Perhaps you should also analyse the other pieces of evidence that highlight Scalia’s distrust of…
Luis Mijares
1

You also forget his other anti-science rulings like Edwards vs. Aguillard where he affirmed creationism as at least being equal to evolutionary biology.

It is hard to “forget” something that never happened. Despite your claim, at no point in his dissent did Scalia affirm creationism as being equal to evolutionary biology. Not in Edwards v. Aguillard and not in any other opinion he wrote.

In fact, in Edwards v. Aguillard he specifically wrote:

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy. But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed.”

The case in question pitted “creation science” against evolution. The law required that if one was taught in schools, they also had to teach the other.

Scalia side-stepped the issue of the content of either. His dissent was entirely based on the issue of whether or not the Legislature had secular intent in passing the law. In his opinion, if the legislature acted with secular intent then both must be treated equally under the law. It would be up to those opposing the law to prove that the legislature acted with religious intent in order to find that the law violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and in his view, they failed to do that.

You can disagree with Scalia’s reasoning (as I do) but at no point did he do as you claim. He didn’t address any science either way in his opinion.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Jim Roye’s story.