Creation and evolution in public education in the United States
In the United States, the states of Texas, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, and Alabama require in their science standards "students critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory." Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation allowing teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of evolution.
Early law 
Until the late 19th century, creation was taught in nearly all schools in the United States, often from the position that the literal interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. With the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution in the 1860s after being first introduced in 1859, and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people, but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible.
In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Such legislation was considered and defeated in 1922 in Kentucky and South Carolina, in 1923 passed in Oklahoma, Florida, and notably in 1925 in Tennessee, as the Butler Act. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws. John T. Scopes accepted, and he started teaching his class evolution, in defiance of the Tennessee law. The resulting trial was widely publicized by H. L. Mencken among others, and is commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Scopes was convicted; however, the widespread publicity galvanized proponents of evolution.
When the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court overturned the decision on a technicality (the judge had assessed the fine when the jury had been required to). Although it overturned the conviction, the Court decided that the law was not in violation of the First Amendment. The Court held,
We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory. Scopes v. State 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927).
The interpretation of the Establishment Clause up to that time was that Congress could not establish a particular religion as the State religion. Consequently, the Court held that the ban on the teaching of evolution did not violate the Establishment clause, because it did not establish one religion as the "State religion." As a result of the holding, the teaching of evolution remained illegal in Tennessee, and continued campaigning succeeded in removing evolution from school textbooks throughout the United States.
Modern legal cases 
In 1967, the Tennessee public schools were threatened with another lawsuit over the Butler Act's constitutionality, and, fearing public reprisal, Tennessee's legislature repealed the Butler Act. In the following year, 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that Arkansas's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and determined that the Arkansas law which allowed the teaching of creation while disallowing the teaching of evolution advanced a religion, and was therefore in violation of the 1st amendment Establishment clause. This holding reflected a broader understanding of the Establishment Clause: instead of just prohibiting laws that established a state religion, the Clause was interpreted to prohibit laws that furthered religion. Opponents, pointing to the previous decision, argued that this amounted to judicial activism.
In reaction to the Epperson case, creationists in Louisiana passed a law requiring that public schools should give "equal time" to "alternative theories" of origin. The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), that the Louisiana statute, which required creation to be taught alongside evolution every time evolution was taught, was unconstitutional.
The Court laid out its rule in Edwards as follows:
The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of these prongs. Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578, *582-583, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2577 (U.S.La.,1987).
The Court held that the law was not adopted with a secular purpose, because its purported purpose of "protecting academic freedom" was not furthered by limiting the freedom of teachers to teach what they thought appropriate; ruled that the act was discriminatory because it provided certain resources and guarantees to "creation scientists" which were not provided to those who taught evolution; and ruled that the law was intended to advance a particular religion because several state senators that had supported the bill stated that their support for the bill stemmed from their religious beliefs.
While the Court held that creationism is an inherently religious belief, it did not hold that every mention of creationism in a public school is unconstitutional:
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S., at 42, 101 S.Ct., at 194. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578, 593-594, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2583 (U.S.La., 1987)
Intelligent Design and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 
The ruling was one in a series of developments addressing issues related to the American creationist movement and the separation of church and state. The scope of the ruling affected state schools and did not include independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools, all of whom remained free to teach creationism.
Within two years of the Edwards ruling a creationist textbook was produced: Of Pandas and People, which attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer". Drafts of the text used "creation" or "creator" before being changed to "intelligent design" or "designer" after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling. This form of creationism, known as intelligent design creationism was developed in the early 1990s.
This would eventually lead to another court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which went to trial on September 26, 2005 and was decided in U.S. District Court on December 20, 2005 in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a mandate that intelligent design be taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139 page opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover was hailed as a landmark decision, firmly establishing that creationism and intelligent design were religious teachings and not areas of legitimate scientific research. Because the Dover school board chose not to appeal, the case never reached a circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
Just as it is permissible to discuss the crucial role of religion in medieval European history, creationism may be discussed in a civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions class where the intent is to factually educate students about the diverse range of human political and religious beliefs. The line is crossed only when creationism is taught as science, just as it would be if a teacher were to proselytize a particular religious belief.
Movements to teach creationism in schools 
There continue to be numerous efforts to introduce creationism in US classrooms. One strategy is to declare that evolution is a religion, and therefore it should not be taught in the classroom either, or that if evolution is a religion, then surely creationism as well can be taught in the classroom.
In the 1980s Phillip E. Johnson began reading the scientific literature on evolution. This led to the writing of Darwin on Trial, which examined the evidence for evolution from a religious point of view and challenged the assumption that the only reasonable explanation for the origin of species must be a naturalistic one, though science is defined by searching for natural explanations for phenomena. This book, and his subsequent efforts to encourage and coordinate creationists with more credentials, was the start of the "Intelligent design" movement. Intelligent design asserts that there is evidence that life was created by an "intelligent designer" (mainly that the physical properties of an object are so complex that they must have been "designed"). Proponents claim that intelligent design takes "all available facts" into account rather than just those available through naturalism. Opponents assert that intelligent design is a pseudoscience because its claims cannot be tested by experiment (see falsifiability) and do not propose any new hypotheses.
Many proponents of the intelligent design movement support requiring that it be taught in the public schools. For example, conservative think-tank, The Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson, support the policy of "Teach the Controversy", which entails presenting to students evidence for and against evolution, and then encouraging students to evaluate that evidence themselves.
While many proponents of intelligent design believe that it should be taught in schools, other creationists believe that legislation is not appropriate. Answers in Genesis has said:
"AiG is not a lobby group, and we oppose legislation for compulsion of creation teaching ... why would we want an atheist forced to teach creation and give a distorted view? But we would like legal protection for teachers who present scientific arguments against the sacred cow of evolution such as staged pictures of peppered moths and forged embryo diagrams ..."
Opponents point out that there is no scientific controversy, but only a political and religious one, therefore "teaching the controversy" would only be appropriate in a social studies, religion, or philosophy class. Many, such as Richard Dawkins, compare teaching intelligent design in schools to teaching flat earthism, since the scientific consensus regarding these issues is identical. Dawkins has stated that teaching creationism to children is akin to child abuse.
Recent developments in state education programs 
Development by state 
In August 2008 Judge Otero ruled in favor of University of California in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns agreeing with the university's position that various religious books on U.S. history and science, from A Beka Books and Bob Jones University Press, should not be used for a college-preparatory classes. The case was filed in spring 2006 by Association of Christian Schools International against the University of California claiming religious discrimination over the rejection of five courses as college preparatory instruction. On August 8, 2008, Judge Otero entered summary judgment against plaintiff ACSI, upholding the University of California's standards. The university found the books "didn't encourage critical thinking skills and failed to cover 'major topics, themes and components'" and were thus, ill-suited to prepare students for college.
On February 19, 2008, the Florida State Board of Education adopted new science standards in a 4-3 vote. The new science curriculum standards explicitly require the teaching of the "scientific theory of evolution", whereas the previous standards only referenced evolution using the words "change over time."
In 2002, six parents in Cobb County, Georgia in the case Selman v. Cobb County School District sued to have the following sticker removed from public school textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Selman v. Cobb County School District, No. 1:02CV2325 (N.D. Ga. filed August 21, 2002). Defense attorney Gunn said, "The only thing the school board did is acknowledge there is a potential conflict [between evolution and creationism] and there is a potential infringement on people's beliefs if you present it in a dogmatic way. We're going to do it in a respectful way." Gerald R. Weber, legal director of the ACLU of Georgia, said "The progress of church-state cases has been that the [U.S.] Supreme Court sets a line, then government entities do what they can to skirt that line. […] Here the Supreme Court has said you can't teach creationism in the public schools. You can't have an equal-time provision for evolution and creationism. These disclaimers are a new effort to skirt the line." Jefferey Selman, who brought the lawsuit, claims "It singles out evolution from all the scientific theories out there. Why single out evolution? It has to be coming from a religious basis, and that violates the separation of church and state." The School Board said it adopted the sticker "to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion."
On January 14, 2005, a federal judge in Atlanta ruled that the stickers should be removed as they violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The school board subsequently decided to appeal the decision. In comments on December 15, 2005 in advance of releasing its decision, the appeal court panel appeared critical of the lower court ruling and a judge indicated that he did not understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.
On December 20, 2006, the Cobb County Board of Education abandoned all of its legal activities and will no longer mandate that biology texts contain a sticker stating "evolution is a theory, not a fact." Their decision was a result of compromise negotiated with a group of parents, represented by the ACLU, that were opposed to the sticker. The parents agreed, as their part of the compromise, to withdraw their legal actions against the board.
On August 11, 1999, by a 6–4 vote the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science education standards to remove any mention of "biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe", so that evolutionary theory no longer appeared in state-wide standardized tests and "it was left to the 305 local school districts in Kansas whether or not to teach it." This decision was hailed by creationists, and sparked a statewide and nationwide controversy with scientists condemning the change. Challengers in the state's Republican primary who made opposition to the anti-evolution standards their focus were voted in on August 1, 2000, so on February 14, 2001, the Board voted 7–3 to reinstate the teaching of biological evolution and the origin of the earth into the state's science education standards.
In 2004 Kansas Board of Education elections gave religious conservatives a majority and, influenced by the Discovery Institute, they arranged the Kansas evolution hearings. On August 9, 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education drafted new "science standards that require critical analysis of evolution – including scientific evidence refuting the theory," which opponents analyzed as effectively stating that intelligent design should be taught. The new standards also provide a definition of science that does not preclude supernatural explanations, and were approved by a 6–4 vote on November 8, 2005—incidentally the day of the Dover school board election which failed to re-elect incumbent creationists (see #Pennsylvania).
In Kansas' state Republican primary elections on August 1, 2006, moderate Republicans took control away from the anti-evolution conservatives, leading to an expectation that science standards which effectively embraced intelligent design and cast doubt on Darwinian evolution would now be changed.
On February 13, 2007, the Kansas State Board of Education approved a new curriculum which removed any reference to Intelligent Design as part of science. In the words of Dr Bill Wagnon, the board chairman, "Today the Kansas Board of Education returned its curriculum standards to mainstream science". The new curriculum, as well as a document outlining the differences with the previous curriculum, has been posted on the Kansas State Department of Education's website.
On 12 June 2008, bill (SB561) or the "Louisiana Academic Freedom Act" passed into law.
In 2002, proponents of intelligent design asked the Ohio Board of Education to adopt intelligent design as part of its standard biology curriculum, in line with the guidelines of the Edwards v. Aguillard holding. In December 2002, the Board adopted a proposal that required critical analysis of evolution, but did not specifically mention intelligent design. This decision was reversed in February 2006 following both the conclusion of the Dover lawsuit and repeated threats of lawsuit against the Ohio Board.
In 2004 the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board voted that a statement must be read to students of 9th grade biology mentioning Intelligent Design. This resulted in a firestorm of criticism from scientists and science teachers and caused a group of parents to begin legal proceedings (sometimes referred to as the Dover panda trial) to challenge the decision, based on their interpretation of the Aguillard precedent. Supporters of the school board's position noted that the Aguillard holding explicitly allowed for a variety of what they consider "scientific theories" of origins for the secular purpose of improving scientific education. Others have argued that Intelligent Design should not be allowed to use this "loophole." On November 8, 2005, the members of the school board in Dover were voted out and replaced by evolutionary theory supporters. This had no bearing on the case. On December 20, 2005 federal judge John E. Jones III ruled that the Dover School Board had violated the Constitution when they set their policy on teaching intelligent design, and stated that "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
In April 11, 2012, a bill passed in state protecting "teachers who explore the 'scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses' of evolution and climate change." Science education advocates said the law could make it easier for creationism and global warming denial to enter U.S. classrooms. Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists saw it as a risk to education, quoting "We need to keep kids' curiosity about science alive and not limit their ability to understand the world around them by exposing them to misinformation."  The passing of the law was praised by proponents of intelligent design.
On November 7, 2007 the Texas Education Agency director of science curriculum Christine Comer was forced to resign over an e-mail she had sent announcing a talk given by an anti-Intelligent Design author. In a memo obtained under the Texas Freedom of Information act, TEA officials wrote "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral". In response over 100 biology professors from Texas universities signed a letter to the state education commissioner denouncing the requirement to be neutral on the subject of Intelligent Design.
In July 2011, the Texas Board of Education, which oversees the Texas Education Agency, did not approve anti-evolution instructional materials submitted by International Databases, LLC, while continuing to approve materials from mainstream publishers.
Despite proponents' urging that intelligent design be included in the school system's science curriculum, the school board of Chesterfield County Public Schools in Virginia decided on May 23, 2007, to approve science textbooks for middle and high schools which do not include the idea of intelligent design. However, during the board meeting a statement was made that their aim was self-directed learning which "occurs only when alternative views are explored and discussed", and directed that professionals supporting curriculum development and implementation are to be required "to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning" of the theory of evolution, "along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion." During the week before the meeting, one of the intelligent design proponents claimed that "Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom", and presented "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".
In 2000, a People for the American Way poll among Americans found that:
- 29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism there as a belief;
- 20% believe public schools should teach evolution only;
- 17% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class and religious theories elsewhere;
- 16% believe public schools should teach creation only;
- 13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism in science class;
- 4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how.
In 2006, a poll taken over the telephone by Zogby International commissioned by the Discovery Institute found that more than three to one of voters surveyed chose the option that biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also "the scientific evidence against it". Approximately seven in ten (69%) sided with this view. In contrast, one in five (21%) chose the other option given, that biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. One in ten was not sure. The poll's results may be called into question however, because the wording of the poll question implies that significant scientific evidence against evolution exists to be taught.
Over the past few years, there have been several attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. Tactics include claims that evolution is "merely a theory", which exploits the difference between the general use of the word theory and the scientific usage, and thus insinuates that evolution does not have widespread acceptance amongst scientists; promoting the teaching of alternative pseudosciences such as intelligent design; and completely ignoring evolution in biology classes. In general, these controversies, at the local school district level, have resulted in Federal and State court actions (usually by parents who are opposed to teaching of religion in school). There have been a number of consequences of these activities:
- The teaching of religious doctrines, such as Creation Science and Intelligent Design, relies upon an understanding of and belief in the supernatural. This is in direct opposition to the principle that science can only use natural, reproducible, testable forces to explain phenomena. This could lead to the disabling of students' abilities to develop the critical thinking skills necessary for all scientists.
- The costs to school districts to defend their actions in imposing religious teaching over the science of evolution are high, diverting funds that the districts could use for the education of their students.
- The lack of proper science education will have a long-term effect of eroding the technological leadership of the US.
- Most biology and medical research institutions assume a well-grounded undergraduate education in biology, which includes the study of evolution. Since modern medical research has focused on the cellular and biochemical levels, the knowledge that all of these processes have evolved from a common ancestor and the processes are remarkably similar between diverse species will be critical in designing experiments to test novel treatments for disease.
- Christine Comer, the Director of Science Curriculum for Texas, resigned after being placed on administrative leave for a breach of Texas Education Agency policy, which required a neutral stance regarding ID and evolution. Ms. Comer had forwarded an email containing details of an upcoming talk by Barbara Forrest, an expert on the history of the ID movement who had been an expert witness on that subject in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and a prominent critic of ID. Lizzette Reynolds, formerly of the U.S. Department of Education and also deputy legislative director for former Texas Governor, George W. Bush, emailed Comer's supervisor: "This is highly inappropriate," Reynolds said. "I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities.
U.S. legal quotations 
The Supreme Court, Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):
...the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma...the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.
McLean v. Arkansas case (1982), the judge wrote that creation scientists:
...cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
The Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987):
...Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.
In Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
If a teacher in a public school uses religion and teaches religious beliefs or espouses theories clearly based on religious underpinnings, the principles of the separation of church and state are violated as clearly as if a statute ordered the teacher to teach religious theories such as the statutes in Edwards did.
The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case (Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 1994):
The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.
United States District Court Judge John E. Jones III stated thus in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005:
We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents.
See also 
- Creation-evolution controversy
- National Center for Science Education
- A Scientific Support for Darwinism
- Discovery Institute
- Clergy Letter Project
- "Texas Improves on Strengths and Weaknesses Language in Science Standards on Teaching Evolution". Discovery Institute. 27 March 2009. Retrieved 13 April 2012. "Texas becomes the seventh state to specifically require in its science standards that students critically analyze key aspects of evolutionary theory, joining Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina, and Alabama. Two other states, Louisiana and Mississippi, have adopted legislation protecting the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical of Darwin’s theory."
- Chermak, Steven; Bailey, Frankie (2007-10-30). Crimes and Trials of the Century \Two Volumes]. pp. 98–99. ISBN 9781573569736.
- s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 19 of 139
- Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. (pdf) A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
- TalkOrigins Archive: Post of the Month: March 2006, The History of Creationism by Lenny Flank.
- Kent Hovind, a prominent creationist, who states on his web page that "Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum." and "It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious world view that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment."
- Wilgoren, Jodi (August 21, 2005). "Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
- "Jason Lisle vs. Eugenie Scott on CNN!". Archived from the original on 18 April 2010. Retrieved 4 April 2012.
- The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, Bantam Press, 2006, ISBN 0-593-05548-9.
- Alabama Citizens for Science Education
- "Judge throws out religious discrimination suit". North County Times. August 8, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-24.
- "Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al. Decision" (PDF). University of California. August 8, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-24.
- Keim, Brandon (20 February 2008). "Evolution Wins as Creationists (Accidentally) Switch Sides in Florida | Wired Science from Wired.com". Wired.com. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
- News Release, Science Standards Will Call Evolution 'Scientific Theory', February 19, 2008, Retrieved 2008-02-19
- Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers - Science - MSNBC.com
- The sticker didn't stick (or did it?)
- THE NATION; Appeals Panel Criticizes Evolution Ruling; A federal district judge had ordered the removal of stickers in a Georgia county's science textbooks that called evolution a theory., Ellen Barry, Los Angeles Times, December 16, 2005
- Jarvie, Jenny (December 20, 2006). "School board ends fight for ‘evolution is theory’ stickers". Los Angeles Times. (subscription required)
- "AGI Update on Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution". American Geological Institute. 2001-03-18.
- CNN.com Evolution-creation debate grows louder with Kansas controversy
- News from Agape Press
- The Kansas standards DO include ID
- Milburn, John (2006-08-02). "Conservatives lose majority on State Board of Ed". Associated Press.[dead link]
- "Nothing Wrong With Kansas: State voters move science education out of the Victorian era". The Washington Post. August 6, 2006.
- Kansas Curricular Standards for Science
- Rivers, Margo (6 October 1999). [url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IPUaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6kcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5474,962749&dq=kentucky+department+of+education+evolution+change-over-time&hl=en "State hits evolution delete key"]. Daily News (Bowling Green, Kentucky). Retrieved 14 November 2010.
- "Ohio Education Board reverses course on promoting 'intelligent-design' creationism". The Free Library: Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 2006. Retrieved 2009-09-29.
- Rudoren, Jodi (15 February 2006). "Ohio Board Undoes Stand on Evolution". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-09-29.
- FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Why It's Unconstitutional to Teach "Intelligent Design" in the Public Schools, as an Alternative to Evolution
- Dover School Board Incumbents Booted - Pennsylvania News Story - WGAL Lancaster
- Zabarenko, Deborah (13 April 2012). "Tennessee teacher law could boost creationism, climate denial". Reuters. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
- "Texas official resigns, cites creationism conflict - USATODAY.com". USA Today. November 30, 2007. Retrieved 14 November 2010.
- Texas biology professors voice support for evolution education, Kilgore News Herald, December 11, 2007, Retrieved 14 November 2010
- Victory for evolution in Texas, National Center for Science Education, 22 July 2011, Retrieved 23 July 2011
- Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life, Donna C. Gregory, Chesterfield Observer, Tuesday, June 5, 2007, Retrieved from Richmond.com 2007-06-05
- News Release, Science textbook statement from School Board Chair Thomas J. Doland, May 23, 2007, Retrieved 2007-06-05
- What’s Wrong with ‘Theory Not Fact’ Resolutions, National Center for Science Education, December 7, 2000, 2006)]
- "'Intelligent Design' Costs Dover School District Over $1 million"
- Separating Religious Fundamentalist "Science" from Science, from Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Tim Berra, Stanford University Press, 1990.
- Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science
- State science curriculum director resigns
- Overcoming Roadblocks: Clarifying the Legalities
- National Center for Science Education
- Ratliff, Evan (October 2004), "The Crusade Against Evolution", Wired magazine (Issue 12.10)
- List of articles (mostly from Answers in Genesis) on creation education, including many on recent American and other attempts at legislation
- Kristi L. Bowman, Seeing Government Purpose through the Objective Observer's Eyes: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Debates, 29 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 417 (2006)
- Jim Chen, Legal Mythmaking in a Time of Mass Extinctions: Reconciling Stories of Origins with Human Destiny, 29 Harvard Environmental Law Review 279 (2005)
- Science, Evolution, and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences, addressing the issue of teaching intelligent design and creationism as science.