Difference between revisions of "McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''''McLean'' v. ''Arkansas Board of Education,'' 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982)''' was a case challenging [[Arkansas Act 590 (1981)]] requiring "equal time" be given to the teaching of evolution and creation science in public high schools. | '''''McLean'' v. ''Arkansas Board of Education,'' 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982)''' was a case challenging [[Arkansas Act 590 (1981)]] requiring "equal time" be given to the teaching of evolution and creation science in public high schools. | ||
| − | William R. Overton struck down Act 590 in | + | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas judge William R. Overton struck down Act 590 in his decision on January 5, 1982. Overton ruled that "creation science" violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution because it was not scientific theory. Science according to Overton's decision is guided by natural law, explained in terms of natural law, is empirically testable, is subject to revision when new evidence is brought to light, and is potentially falsifiable. |
| + | |||
| + | The named plaintiff in the case was William McLean, a Methodist minister. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Langdon Gilkey, ''Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock'' (University Press of Virginia, 1985). | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Latest revision as of 11:00, 4 March 2009
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982) was a case challenging Arkansas Act 590 (1981) requiring "equal time" be given to the teaching of evolution and creation science in public high schools.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas judge William R. Overton struck down Act 590 in his decision on January 5, 1982. Overton ruled that "creation science" violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution because it was not scientific theory. Science according to Overton's decision is guided by natural law, explained in terms of natural law, is empirically testable, is subject to revision when new evidence is brought to light, and is potentially falsifiable.
The named plaintiff in the case was William McLean, a Methodist minister.
References
- Langdon Gilkey, Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock (University Press of Virginia, 1985).
