Disputes between religious groups and scientists sometimes begin when an interpretation of a sacred text becomes a rule about what may be taught. In twentieth-century American public schools, the question became concrete. Could a state forbid a biology teacher from explaining human evolution? Could it require creation science alongside it? Three disputes show how beliefs about human origins became arguments about textbooks, the purposes of legislation and the standards used to decide what belongs in a science class. Tennessee State Library and Archives, Butler Act Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 National Academies, Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Tennessee made an interpretation into a rule for teachers
Tennessee’s 1925 Butler Act applied to teachers in institutions supported by state public funds. Its language linked two ideas. It barred teaching a theory that denied the biblical account of divine creation of humanity and taught instead that human beings descended from a lower order of animals. The statute gave that reading of human origins an enforceable place in the classroom. Teaching was no longer a matter of deciding which biological explanation the available evidence supported. A teacher also had to consider whether an explanation would expose them to prosecution. Tennessee State Library and Archives, Butler Act Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97
John Scopes was prosecuted under the act in Dayton in July 1925. The trial made a local classroom controversy visible to people outside Tennessee. It is also a reminder that a law can have a narrow target and a wider educational effect. The act concerned teaching human origins, but its existence gave teachers a reason to avoid an account of common ancestry in biology lessons. A student might encounter the subject in a textbook and find that a teacher’s ability to discuss it was constrained by law. Tennessee State Library and Archives, Butler Act Library of Congress Scopes trial record Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97
Arkansas put the textbook itself at issue
The Arkansas law examined in Epperson v. Arkansas prohibited teaching that humans descended from a lower order of animals and also targeted the use or adoption of a textbook teaching that view. Susan Epperson was a public school biology teacher. A textbook adopted for her course included a chapter on evolution. She sought a ruling before teaching the material under threat of penalties, which included loss of her position following conviction. The dispute shows what such a rule meant in a classroom where the curriculum and a statute pulled in different directions. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Arkansas could not remove the teaching because it conflicted with a particular religious doctrine. The Court recognized that states ordinarily choose public school curricula. Its decision addressed the use of that power to favor a particular religious position on a subject otherwise taught in the schools. The scientific evidence for evolution and the constitutional validity of the state’s reason for restricting it are different questions. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97
Louisiana required a paired presentation
In Edwards v. Aguillard, decided in 1987, the Louisiana act at issue took another approach. It required creation science to be taught if evolution was taught. The state defended the act in the name of academic freedom. The Court’s majority examined its design and legislative history and concluded that its purpose was to advance a religious belief. The dissent would have accepted the legislature’s stated educational purpose. The disagreement shows why the same phrase, “academic freedom,” can mean freedom to use professional judgment or a requirement to present a specified view alongside the usual lesson. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578
The majority identified a concrete asymmetry. The law required curriculum guides and resource services for creation science, with no corresponding provision for evolution. It also extended protection to educators who chose to teach creation science, without giving the same express protection to those who declined. The dissent understood these provisions as a response to the limited availability of teaching materials. The difference between the opinions turned partly on what those provisions revealed about the law’s purpose. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578
Why some religious bodies support teaching evolution
Religious institutions have reached different conclusions about how to respond to evolutionary biology. In 2006, the Episcopal Church’s General Convention adopted a resolution affirming evolution as a scientific explanation and declaring acceptance of it compatible with Christian faith. That public decision provides an example of an institution treating questions about scripture and creation as compatible with teaching evolution in science class. The National Academies’ committee on evolution and creationism likewise describes how scientific explanations can be tested and how different kinds of evidence support evolution. The church resolution and the committee report address different questions. One concerns how a religious body understands its faith, and the other concerns how a scientific conclusion is reached. National Academies, Science, Evolution, and Creationism Episcopal Church’s 2006 resolution on evolution
Conclusion
Religion can come into conflict with science education when authorities give a particular religious interpretation power over what teachers may explain. Tennessee and Arkansas tried to restrict the teaching of evolution, and Louisiana made it conditional on a paired presentation. The Episcopal resolution illustrates another religious response. The cases make the sources of conflict clearer by separating how a community interprets creation, how biology tests explanations and what a public school can require. Tennessee State Library and Archives, Butler Act Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 Episcopal Church’s 2006 resolution on evolution
Published by Ralf. About our editorial process.
