Changes

The measure, signed by [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Governor]] [[David C. Treen]], was entitled the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act. Keith's act required that scientific evidence for creation-science, the view of abrupt appearance of organisms in the fossil records, whenever related material on evolution was presented in classes. A panel of seven creation-scientists, appointed by the governor, would advise local school districts on the appropriate curriculum. The act did not specifically require or allow instruction in any religious doctrine.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.grisda.org/origins/12038.htm|title=News and Comments|publisher=grisda.org|accessdate=November 25, 2009}}</ref>​

The measure, signed by [[Republican Party|Republican]] [[Governor]] [[David C. Treen]], was entitled the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act. Keith's act required that scientific evidence for creation-science, the view of abrupt appearance of organisms in the fossil records, whenever related material on evolution was presented in classes. A panel of seven creation-scientists, appointed by the governor, would advise local school districts on the appropriate curriculum. The act did not specifically require or allow instruction in any religious doctrine.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.grisda.org/origins/12038.htm|title=News and Comments|publisher=grisda.org|accessdate=November 25, 2009}}</ref>​

Keith's law was subsequently overturned by the [[United States Supreme Court]] in the 1987 decision ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' because the court held that the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.<ref>Justice William Brennan in the majority opinion said, ''As in <u>Stone and Abington</u>, we need not be blind in this case to the legislature's preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute.'' opinion, 482 U.S. 578, page 588; and ''Here, it is clear that religious belief is the Balanced Treatment Act's "reason for existence."'' opinion, 482 U.S. 578, page 603.</ref> Keith recalled that his interest in the matter developed in 1978, when his then 13-year-old son came home from school to report that a teacher had ridiculed the youngster's belief in [[God]] as the Creator of human life.<ref name=aguillard>{{cite web|url=​

Keith's law was subsequently overturned by the [[United States Supreme Court]] in the 1987 decision ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'' because the court held that the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.<ref>Justice William Brennan in the majority opinion said, ''As in <u>Stone and Abington</u>, we need not be blind in this case to the legislature's preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute.'' opinion, 482 U.S. 578, page 588; and ''Here, it is clear that religious belief is the Balanced Treatment Act's "reason for existence."'' opinion, 482 U.S. 578, page 603.</ref> Keith recalled that his interest in the matter developed in 1978, when his then 13-year-old son came home from school to report that a teacher had ridiculed the youngster's belief in [[God]] as the Creator of human life.<ref name=aguillard>Ridicule sparked creationism law, ''St. Petersburg Times,''|date=June 20, 1987|accessdate=November 25, 2009; no longer on-line.}}</ref>​

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19870620&id=tbgMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0GADAAAAIBAJ&pg=4418,4944792|title=Ridicule sparked creationism law|publisher=''St. Petersburg Times''|date=June 20, 1987|accessdate=November 25, 2009; no longer on-line.}}</ref>​

​

​

Upon hearing of the Supreme Court decision, Keith, who was then living in Jefferson, Texas, where he operated a [[Christian]] book publishing firm, said that he was "shocked and disappointed. What this means is that the vast majority of American school children will continue to be [[indoctrination|indoctrinated]] in evolutionism and will be denied the right and freedom to hear the evidence that points to creationism."<ref name=aguillard/> Donald Aguillard, a plaintiff in the case who was then an assistant principal at Acadiana High School in Scott, near [[Lafayette]], said that he was pleased with the overturning of Keith's law: "We just don't have the money now to be spending on bad science. . . . I'm thrilled that after six years we finally have a decision. The law would have cost the state monies that we do not have right now."<ref name=nyt>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/20/us/elation-relief-and-sadness-in-louisiana-as-fight-ends.html|author=Frances Frank Marcus|title=Elation, Relief and Sadness In Louisiana as Fight Ends|publisher=''[[The New York Times]]''|accessdate=November 25, 2009 | date=June 20, 1987}}</ref>​

Upon hearing of the Supreme Court decision, Keith, who was then living in Jefferson, Texas, where he operated a [[Christian]] book publishing firm, said that he was "shocked and disappointed. What this means is that the vast majority of American school children will continue to be [[indoctrination|indoctrinated]] in evolutionism and will be denied the right and freedom to hear the evidence that points to creationism."<ref name=aguillard/> Donald Aguillard, a plaintiff in the case who was then an assistant principal at Acadiana High School in Scott, near [[Lafayette]], said that he was pleased with the overturning of Keith's law: "We just don't have the money now to be spending on bad science. . . . I'm thrilled that after six years we finally have a decision. The law would have cost the state monies that we do not have right now."<ref name=nyt>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/20/us/elation-relief-and-sadness-in-louisiana-as-fight-ends.html|author=Frances Frank Marcus|title=Elation, Relief and Sadness In Louisiana as Fight Ends|publisher=''[[The New York Times]]''|accessdate=November 25, 2009 | date=June 20, 1987}}</ref>​