According to the author, most people who do not agree with Supreme Court decision in favor religion (creationists) on cases involving science and religion, believes there are lack of consistency in the rulings. They believe the court do not stand by the principle of law for their ruling. The author referred to Edwards v. Aguillard, "creationism case,” as one case of inconsistent in ruling. This case happened in 1982, where in the beginning, the law was enacted in Louisiana to allow the teaching of creation along with evolution as science subject in public schools or none of them is not allowed to be teaching in public schools. The aim of the ruling was to serve as “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction" Act. The ruling was later change by the review panel of judges in the Supreme Court, who found out that the law was …show more content…
Aguillard to Kitzmiller v. Dover cases, the similarities I found out that both cases were fighting for evolution as being the real science which is need to be teaching in school but not anything that is based on religion. another point is also both uses Lemon test as the bases of their augment to show that the creation or intelligent design are all based on religion so its violated the Establishment Clause. One difference between the two cases is that Kitzmiller v. Dover cases were challenging the intelligent design as a science while Edwards v. Aguillard case were challenging creation as a science. In Aguillard case, teaching of creation science was found to be unconstitutional as it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The arguments concerning the definition of science, which were put forth in both case were creation as science and intelligent design as science. Intelligent design was more compelling. The Supreme Court review based their rule by using the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to turn the case in the Aguillard