1977 Indiana Creationist textbook case online

Old familiar arguments, same result.

Talk Origins posted the opinion in Hendren v. Campbell, a 1977 Indiana State court opinion rejecting the adoption of a creation science textbook.  Who cares what some Indiana trial court said almost 30 years ago?

These decisions are important for historical reasons to demonstrate that ID makes the same previously rejected creationist decisions. The ID arguments in Kitzmiller are the same ones rejected by the Indiana court in 1977.

A short civics lesson follows on the importance of any particular court decision. Court decisions are of varying importance. As a general rule, the decision is strictly binding only on the involved parties. In some circumstances, the decision may have broader precedential value by setting out an established rule to be followed by future courts.

Determining the binding effect or "precedential value of a decision can be a little complicated in our federal system. A U.S. Supreme Court decision is “binding precedent" on all courts that apply U.S. law or U.S. Constitutional law. The opinion of the highest court of a state has binding precedent on all courts applying the law of that state. Sometimes this includes federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal courts often apply the law of a particular state to a decision. If so, those federal courts are bound by the decisions of that state’s highest court.

The precedential value of a decision should not be confused with the decision’s persuasive authority. A persuasive decision involving a brilliant application of legal analysis to the facts can be written by any court and considered by any other court.

Hendren is a trial court decision, usually given little precedential value except by other Indiana trial courts. The opinion, however, holds that creation science is a sham designed to avoid the prior judicial precedents addressing creationism. The opinion also finds that a claim of “complexity” is also a sham for creationism. The opinion forecasts the Kitzmiller decision’s holding that specified complexity known as Intelligent design is also a form of creationism and a sham designed to avoid constitutional restrictions on teaching religion in public schools. In light of subsequent history, Hendren is persuasive authority, indeed.

Comments

[Dr X]

Joe,

I just came across your blog. Great work! I am a psychoanalytic psychologist and a Christian who takes the bible seriously. Not only do fundamentalists and creationists show a naive disdain for science, their parochial treatment of biblical scripture is naively disdainful of more thoughtful approaches to scriptural analysis. These people aren't simply anti-science, they are anti-intellectual.

[Joe Mc Faul]

Dr X, I agree with you 100%. My concern is that Christians are also called to bring the Good News to all. When you're acting anti-scietific and anti-intellectual, it's kind of hard to carry out that Great Commission to peopel who are inclined to be either scientific or intellectual.

[Kate Hillier (Miss)]

I agree.
I now see God with his Help as fundamentally CREATING THE ACADEMY AND INTELLECTUALS which man has perverted and corrupted as per usaul. I fear for the reputation of the Kingdom from within the Academy of Christian matters.
My position is this: GOD MADE THE ACADEMY INTELLECTUAL SCIENCES ETC
but any good Christian would be great Scientists/Academics etc in the proper sense of the word.
Christians should be the BEST Scholars in the world not the least; this will affect admissions of believers into the Academy for fear of reasoning deficits(source hidden but genuine 2007).This ultimately harms the Glory of God which Creationists profess to worship-intellectually.