As does the SCOTUS and state courts
Like that means anything. Courts are not arbiters of "science", just of whichever side is able to afford better lawyers.
I wonder what Soliton would say about the courts if, fifty years from now, they had been stacked with Jindal-esque politicians who supported opening the schools to evolution-skepticism and started issuing ruling after ruling that questioning evolution wasn't religion?
The decision also stated this...
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.
So how does a simple sticker advising an open mind become something prohibited? In any case the 1987 court who decided for that decision consisted of Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and O'Connor. All true lights of conservatism. I'll go along with the two justices who disagreed with the decision, Rehnquist and Scalia.
Even if I agreed with the questionable premise that legislation can be invalidated under the Establishment Clause on the basis of its motivation alone, without regard to its effects, I would still find no justification for today's decision. The Louisiana legislators who passed the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Balanced Treatment Act), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. @@ 17:286.1-17:286.7 (West 1982), each of whom had sworn to support the Constitution (1) were well aware of the potential Establishment Clause problems and considered that aspect of the legislation with great care. After seven hearings and several months of study, resulting in substantial revision of the original proposal, they approved the Act overwhelmingly and specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve. Although the record contains abundant evidence of the sincerity of that purpose (the only issue pertinent to this case), the Court today holds, essentially on the basis of "its visceral knowledge regarding what must have motivated the legislators," 778 F.2d 225, 227 (CA5 1985) (Gee, J., dissenting) (emphasis added), that the members of the Louisiana Legislature knowingly violated their oaths and then lied about it. I dissent.