  • Edwards v. Aguillard decision
  • ] December 10, 1986 Supreme Court oral argument in Edwards v. Aguillard

References
  1. David G. Savage, Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court
  2. Oral Argument Transcript
  3. See from 57:20-1:00:45 in this video on youtube: Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
This article is issued from Rationalwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.