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>Source no longer on-line.</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>Source no longer on-line.</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 ''Stone'' and ''Abbington,'' 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>​

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 ''Stone'' and ''Abbington,'' 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,'' June 20, 1987, accessed 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 web|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]]''|date=June 20, 1987|accessdate=November 25, 2009}}</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 web|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]]''|date=June 20, 1987|accessdate=November 25, 2009}}</ref>​