The Idea of an Essay, Volume 2

139 court ruled such funding to be completely constitutional because evolution fits the definition of science, not religion. Additionally, the courts found governmental funding of intelligent design as religious affiliation. Although the government cannot fund textbooks that support this theory, they can purchase textbooks that call intelligent design unscientific (Moore, Jensen, & Hatch, 2003, p. 768). The courts agree with such textbooks in that intelligent design is not science. In McLean v Arkansas Board of Education, Federal Judge William Overton spoke against intelligent design for its lack of scientific value, which weakens its educational value. Overton states “A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.” This perspective founds its facts on the Bible verses re-testable information and relies heavily on the supernatural, making it fall short of the definition of science (Moore, Jensen, & Hatch, 2003, p. 769). If it were to be considered science, this term would need to be redefined, but for now, this theory has no place except to be taught objectively in appropriate classes such as a comparative religion class (Ravitch, 2012, p. 196). Many states have recognized intelligent design does not belong in the scientific classroom due to its foundation on religion and lack of educational merit. Consequentially, some school districts have required teachers to read a disclaimer or have stuck one on the evolutionary textbooks. Though this seems harmless, most disclaimers have lost in court because they have religious purposes. In 1999 and 2005, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, both convened to settle disputes regarding disclaimers. In Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the court ruled against the disclaimer due to its religious purpose observed in the line, “the scientific theory of evolution…should be presented to inform students of the scientific concept and not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation.” This school tailored the disclaimer to fit the educational needs of a specific religious group, which promotes religion. The court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District declared the disclaimer in Pennsylvania violated the constitution. Judge Jones saw the disclaimer directed students toward a religious alternative and religious outside resources; discriminated against evolution, causing students to question the theory without critically