Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426 (ED La.1985), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251 (CA5 1985). The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. In its decision, the court opined 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."

In support of Aguillard, 72 Nobel Prize-winning scientists, 17 state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations filed amicus briefs that described creation science as being composed of religious tenets.

Background

Modern American creationism arose from the theological split over modernist higher criticism and its rejection by the fundamentalist Christian movement, which promoted biblical literalism and, post 1920, took up the anti-evolution cause led by William Jennings Bryan. The teaching of evolution had become a common part of the public school curriculum, but his campaign was based on the idea that "Darwinism" had caused German militarism and threatened traditional religion and morality. Several states passed legislation to ban or restrict the teaching of evolution. The Tennessee Butler Act was tested in the Scopes trial of 1925, and continued in effect with the result that many schools did not teach evolution.

When the United States sought to catch up in science during the 1960s with new teaching standards, which reintroduced evolution, the creation science movement arose, presenting what was claimed to be scientific evidence supporting young Earth creationism. Attempts were made to reintroduce legal bans, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1968's Epperson v. Arkansas that bans on teaching evolutionary biology are unconstitutional as they violate the establishment clause of the United States Constitution, which forbids the government from advancing a particular religion.

In the early 1980s, several states attempted to introduce creationism alongside the teaching of evolution, and the Louisiana legislature passed a law, authored by State Senator Bill P. Keith of Caddo Parish, entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." The Act did not require teaching either creationism or evolution, but did require that, if evolutionary science was taught, then "creation science" must be taught as well. Creationists lobbied aggressively for the law. The stated purpose of the Act was to protect "academic freedom". Counsel for the state later admitted at the Supreme Court oral argument that the "legislature may not [have] used the term 'academic freedom' in the correct legal sense. They might have [had] in mind, instead, a basic concept of fairness; teaching all the evidence." Governor David C. Treen signed the bill into law in 1981.

The District Court in Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426 (ED La.1985), and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 765 F.2d 1251 (CA5 1985), ruled against Louisiana, finding that its actual purpose in enacting the statute was to promote the religious doctrine of "creation science". An Arkansas District Court previously held in a 1982 decision in McLean v. Arkansas that a similar "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Arkansas did not appeal the loss. Creationists believed the statute at issue in Edwards v. Aguillard had a better chance of passing constitutional muster, and so Louisiana appealed its loss in the trial and appellate courts to the Supreme Court.

The case was styled Edwards v. Aguillard because by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, Edwin Edwards had succeeded David Treen as governor of Louisiana, which was being sued, and Don Aguillard, a science teacher and assistant principal at Acadiana High School in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, was the lead original plaintiff in District Court among a group of Louisiana teachers, students, parents, scientists, and clergy.

Result
On June 19, 1987, the Supreme Court, in a seven-to-two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:
 The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
 The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
 The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

The Supreme Court held that the Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose (first part of the above Lemon test), since (a) the Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom", and (b) the Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.

However, it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:

The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom", that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute".

Dissent
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissented, accepting the Act's stated purpose of "protecting academic freedom" as a sincere and legitimate secular purpose. They interpreted the term "academic freedom" to refer to "students' freedom from indoctrination", in this case their freedom "to decide for themselves how life began, based upon a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence". However, they also criticized the first prong of the Lemon test, noting that "to look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does not exist".

Consequences and aftermath
The ruling was one in a series of developments addressing issues related to the American creationist movement and the separation of church and state. The scope of the ruling affected public schools and did not include independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools, which remained free to teach creationism.

During the case, creationists worked on a creationist biology textbook, with the hope of a huge market if the appeal went their way. Drafts were given various titles, including Biology and Creation. After the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, the authors changed the terms "creation" and "creationists" in the text to "intelligent design" and "design proponents", and the book was published as Of Pandas and People. This supplementary textbook for school use attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the "intelligent designer". Promotion of intelligent design creationism by the intelligent design movement eventually led to the textbook's use in a school district being challenged in another court case. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District went to trial on September 26, 2005, and was decided in U.S. District Court on December 20, 2005, in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139-page opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research. Because the Dover school board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wendell Bird served as a special assistant attorney general for Louisiana in the case and later became a staff attorney for the Institute for Creation Research and Association of Christian Schools International. Bird later authored books promoting creationism and teaching it in public schools.

See also
 Scopes trial

References

Further reading

External links
 

American Civil Liberties Union litigation
Establishment Clause case law
Public education in Louisiana
United States creationism and evolution case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
United States Supreme Court cases
1987 in religion
1987 in United States case law
에드워드-아귈라드 재판(Edwards v. Aguillard)은 1986년 12월 10일부터 1987년 6월 19일까지 진행된 재판이다.

미국 연방 대법원에서 창조설은 과학 이론이 아님을 결정한 판례이며, 이 판례로 미국의 공립학교에서 창조설을 가르치는 행위가 전면 금지되었다.

진행 과정

아귈라드의 소송 
재판은 루이지애나 주법이 계기가 되었다. 재판 이전까지 루이지애나 주에서는 창조설과 진화론은 동등기회법에 의해 동등하게 교육할 기회를 제공하도록 되어있었다. 이에 루이지애나 주 라파이예트의 고등학교 생물 교사였던 도날드 아귈라드는 해당 법 조항이 미국 수정 헌법 제 1조인 '종교 설립에 대한 규정'을 위반한다고 주장하였고, 루이지애나 주지사인 에드워드를 상대로 소송을 걸었다.

지방 법원의 듀플랜티에 판사는 창조설이 수정 헌법 조항에 위배된다고 판결하였고, 루이지애나 주에서는 항소를 걸었으나 상소된 순회 항소 법원에서도 역시 위헌 판결이 나왔다. 하지만 이 과정에서 해당 법률이 연방 대법원에서 심리할 필요성이 생겼고, 결국 소송은 연방대법원에서 결정하게 되었다. 

연방 대법원에서 진화론 측의 대표자는 제이 톱키스와 ACLU, 창조설 측은 창조설자인 웬델 버드가 대표를 맡았다. 제이 톱키스는 창조설이 과학 이론이 아닌 종교적 동기에서 비롯된 것이라고 주장했다. 하지만 대법원장인 윌리엄 렌키스트와 대법관 안토닌 스칼리아는 종교적인 의도 없이도 창조설을 주장할 수 있다고 보았고, 창조설자가 주장하는 '균등한 교육 시간의 할당'에 창조설의 종교적인 의도는 문제가 되지 않는다고 주장했다.

과학계의 반응 
재판이 창조설에게 유리하게 진행되자, 진화론 측은 창조설의 종교적 동기의 유무가 아닌 창조설의 과학적인 내용이 존재하는가 라는 내용으로 변론의 방향을 돌리기로 결정했다. 이를 위해 중도에 재판에 참가한 제프리 레먼 변호사가 기초를 잡고, 기타 과학자들이 의견을 보충한 법정 조언자 의견서가 제출되었다. 이 의견서에는 72명의 노벨상 수상자, 17개 주 과학 협회, 그 밖에 7개 과학 단체 소속의 과학자들이 명단에 올라와 있었다.

이 의견서에서 과학자들은 과학과 과학적 방법을 정의하고, 시험 불가능하며 초자연적인 설명이 과학에 속하지 않음을 증명했다. 그리고 창조설은 이러한 과학적 탐구 및 방법을 적용하지 않으며, 루이지애나의 동등기회법은 다른 과학 이론과 달리 진화론만을 공격하므로 일관되지 못하고, 결과적으로 특정 종교를 옹호하는 목적을 수행한다고 주장했다.

창조설자의 반응 
의견서의 내용이 공개되자 창조설자들은 과학계가 겁에 질렸다고 선전했다. 선전의 내용으로는 '노벨상 수상자가 진화론/창조론 문제를 더 잘 알고 있는것은 아니다', '과학자의 자격이 있는 사람 중 창조설을 지지하는 사람이 수천명이나 있다' 등이 있었다.

과학자들의 승소 
1987년 6월 19일에 내려진 판결은 7:2의 표결로 진화론 측의 승리였다. 판결문에는 루이지애나 주의 동등기회법이 종교적 목적을 가지고 있음에 틀립없으며, 이는 수정 헌법의 종교에 대한 규정을 위반했으므로 무효라는 결정을 내렸다.  안토닌 스칼리아와 윌리엄 렌키스트는 "순수하게 비종교적인 목적으로 진화론에 대한 비판을 가할 수는 있다."라는 법령이 합헌이라는 소수 의견을 냈으나 전체적인 판결의 방향을 바꾸진 못하였다.

결과 
이 판결의 결과로 창조설은 분명히 종교적 의도를 가진 주장이며, 이를 진화론과 함께 가르치려는 시도 또한 종교적 의도에 기반한 것이라는 판례가 등장함으로서 창조설은 공식적인 위치에서 완전히 쫓겨나게 되었다.
그러나 공립학교에서 쫓겨난 것이지, 창조설을 신봉하는 사람들은 홈스쿨링 등에서 암암리에 창조설을 학생에게 가르치고 있다. 그리고 몇몇 바이블 벨트 주의 학교에서는 여전히 진화론을 삭제하고 창조설을 가르치려는 시도를 하고 있다.

의의 
재판의 진행 추이를 보고 경악한 모든 과학자들이 모여서 일관된 의견을 주장했다는 것은 과학사적으로도 의미가 크다. 과학자 공동체(그리고 과학자 개인들)는 일반적으로 매우 독립적인 성향을 지녔으며 서로 논쟁을 통해 접촉하는 경우가 잦은데, 이런 이들이 한데 모여서 한 목소리를 냈다는 것이다. 과학자 자신들도 과학이 뭔지 물어보면 잘 대답하지 못했던 경우가 잦았지만 이한 동기 덕에 과학적 방법론을 통해 축적되는 지식 체계로서의 과학을 정의하는 움직임도 활기를 찾게 되었다. 그렇게 과학자들이 집결해 대항한 이유는 다름아니라, 창조설이 진화론뿐 아니라 과학 전체를 무너뜨리려고 시도했던 탓에 과학자들 자신이 공격받고 있다고 느꼈기 때문으로 볼 수 있다.

같이 보기 
 스콥스 재판

미국 대법원 판례