miller@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/11/84)
#N:uiucdcs:45500001:000:5463
uiucdcs!miller Apr 10 20:07:00 1984
As several people have mentioned the Balanced Treatment Acts, I thought I
would give you a creationist's view of the trials. Most of the media did such
a poor job of reporting it that I think this is necessary. In writing this
note, it got quite long (as usual). Hence, I have broken it up into two sec-
tions: the pre-trial phase, followed by the trial phase and my opinions. This
is the first section; I will submit the second section to the net in a few
days. I would request that you wait until you see both parts before commenting
on this part. However, no one ever seems to listen to me anyway...
In July 1925, Williams J. Bryan met the ACLU's Clarence Darrow in Dayton,
Tennessee. Known as the Scopes "monkey" trial, the question before the court
was whether or not evolution could be taught in public schools. Scopes lost
the case, but public sediment was swung to the side of evolution. In December
1981, Arkansas' recently enacted "Balanced Treatment Act" came under fire by
the ACLU. The question before the court this time was whether or not creation
science must be taught on an equal footing with evolution in public schools.
The law (Act 590) restricted material to scientific evidences only, and
specifically forbid any introduction of religious material into the classrooms.
The tables were turned this time, with the state losing the case, but public
sediment supporting balanced treatment of creationism in the public schools by
a margin of 86% (according to a nationwide poll by AP-NBC taken at the time).
The purpose of this note is to demonstrate why the creationists lost the
recent trial. I can summarize in one sentence: Arkansas Attorney General Steve
Clark, who was responsible for defending the new law, bungled the case. This
was not adequately covered in the media, so I will now attempt to document that
rather serious charge.
Creationists began to sense that they were in trouble when Steve Clark
publically expressed his "personal qualms" about the law. Nevertheless, he
pledged to defend it to the best of his ability. In an effort to assist him,
the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) was formed. CSLDF was led by
attorneys Bird and Whitehead, who for years had been studying the complex
interrelationships of Constitutional law, education, science, history, and
religion that were involved. CSLDF was funded totally from private funds, and
offered its help to Clark free of charge. This help was for whatever Clark
would need, from serving as lead council in the case, to taking depositions and
filing briefs, to simply performing research - all at no cost to the state.
Clark refused the free assistance, stating "it would be a violation of my oath
of office to cede responsibility for the trial to the CSLDF".
Fearing that Clark did not have the expertise to handle the complex case,
and noting that in the only other Constitutional case Clark had defended, he
had *paid* outside consultants, the CSLDF went to court in order intervene in
the trial on the state's behalf. Clark went to court to fight them from giving
him free legal assistance, arguing that the CSLDF represented "special interest
groups" who would "open the floodgates to innumerable interventions". Judge
William Overton sided with Clark the two times this was attempted.
This was an important turning point in the case. Fearing the case was
lost (before it even started), the CSLDF gave up on its attempts to defend the
law. Most of the leading creationists in the country also said they would not
participate. An article in Origins Research (published by Students for Origins
Research (SOR), of which I am a part) put out before the trial started read
"In summary, attorneys Bird and Whitehead believe that Attorney General Clark's
defense of the Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act is 'totally inadequate'. They
are 'pessimistic' about the chances for a victory for balanced treatment of
creation science. Although the legal and scientific arguments are strong, they
are not being adequately presented. For this reason, those associated the
CSLDF are focusing their efforts on constitutional defense of creation science
in Louisiana, and are not taking part in the Arkansas litigation."
Meanwhile, the ACLU was doing a fine job preparing for the trial on behalf
of the plaintiffs. Yet nearly four months after the suit was filed, the attor-
ney general's office said that it had "done nothing" on the case yet. At a
pretrial conference on Oct. 1, the judge asked for an example of the scientific
evidence for creation, and the deputy attorney general was so unprepared that
he said he could not give one. In a Nov. 1 press release by the CSLDF, it was
pointed out that Clark's only actions to date was to file opposition against
CSLDF intervention, despite the fact that the trial was only five weeks away.
With only three weeks to go before the trial, Clark participated in a
fundraising event. The recipient of that event? The ACLU, his opponent in the
trial! Mass media coverage of Clark's poor behavior was superficial at best.
The Dec. 21 issue of Newsweek simply said "At first Arkansas Attorney General
Steve Clark expressed 'personal qualms' about the law. Then, with a possible
eye on a governor's race, he decided to serve as lead counsel. Oddly, however,
he ran in a marathon the day before the trial began."
To be continued...
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois