Establishment clause requires balance in evolution education
Section V(C) of the opinion of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (Eastern Dlst. Ark. 1982), says,
The defendants argue in their brief that evolution is, in effect, a religion, and that by teaching a religion which is contrary to some students' religious views, the State is infringing upon the student's free exercise rights under the First Amendment . . . . .
. . . . The defendants argue that the teaching of evolution alone presents both a free exercise problem and an establishment problem which can only be redressed by giving balanced treatment to creation science, which is admittedly consistent with some religious beliefs. . . .
. . . . If creation science is, in fact, science and not religion, as the defendants claim, it is difficult to see how the teaching of such a science could "neutralize" the religious nature of evolution.
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it.
Judge Overton is wrong here -- even if the courts rule that evolution is a kind of religion or has strong religious implications, the establishment clause can still be satisfied by continuing to teach evolution but requiring that it be balanced or tempered by teaching criticisms or by making evolution-disclaimer statements. Unfortunately, for some time now there have been no active cases that could be used for testing different legal theories about evolution education -- Kitzmiller ended when the decision was released in Dec. 1995 and Selman ended when the school board took a dive by settling out of court in Dec. 1996, and the last US Supreme Court decision on the issue, Edwards v. Aguillard, was in 1987. The supercilious Darwinists, who think that they are the world's biggest experts about law as well as the world's biggest experts about science, think that the Kitzmiller decision is airtight, but they have been wrong about the law before -- for example, they thought that Yoko Ono's "Imagine" copyright infringement suit against the "Expelled" producers and Chris Comer's wrongful termination suit against the Texas Education Agency were strong cases, but both suits were thrown out by the courts and were so weak that they were not appealed.
More discussion about the constitutionality of teaching Darwinism in the public schools is here.