Creationism

    On March, 11, 2021, Arkansas House Bill 1701 was filed that permitted teachers in public and charter schools to teach creationism to students ranging from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Creationism is understood as “a theory of how the earth came to exist" (National Science Association). Creationism is a highly contested theory because of its lack of scientific reasoning, and it is a religious belief that credits God as the absolute creator. The theory rejects the ideology of natural processes such as evolution. This bill is permissive, meaning that it is up to the teacher’s discretion to either teach creationism or not. Mary Bentley sponsored the bill, who previously made an attempt to pass similar legislation about creationism, but the bill did not receive a hearing as it died when the legislature recessed. Senator Garry Stumblefield joined forces with Bentley in sponsoring House Bill 1701. 

    Prior to the introduction to Arkansas House Bill 1701, there were court cases that created precedents involving the establishment of religion in conjunction with these contentious teachings. The case, Epperson v. Arkansas decided that an Arkansas law violated the establishment clause because it prohibited teachers in public schools from teaching evolution. The establishment clause states that the government will make no law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The basis for this law reflected the values of fundamentalist Christians who opposed the theory of evolution which violates the establishment clause. The case Edwards v. Aguillard also serves as an important precedent which decided that a Louisiana law which allowed the theory of evolution to be taught only in conjunction to creation-science was a violation of the constitution. The court utilized the Lemon Test introduced during Lemon v. Kurtzman to assert that this law violated the establishment clause. This Arkansas House Bill 1701 is a salient issue regarding religion because the objection to teaching creationism is one of establishment. In terms of constitutional and religious law, the question at stake is if the teaching of creationism is a violation of the establishment of religion.

    I believe that teaching of creationism in public and charter schools is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Due to the fact that creationism reflects the values of Fundamentalist Christians without scientific reasoning, it is enough evidence to suggest that it is an establishment of religion. In a 1971 court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Lemon Test was enacted to evaluate the potential violations of the establishment clause. In terms of evaluating the constitutionality of the teaching of creationism in public schools, I will utilize the Lemon Test in my argument. The Lemon test is a three pronged test, and the first provision focuses that the law has a secular legislative purpose. Clearly, the introduction to this bill is not secular because of its direct religious implications which violates the establishment clause. The second provision is that its primary effect cannot advance any religion. Again, this bill does advance the beliefs of Christian fundamentalism because creationism credits the biblical account of the creation of the universe. Not only does this bill fail to have a secular purpose, but also it promotes and advances a specific religion. It is also imperative to note that these school children are impressionable, and it is possible that this teaching of creationism could be interpreted as means of coercion. The last provision of the Lemon Test is that legislation cannot have excessive government entanglement with religion. The teaching of creationism within public schools clearly entangles the religious sphere with the government sphere. Additionally, these teachings would require funding, which would only entangle religion and government more. The wall separating church and state will be under attack by the introduction of creationism within the public school. In terms of precedent, this bill should be deemed unconstitutional because of the findings from both Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard. The introduction of this bill would ignore the rulings of these previous court cases. If this bill is passed and creationism is introduced into public schools, this will create a slippery slope, enabling other religious facets to potentially interfere with government. This house bill is a violation of the establishment of religion because it lacks a secular purpose, advances a certain religion, and entangles the religious sphere and public sphere. The introduction of this bill would have dangerous ramifications to the wall separating church and state. 

https://ncse.ngo/creationism-bill-introduced-arkansas.