Website Search
ID 16984

McLean versus Arkansas Board of Education

Part 5 of a 7-part interview with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Creation Science on Trial. Dr. Scott discusses the legal challenge to the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act introduced in Arkansas in 1981. Evidence by creation scie
Eugenie Scott: That was a very interesting case where the state of Arkansas had passed a law requiring that if teachers taught evolution, they had to teach creation science to balance it out. And I’m glad you mentioned that case because people don’t know it very well, but it was a wonderful example of science really, because the people who challenge the Arkansas law, the lead plaintiffs were religious leaders by the way; the Reverend Bill McLean was the named plaintiff of McLean vs. Arkansas, and of course that was done deliberately to try to diffuse the idea that this was about science versus religion because it really wasn’t, it was about one claim of science versus everyone else, and mainstream religion leaders like Reverend Bill McLean who was a Methodist minister, and Methodists, Prespeterians, Catholics etc. didn’t like the idea of creation science being taught in the public schools because that wasn’t their theology, and they’d have to straighten the kids out on Saturday and Sunday about what their own theology was, so they fought these equal time bills very strongly. But the McLean case was really a wonderful case for science, because the plaintiffs and the defense brought in these teams of scientists; creation science on one side and straight mainstream science on the other side, and they debated whether creation science was science. And it was a long trial, [with] several days of testimony and of course a whole long period of months and months of depositions and the whole business and then finally the cross examinations, and when the dust settled the judge wrote his decision that it was clear from the evidence presented by the mainstream scientists and not rebutted by the creation scientists and the evidence presented by the creation scientists but destroyed by the mainstream scientists that creation science wasn’t a science at all. Evolution was obviously strong science; acceptable science, but creation science was just religion masquerading as science and, because of the establishment clause of our first amendment, was unconstitutional to teach it. Now unfortunately the creationists lost so badly in that case they never appealed it, and so a neighboring state of Louisiana had also passed equal time for creation science legislation and that bill was the one that went all the way to the Supreme Court, but unfortunately without that wonderful trial where the creationists and the evolutionists squared off to debate what is science. And so we didn’t get that wonderful court record into the national case which was actually argued much more narrowly on documents.
creationism, intelligent design, creation science, henry morris, darwinism, evolution, darwin, Genesis, eugenie, scott, dnalc, cshl
Creative Commons License This work by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Related content:

16983. Creation Science - Challenging the Theory of Evolution
Part 4 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Science, Religion, and Evolutionary Theory. Dr. Scott discusses the history of creationism/intelligent design, which was revived in the United States in the 1960s. Some conservative Christians believe
16980. Intelligent Design and Creationism as Science
Part 1 of a 7-part interview with Eugenie C. Scott: Religion, Science, and Theory. Dr. Scott describes intelligent design as a fundamentally religious explanation that has no scientific basis. She discusses the difference between hypothesis and theory,
16981. Irreducible Complexity and Flagella - Deconstructing ID
Part 2 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott.: Debunking Intelligent Design. Dr. Scott criticizes claims by creationists that flagellated bacteria (flagellum) are an example of irreducible complexity. She concludes that examples of irreducible co
16986. God and Science - Incompatible?
Part 7 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: The Bible, the Flood, and the Grand Canyon. Dr. Scott believes that affirming science and believing in God are compatible. However, claims by creationists that the Grand Canyon was created by a flood
16985. Keeping God out of the Classroom - Creation Science and Constitution
Part 6 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Creation Science Brings Religion to the Classroom. Dr. Scott discusses attempts by the creationist movement to introduce religion into high school science curricula. She makes the point that because w
16982. The Eye and Irreducible Complexity - Creationism Debunked
Part 3 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and the Eye. Dr. Scott criticizes claims by proponents of creation science that the vertebrate eye is too complex a mechanism to have evolved by natural sel
16311. Biography 12: Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1892)
Charles Darwin changed the world with his theory of evolution.
16303. Gallery 12: Charles Darwin, ca 1859
Charles Darwin, around 1859.
11811. Francis Galton and Presidents of International Eugenics Congresses: Major L. Darwin, H. F. Osborn, C.B. Davenport, Eugenical News (vol. 17)
Francis Galton and Presidents of International Eugenics Congresses: Major L. Darwin, H. F. Osborn, C.B. Davenport, Eugenical News (vol. 17)
16306. Gallery 12: Charles Darwin's study (2)
Interior of Darwin's study, showing mantelpiece, corner and Darwin's chair on wheels.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
CSHL HomeAbout CSHLResearchEducationPublic EventsNewsstandPartner With UsGiving