Adam and Eve Go to School
Charles J. Russo January/February 2025An enduring dispute in American public education concerns teaching about human origins and whether students must receive instruction solely on evolution or can learn about the Genesis account of creation in science classes. A recent Indiana case, Reinoehl v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, demonstrates how this dispute lingers on, almost a century after the first case on teaching about evolution was resolved in the infamous “Scopes Monkey Trial.”
In July 1925 a teacher admitted to violating Tennessee state law by discussing evolution in class rather than the biblical account of creation. He was fined $100, but post-trial evidence suggests he did not actually teach evolution; his admission was part of a plan to get the case to a higher court. Two years later, in 1927, in Scopes v. State, the Supreme Court of Tennessee left the statute criminalizing teaching about evolution in place but overturned the teacher’s conviction. The decision in Scopes, which reverberated around the nation, was actually based on a legal technicality. The state supreme court said the lower court judge had improperly assessed a fine that could have been imposed only by a jury, adding there was “nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case.”
Most recently, in 2024, in Reinoehl parents in Indiana sued, claiming that “because the atheistic Theory of Evolution specifically attacks the Judeo-Christian origin story,” teaching it violated both federal and state constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion.
The court rejected the parents’ reliance on the now-repudiated 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman test that teaching evolution “has the purpose and effect of advancing the atheist religion,” resulting in “the entanglement of the state with religion.”
Dismissing the claims, a federal trial court judge found that despite assertions to the contrary, “the purported similarities between evolution and atheism do not render the teaching of evolution in public schools violative of the establishment clause, which has never been understood to prohibit government conduct that incidentally ‘coincide[s] or harmonize[s] with the tenets of some or all religions.’ ”
To better place Reinoehl in context, it is worth noting that on the two occasions the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue it forbade teaching the Genesis account of creation in science classes. In 1968’s Epperson v. Arkansas the Court struck down a 1928 statute adopted shortly after Scopes that outlawed teaching about evolution in state-supported schools, including higher education. The justices ruled that the law violated the First Amendment establishment clause because it was designed to prevent teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution based on its supposed conflict with the biblical account of creation.
Later, in 1987’s Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court invalidated a statute from Louisiana banning the teaching of “evolution science” in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction on “creation-science.” The justices overturned the law for lacking an identified secular purpose and its primary purpose, to advance a particular religious belief, namely Christianity, impermissibly endorsed religion.
Lower federal courts consistently reached similar outcomes. For example, in 1999 the Fifth Circuit, in another disagreement from Louisiana, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, invalidated a resolution repudiating evolution theory after officials failed to introduce “creation science” into the curriculum as a legitimate scientific alternative. The court vitiated the board’s action because it neither promoted its articulated objective of encouraging informed freedom of belief or critical thinking nor advanced the purposes of disclaiming orthodoxy of belief and reducing offense to the sensibilities of students or parents.
A newer battleground in disagreements over human origins emerged in Pennsylvania in 2005. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District a federal trial court invalidated a board policy about teaching intelligent design in high school biology classes that would have required students to hear a statement offering it as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The court disallowed the policy both because it endorsed religion in violation of the establishment clause and failed to satisfy the then in effect Lemon test, insofar as its primary purpose was to change the biology curriculum to advance religion along with having the primary effect of imposing a faith-based perspective in the course.
Respecting Religious Belief
While public school officials cannot include instruction about the biblical account of creation in science classes, litigation has arisen over how educators treat students who voice their religious beliefs on this issue. A troubling 2011 case from California, C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District, focused on a teacher’s criticism of a high school student’s beliefs in the Genesis creation account.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the student’s claims against the teacher, who described religion as “superstitious nonsense” and demonstrated hostility to religion in general, Christianity specifically. The court granted the teacher’s motion for qualified immunity because it thought the law regulating his behavior was not clearly established. The court further denied the student’s request for relief as moot because he had graduated, rationalizing that educators need “leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills and develop their analytical abilities.” The C.F. case is problematic, as it raises concerns about why the court and school officials would enable a teacher to speak so disrespectfully to a student who expresses his religious beliefs in class discussions.
In 1963 companion cases prohibiting prayer and Bible reading before classes in public schools in Pennsylvania and Maryland, respectively, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, the Supreme Court made a noteworthy statement in nonbinding dicta. Perhaps attempting to allay fears they were anti-religious, the justices commented that “it certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.” In a concurring opinion Justice William Brennan wrote that “the holding of the Court today plainly does not foreclose teaching about the Holy Scriptures or about the differences between religious sects in classes in literature or history.”
At the same time, the Supreme Court’s remarks in Abington open the door to an interesting possibility. That is, while public school educators cannot teach the Genesis account of human origins in science classes, questions emerge about whether it might have a place elsewhere in curricula.
Having taught global studies, albeit in a Catholic, rather than public, high school, I believe an argument can be made that as long as classes are designed to inform students objectively about different cultures and their beliefs, including on human origins, such instruction would be beneficial to their intellectual growth. Learning about the teachings of different faiths is valuable because it can help students demonstrate respect for the beliefs of others in our increasingly religiously diverse society. After all, education is supposed to broaden student horizons, including those on such sensitive topics as human origins and religious freedom.
Article Author: Charles J. Russo
Charles J. Russo, M.Div., J.D., Ed.D., is the Joseph Panzer chair in education in the School of Education and Health Sciences, director of its Ph.D. program in educational leadership, and research professor of law in the School of Law at the University of Dayton. He can be reached at crusso1@udayton.edu.