{"id":1295,"date":"2025-02-18T19:06:29","date_gmt":"2025-02-18T19:06:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/?p=1295"},"modified":"2025-02-18T19:06:29","modified_gmt":"2025-02-18T19:06:29","slug":"adam-and-eve-go-to-school","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/2025\/02\/18\/adam-and-eve-go-to-school\/","title":{"rendered":"Adam and Eve Go to School"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An enduring dispute in American public education concerns teaching about human origins and whether students must receive instruction solely on evolution or can learn about the Genesis account of creation in science classes. A recent Indiana case, <em>Reinoehl v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation,<\/em> demonstrates how this dispute lingers on, almost a century after the first case on teaching about evolution was resolved in the infamous \u201cScopes Monkey Trial.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In July 1925 a teacher admitted to violating Tennessee state law by discussing evolution in class rather than the biblical account of creation. He was fined $100, but post-trial evidence suggests he did not actually teach evolution; his admission was part of a plan to get the case to a higher court. Two years later, in 1927, in <em>Scopes v. State<\/em>, the Supreme Court of Tennessee left the statute criminalizing teaching about evolution in place but overturned the teacher\u2019s conviction. The decision in<em>Scopes<\/em>, which reverberated around the nation, was actually based on a legal technicality. The state supreme court said the lower court judge had improperly assessed a fine that could have been imposed only by a jury, adding there was \u201cnothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Most recently, in 2024, in <em>Reinoehl<\/em> parents in Indiana sued, claiming that \u201cbecause the atheistic Theory of Evolution specifically attacks the Judeo-Christian origin story,\u201d teaching it violated both federal and state constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court rejected the parents\u2019 reliance on the now-repudiated 1971 <em>Lemon v. Kurtzman<\/em> test that teaching evolution \u201chas the purpose and effect of advancing the atheist religion,\u201d resulting in \u201cthe entanglement of the state with religion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dismissing the claims, a federal trial court judge found that despite assertions to the contrary, \u201cthe purported similarities between evolution and atheism do not render the teaching of evolution in public schools violative of the establishment clause, which has never been understood to prohibit government conduct that incidentally \u2018coincide[s] or harmonize[s] with the tenets of some or all religions.\u2019\u2005\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To better place <em>Reinoehl<\/em> in context, it is worth noting that on the two occasions the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue it forbade teaching the Genesis account of creation in science classes. In 1968\u2019s <em>Epperson v. Arkansas<\/em> the Court struck down a 1928 statute adopted shortly after <em>Scopes <\/em>that outlawed teaching about evolution in state-supported schools, including higher education. The justices ruled that the law violated the First Amendment establishment clause because it was designed to prevent teaching Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution based on its supposed conflict with the biblical account of creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Later, in 1987\u2019s <em>Edwards v. Aguillard<\/em>, the Supreme Court invalidated a statute from Louisiana banning the teaching of \u201cevolution science\u201d in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction on \u201ccreation-science.\u201d The justices overturned the law for lacking an identified secular purpose and its primary purpose, to advance a particular religious belief, namely Christianity, impermissibly endorsed religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Lower federal courts consistently reached similar outcomes. For example, in 1999 the Fifth Circuit, in another disagreement from Louisiana, <em>Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education<\/em>, invalidated a resolution repudiating evolution theory after officials failed to introduce \u201ccreation science\u201d into the curriculum as a legitimate scientific alternative. The court vitiated the board\u2019s action because it neither promoted its articulated objective of encouraging informed freedom of belief or critical thinking nor advanced the purposes of disclaiming orthodoxy of belief and reducing offense to the sensibilities of students or parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A newer battleground in disagreements over human origins emerged in Pennsylvania in 2005. In <em>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District<\/em> a federal trial court invalidated a board policy about teaching intelligent design in high school biology classes that would have required students to hear a statement offering it as an alternative to Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution. The court disallowed the policy both because it endorsed religion in violation of the establishment clause and failed to satisfy the then in effect <em>Lemon<\/em> test, insofar as its primary purpose was to change the biology curriculum to advance religion along with having the primary effect of imposing a faith-based perspective in the course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Respecting Religious Belief<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While public school officials cannot include instruction about the biblical account of creation in science classes, litigation has arisen over how educators treat students who voice their religious beliefs on this issue. A troubling 2011 case from California, <em>C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District<\/em>, focused on a teacher\u2019s criticism of a high school student\u2019s beliefs in the Genesis creation account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the student\u2019s claims against the teacher, who described religion as \u201csuperstitious nonsense\u201d and demonstrated hostility to religion in general, Christianity specifically. The court granted the teacher\u2019s motion for qualified immunity because it thought the law regulating his behavior was not clearly established. The court further denied the student\u2019s request for relief as moot because he had graduated, rationalizing that educators need \u201cleeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills and develop their analytical abilities.\u201d The <em>C.F.<\/em> case is problematic, as it raises concerns about why the court and school officials would enable a teacher to speak so disrespectfully to a student who expresses his religious beliefs in class discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 1963 companion cases prohibiting prayer and Bible reading before classes in public schools in Pennsylvania and Maryland, respectively, <em>School District of Abington Township v. Schempp<\/em> and <em>Murray v. Curlett<\/em>, the Supreme Court made a noteworthy statement in nonbinding dicta. Perhaps attempting to allay fears they were anti-religious, the justices commented that \u201cit certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.\u201d In a concurring opinion Justice William Brennan wrote that \u201cthe holding of the Court today plainly does not foreclose teaching about the Holy Scriptures or about the differences between religious sects in classes in literature or history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At the same time, the Supreme Court\u2019s remarks in <em>Abington<\/em> open the door to an interesting possibility. That is, while public school educators cannot teach the Genesis account of human origins in science classes, questions emerge about whether it might have a place elsewhere in curricula.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Having taught global studies, albeit in a Catholic, rather than public, high school, I believe an argument can be made that as long as classes are designed to inform students objectively about different cultures and their beliefs, including on human origins, such instruction would be beneficial to their intellectual growth. Learning about the teachings of different faiths is valuable because it can help students demonstrate respect for the beliefs of others in our increasingly religiously diverse society. After all, education is supposed to broaden student horizons, including those on such sensitive topics as human origins and religious freedom.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>An enduring dispute in American public education concerns teaching about human origins and whether students must receive instruction solely on evolution or can learn about the Genesis account of creation in science classes. A recent Indiana case, Reinoehl v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, demonstrates how this dispute lingers on, almost a century after the first case<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1297,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-liberty"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1295"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1295\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1298,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1295\/revisions\/1298"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1297"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}