Where does Theory Become Religion?

    In the classroom, most of us believe that science and facts should prevail. But who determines what is considered scientific? Does simply having some potentially disputed facts give a theory scientific validity? Or should we discount a theory if the claims are bounded by religious concepts? The West Virginia senate recently decided that it should not. 

    Intelligent design theory, also more informally known as creationism, is “The theory… that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection” (IntelligentDesign). Proponents of this theory claim it is just as scientific as the theory of evolution, due to the fact evolution remains a theory and the scientific method that can prove some aspects of intelligent design theory. They believe that this theory should be taught along with evolution theory, with weight given to no theory more. In the past year, West Virginia State Senator (and teacher) Amy Grady pushed for a bill called Senate Bill (SB) 619. This bill would enact that:

“Teachers in public schools, including public charter schools, that include any one or more of grades kindergarten through 12, may teach intelligent design as a theory of how the universe and/or humanity came to exist” (SB 619)

    However, this bill actually came to pass the West Virginia Senate around a month ago, leading to a large mix of emotions and understandings. Grady and other proponents of the bill believe that teachers are entitled to teach any theory with some validity, and they believe that intelligent design theory deserves this status. But, many against Grady and SB 619 believe that the Supreme Court has already ruled against creationism as a teaching in public schools, and found it to be an establishment of religion. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) the majority found that teaching of or even allowing for the potential of creationist theory in classrooms establishes religion since “...Senator Keith’s leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified… that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator” (Munoz, 305). The majority also found that in Edwards, the Louisiana law failed the first prong of the Lemon test, because they found that the law did not have a secular purpose. Supporters claimed that the secular purpose would be to protect academic freedom of students, but the Court disagreed. Important to note, this decision relied on the precedent set in Wallace v Jaffree, in that once a law fails the first prong of the Lemon test, the Court need not argue nor review the other two.

    More specifically to SB 619, West Virginia lawmakers hope for the courts to revise or fix the precedent set in the past, as they believe that this is a constitutionally valid law, and they genuinely believe it has a secular purpose, similar to that argued in the dissent of Edwards. While the precedent stands against the West Virginia senate currently, this Supreme Court has shown that they are willing to revise precedents they believe were incorrectly decided. And, in this case there is some validity to their claims, which Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissenting opinion to the Edwards decision back in 1987. The Justice found issues with the Lemon test then, and referenced decisions in which the court chose not to “... presume that a law’s purpose is to advance religion merely because it happens to… benefit religion even substantially” (Munoz, 307). In addition, he believed in his dissent that since there is no Lemon test directly in the establishment clause of the First Amendment, they need not even think about it, or are at least not bound by it. Instead, they should be more focused on the literal written Constitutions. Justice Scalia’s issues with the Lemon test were his main argument against the decision in Edwards, and since the Lemon test has been essentially phased out in the Courts, there is a possibility that this case gets overturned.

    The majority for the Court wrote in Edwards, “... as the president of the Louisiana Science Teachers Association testified ‘any scientific concept that’s based on established fact can be included in our curriculum already’… the Act provides Louisiana school teachers with no new authority ” (Munoz, 304). This being written into the decision for the majority makes me believe that any established facts could then make a concept become an academic theory. Therefore, based on the intelligent design website, it seems as if this is a respected theory, at least in some settings. And, as the founders of the United States appealed to when writing the First Amendment to the Constitution, if a belief is considered true in some settings, the majority should not have the right to infringe upon that.

  

 I believe that Bill 619 is currently unconstitutional, due to the existing precedent of the Edwards decision. However, I find a legitimate argument for the state’s purpose of the law, as Grady stated “We do not want to discourage students from asking questions about theories… The definition for theory is that there is some data that proves something to be true, but it doesn’t have to be proven entirely true…” (WVPublic). SB 619 may face constitutional challenges based on the existing precedent, but there appears to be a legitimate argument to be made for its secular purpose of encouraging critical thinking and academic freedom among students. As compelling as this argument is, I believe that in the end the Court should remain with the precedent set by Edwards. The Court wrote then, “... the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the establishment clause” (Munoz, 306) which I ultimately agree with for SB 619. The primary purpose of SB 619 appears to actually be to advance a theory based in religious doctrine and allow for it to be taught in government funded schools, which ultimately is an establishment of religion.

References

• Bill to allow for teaching of Intelligent Design up for passage in Senate. (2023, February 24). WV MetroNews. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://wvmetronews.com/2023/02/24/bill-to-allow-for-teaching-of-intelligent-design-up-for-passage-in-senate/
• Gordon, V. H., & Smentkowski, B. P. (2024, February 20). Edwards v. Aguillard | Supreme Court Ruling on Creationism in Schools. Britannica. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Edwards-v-Aguilard
• SB 619 Text. (2023, February 14). West Virginia Legislature. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from http://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb619%20intr.htm&yr=2023&sesstype=RS&i=619
• Senate Passes Intelligent Design Bill For Public Classrooms - West Virginia Public Broadcasting. (2024, January 23). West Virginia Public Broadcasting. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://wvpublic.org/senate-passes-intelligent-design-bill-for-public-classrooms/
• Weaver, H. L. (2023, March 2). West Virginia Lawmakers are Pushing Public Schools to Teach Creationism | ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/west-virginia-lawmakers-are-pushing-public-schools-to-teach-creationism
• What Is Intelligent Design? (n.d.). Intelligent Design. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/