top of page

Flawed Court Decisions Regarding Creation and Evolution


The Establishment Clause – Original Intent

I believe Donald L. Drakeman, a Lecturer in the Department of Politics at Princeton University stated it correctly when he said: “the framers originally intended the establishment clause only as a prohibition against a single national church.”  Too bad it has not been applied that way by the higher courts.

The Courts Are Undermining the Scientific Process

I would like us to look briefly at 10 court decisions that I believe have helped to undermine the whole scientific process.  In science, all viable theories must be included in the process.  Court decisions have made that part of the process impossible.  The courts have also ruled scientific evidence against evolution could not be presented in a science classroom.  That also undermines the scientific process.

I believe all of our Local, Federal and Supreme Court justices should be required to study the Scientific Method, and be tested as to how it works, before being allowed to make decisions on what can or cannot be taught in our public-school science classrooms.  They are ruling against the process.

Consider the Following 10 Flawed Court Decisions:

(1) 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas

An Arkansas statute prohibited the teaching of evolution.  It was ruled to be in violation of the Establishment Clause.  The Clause was applied incorrectly, as we will see later.

(2) 1981 Segraves v. State of California

The court ruled teaching evolution does not violate someone’s freedom of religion.  Teaching evolution as a fact should be considered a violation of someone’s freedom of religion if they are not allowed to compare the two belief systems as to their validity.  Which view does the evidence best support?   

(3) 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education

An Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science." In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science," the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science.  It actually creates confusion when the terms “creation-science” and “evolution-science” are used. They are both philosophical worldview interpretations of the evidence.

(4) 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard

Louisiana's "Creationism Act" prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science." All possible hypotheses are supposed to be considered. That is just good science.

(5) 1990 Webster v. New Lenox School District

Here again the Establishment Clause is wrongly applied.

(6) 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano School District

Evolution is considered science in this case.  Consider however that Atheism and Secular Humanism have both been ruled to be religion in the Supreme Court and district courts.  Should it not also be considered to be so in the public-school classroom?  More on that later.

(7) 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education

It was ruled “disclaimers” could not be put on science book covers regarding evolution to encourage “critical thinking” as it relates to evolution. Critical thinking is supposed to be an important part of the scientific process.

(8) 2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656

A high school biology teacher Rodney LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution.  The court ruled he could only teach evidence in support of evolution, because that was the chosen curriculum.  This again is completely against the scientific process.  The teacher was doing exactly what we are taught to do in the proper use of the Scientific Method.  I used the Scientific Method professionally in the business world for problem solving.  The courts are destroying science as it was intended.  Of course, they are destroying the Establishment Clause as it was intended also.

(9) 2005 Selman v. Cobb County School District

The school wanted to put this disclaimer sticker on the science textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."  The district court judge ruled they had violated the Establishment Clause.  Wrong again.

(10) 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover

In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge John E. Jones III wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".  The courts are allowing the evolutionary establishment to determine if ID is science or not.  Over 1,000 scientists and science educators have determined evolution is NOT good science.

The following 10 determinations were made in those court cases:

(1) Teaching creation in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.

(2) Teaching evolution does not violate someone’s freedom of religion.

(3) Balanced treatment of creation and evolution violates Establishment Clause.

(4) “Creation Science” is not science.

(5) Statutes must have a secular purpose.

(6) Evolution is not religion; it is a scientific theory.

(7) “Intelligent Design” is the same as “Creation Science.”

(8) A teacher cannot teach evidence both for and against evolution.

(9) Disclaimers could not be put on textbooks questioning evolution.

(10) “Intelligent Design” is not a valid scientific theory.

Are “Religions” Being Promoted in Our Public Schools and in Higher Court Decisions?


A system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.  The belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society.


Secular Humanism

An attempt to function as a civilized, secular society with the exclusion of God and any type of absolute moral truth or principles. The primary focus of Humanism is to exclude any kind of supernatural answers from the questions of life. Humanism holds that the universe exists for no purpose. We are the result of a blind and random process that does not necessitate any kind of meaning.  (Sounds like a current biology textbook.)


Scientific Naturalism

Scientific Naturalism is the view that the universe, its characteristics, and its behaviors are to be investigated and understood in purely naturalistic terms.  Everything that exists and everything that occurs is part of the natural universe and is subject to examination.  Scientific Naturalism assumes that the universe is a closed system where all events occur for naturalistic reasons and that there cannot be anything or anyone from outside that system which acts upon it.  Therefore, Scientific Naturalism excludes the possibility of the supernatural and God as an explanation for any phenomena.


That sounds like what is being promoted as “science” in our public-school system.

Atheism Ruled a Religion in Wisconsin

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.  "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the Seventh Circuit declared.  The prison had refused to allow the inmate to create a study group for atheists.  (Just let him teach a biology class, using a current public-school textbook.  It will accomplish the same thing.)


1957 Supreme Court Rules Humanism a Non-Theistic Religion

The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment. (Promoting a humanistic belief in our public schools violates the Establishment Clause.)


1961 Secular Humanism Ruled to Be a Religion in Maryland

The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath "invades appellant's freedom of belief and religion."


Secular Humanism Ruled to Be a Religion in Oregon

November 3, 2014

Atheists Score Major Win in Federal Court

A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.


Why doesn’t the Establishment Clause apply to Atheism and Secular Humanism as it is being promoted in the public-school classrooms, if the courts have ruled they are religion?  I thought the whole idea of the Establishment Clause was so as to not promote one religion over another.

A Leading Anti-Creationist Philosopher Admits That Evolution is a Religion.

Michael Ruse, taught at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada for 35 years. Since his retirement from Guelph, he has taught at Florida State University and is the Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy (2000–present).  Ruse stated:


“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science.  Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.  I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right.  Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”


“Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

My suggestion would be, don’t discuss creation or evolution in a science classroom.  Leave that for a philosophy class about origins.  Separate what we know about this world from what we only believe.  Leave the science classroom for observable, testable, reproducible science.


What Determines the Difference Between Science or Belief?

What should separate “science” from “belief” is the reality of what actually happened in the past.  Did our world start with a big explosion of nothingness, and evolve into its present state; or was it created and formed supernaturally?  Shouldn’t discovering the reality of what actually happened be the goal of scientific endeavor?


All of those flawed Higher Court decisions need to be challenged and overturned.  We also need a whole new set of guidelines for public-school education.

bottom of page