[Iota]

Same old witch doctors indeed. The parallels to the Edwards case -- where the Supremes squashed Louisiana's Creationism Act, which required that both evolution and "creation science" taught, or neither -- are uncanny:

"In this case, the purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint. Out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects. . . . The Establishment Clause, however, "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma." Id., at 106-107 (emphasis added). 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."

I think Edwards is also where Louisiana (and Alabama before them) draws inspiration for these disclaimers:

"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. 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."

I'm not sure simply singling out evolution for special criticism avoids the Establishment Clause problem the way that actively teaching competing theories (I know, I know, there aren't any, but bear with me) would, but that appears to be what the creationists are trying to hang their hats on.

[VadeRetro]

Out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the [Louisiana] legislature [in their Creationism Act] chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects. . . .

Exactly. They say it's about accuracy in textbooks, but the only named subject area is evolution. They say it's about developing critical thinking skills, but nobody wants to question anything but evolution. They say it's not about religion ...

Oh, yeah!