Mclean vs. Arkansas Board of Education

1
Mclean vs. Arkansas Board of Education
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
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.
6
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.
7
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.
8
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
9
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
10
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
• 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.

11
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.
12
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.
13
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.
14
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.
15
Quiz

• What belief was questioned throughout the trial?
• Science
• Intelligent Design
• Creationist
• Creation Science-

16
Quiz

• 2. What was the Balanced Treatment for
  Creation-Science and Evolution Science Act also
  called?
• Act 850
• Act 750
• Act 680
• Act 590-

17
Quiz

• 3. Who were the plaintiffs of this case?
• A biology teacher
• A reverend
• Various religious representative and figures
• Parents
• Friends of parents
• Arkansas taxpayers
• All of the Above-
• None of the Above

18
Quiz

• 4. True or False. In creation sciences
  definition at the time included believing that
  there was a worldwide flood.
• True
• False

19
Quiz

• 5. True or False. For the plaintiffs testimony,
  it included people with doctorates, reverends,
  and others.
• False
• True-

20
Quiz

• 6. True or False. The defendants testimony did
  not use any people with doctorates to testify.
• True
• False -

21
Quiz

• 6. True or False. The defendants testimony did
  not use any people nationally known scientists
  and theologians.
• True
• False -

22
Quiz

• 7. True or False. In the ruling, creation science
  was considered not to truly be a science.
• True -
• B. False

23
Quiz

• 8. Which of the following was not considered to
  be sciences definition as explained by Judge
  William Overton?
• 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.

24
Quiz

• 9. Which is not one of the reasons creation
  science was ruled not to be used in public
  schools?
• 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

25
Quiz

• 10. True or false. This case ended the debate and
  no cases after it ever consisted of creation
  science references.
• False
• True

26
Resources
http//www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_s
ite/index.htm   http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mc
lean-v-arkansas.html   http//en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/McLean_v._Arkansas   http//aclu.procon.org/view
.resource.php?resourceID000299   http//ncse.com/
creationism/legal/mclean-v-arkansas   http//athei
sm.about.com/library/decisions/evo/bldec_McCleanAr
kansas.htm