Editing Creation science (section)

===Court determinations===
{{primary sources|section|date=February 2020}}
The various state laws prohibiting teaching of evolution were overturned in 1968 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]'' such laws violated the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. This ruling inspired a new creationist movement to promote laws requiring that schools give balanced treatment to creation science when evolution is taught. The 1981 Arkansas Act 590 was one such law that carefully detailed the principles of creation science that were to receive equal time in public schools alongside evolutionary principles.<ref name=Act590text>{{cite book | author = Legislative Sponsors [Unknown] | year = 1998 | orig-year = 1981 | editor = Gilkey, Langdon | chapter = Appendix A: Arkansas Act 590 | title = Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock | series = Studies in religion and culture | location = Charlottesville, VA | publisher = University of Virginia Press [State of Arkansas] | isbn = 9780813918549 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=mE6qOdICwN0C&q=%2273rd+General+Assembly%22+%22State+of+Arkansas%22&pg=PA260 | access-date = February 4, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Legislative Sponsors [Unknown] | date=Summer 1982 | title=Act 590 of 1981: General Acts, 73rd General Assembly, State of Arkansas|journal=[[Science, Technology, & Human Values]] | volume=7 | issue=40 | pages=11–13 | doi=10.1177/016224398200700304 | issn=0162-2439 | jstor=688783 | s2cid=220873392 }}</ref> The act defined creation science as follows:<ref name=Act590text/>{{sfn|Numbers|2006|p=272}}

"'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
:#Sudden creation of the universe, and, in particular, life, from nothing;
:#The insufficiency of [[mutation]] and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
:#Changes only with fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
:#Separate ancestry for man and [[ape]]s;
:#Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of worldwide flood; and
:#A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."

This legislation was examined in ''McLean v. Arkansas'', and the ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that creation-science as defined in the act "is simply not science".<ref name="scholar.google.com.au">{{cite court |litigants=McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed. |vol= 529 |court= United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |date= 1982 |url=https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=12064726535843283781&q=McLean+creation&hl=en&as_sdt=2006}}</ref> The judgement defined the following as essential characteristics of science:<ref name="scholar.google.com.au"/>
:#It is guided by natural law;
:#It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
:#It is testable against the empirical world;
:#Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and
:#It is falsifiable.

The court ruled that creation science failed to meet these essential characteristics and identified specific reasons. After examining the key concepts from creation science, the court found:<ref>{{cite web |title=McLean v. Arkansas {{!}} National Center for Science Education |url=https://ncse.ngo/mclean-v-arkansas#:~:text=In%201982%2C%20in%20McLean%20v,and%20%22evolution%2Dscience%22. |website=ncse.ngo |access-date=30 September 2022 |language=en}}</ref>
:#Sudden creation "from nothing" calls upon a supernatural intervention, not natural law, and is neither testable nor falsifiable
:#Objections in creation science that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain common origins was an incomplete negative generalization
:#'Kinds' are not scientific classifications, and creation science's claims of an outer limit to the evolutionary change possible of species are not explained scientifically or by natural law
:#The separate ancestry of man and apes is an assertion rather than a scientific explanation, and did not derive from any scientific fact or theory
:#Catastrophism, including its identification of the worldwide flood, failed as a science
:#"Relatively recent inception" was the product of religious readings and had no scientific meaning, and was neither the product of, nor explainable by, natural law; nor is it tentative

The court further noted that no recognized [[scientific journal]] had published any article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Arkansas law, and stated that the testimony presented by defense attributing the absence to censorship was not credible.<ref name="McLean v. Arkansas">{{cite web |title=McLean v. Arkansas |website=Talk Origins |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html | access-date=10 October 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

In its ruling, the court wrote that for any theory to qualify as scientific, the theory must be tentative, and open to revision or abandonment as new facts come to light. It wrote that any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion that cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.<ref name="McLean v. Arkansas"/>

The law in Arkansas adopted the same two-model approach as that put forward by the [[Institute for Creation Research]], one allowing only two possible explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. [[Scientific evidence]] that failed to support the theory of evolution was posed as necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism, but in its judgment the court ruled this approach to be no more than a "[[False dilemma|contrived dualism]] which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose."<ref name="McLean_vs_Arkansas">{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html |title=McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education |last=Dorman |first=Clark |date=January 30, 1996 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |type=Transcription |access-date=2013-09-01}}</ref>

The judge concluded that "Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact," and that it violated the First Amendment's [[Establishment Clause]].<ref name="McLean_vs_Arkansas" /> The decision was not appealed to a [[Federal judiciary of the United States|higher court]], but had a powerful influence on subsequent rulings.<ref name="ForrestMay2007Paper">{{cite web |url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |title=Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals |last=Forrest |first=Barbara |author-link=Barbara Forrest |date=May 2007 |website=Center for Inquiry |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=2007-09-08 |archive-date=2011-05-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Louisiana's 1982 Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, authored by [[Louisiana State Legislature|State Senator]] [[Bill Keith (Louisiana politician)|Bill P. Keith]], judged in the 1987 United States Supreme Court case ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'', and was handed a similar ruling. It found the law to require the balanced teaching of creation science with evolution had a particular religious purpose and was therefore unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard |vol=482 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=578 |court=U.S. |year=1987 |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=482&page=578}}</ref>