In a recent case, Reinoehl v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, the plaintiffs, Jennifer, Jason, and Sarah Reinoehl, challenged the teaching of evolutionary theory in Indiana public schools. They argued that the state’s mandate to teach evolution violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Article 1, Section 3 of the Indiana Constitution. The court ultimately dismissed the case, but the arguments on both sides are worth examining.
The Plaintiffs’ Argument
The Reinoehls contended that teaching evolution, particularly in public schools, promotes atheism under the guise of science. They asserted that evolution is a belief system akin to religion and that its inclusion in the curriculum violated the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion. Their complaint emphasized that teaching evolution without presenting other creation narratives was unfairly biased against religious worldviews, particularly their own Judeo-Christian beliefs.
The plaintiffs sought relief in the form of injunctive measures, asking that the teaching of evolution be stopped or, at the very least, that it be accompanied by instruction on other religious perspectives regarding the origin of life. They also requested monetary damages, citing the harm done to their children who had been exposed to these teachings.
The Defendants’ Position
The defendants, including the Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation and Indiana’s Secretary of Education, argued that the teaching of evolution is not a religious practice but rather a well-established scientific theory. They maintained that evolution is a fundamental component of biological science and that its teaching does not promote atheism. Instead, they claimed that evolution education follows established educational guidelines, and presenting it as part of the science curriculum does not violate constitutional protections.
They also contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case because no ongoing harm was being done to their children, many of whom had already completed the courses in question. Furthermore, they argued that the case was moot as the plaintiffs’ children were no longer in the public school system.
The Court’s Decision
The court sided with the defendants, granting the motion to dismiss the case. It ruled that teaching evolution does not establish a religion, as it is not a religious belief but a scientific theory supported by extensive evidence. The court referenced precedent, including Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard, which held that teaching evolution in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing for injunctive relief because their children were no longer attending the schools in question, and thus there was no imminent harm. While the parents argued that they intended to enroll their youngest child in the public school system, the court found this insufficient to establish standing.