Here is precisely what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitng the free exercise thereof."
Now, do you see any room in there for anyone but Congress with the authority to establish a national religion? Couple that with the fact that ONLY Congress can establish law (Article I, U. S. Constitution). So, tell me again: HOw does a "school district" become "Congress" and how does "scrutinizing evolution more closely" in a school become the same as "establishing a religion?" I can't wait to hear this...
Besides, how is placing a mere disclaimer in the cover of a book that teaches kids to "critically" consider the validity of your sacred theory akin to teaching a religion? Now, read the 1st Amendment again. Do you see the "free exercise clause" in there? That means evos and atheists do not have the authority to deny people their GOD-given right to the FREE EXERCISE of their religion EVEN IF placing doubt on your stupid theory is the same as teaching religion (which it clearly is not!).
Now, do you see any room in there for anyone but Congress with the authority to establish a national religion?
Now that we've seen you interpret "Congress shall make no law" as meaning "Only Congress shall make a law," we're beginning to understand your other posts.
The protections of the Bill of Rights (and the associated prohibitions on sub-federal governments) were extended to the citizens of the several states via the 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War. It says in part (emphasis added):
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The courts have held that "liberty" means at minimum the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments to the constitution. So a local school board, which is enforcing state laws on education, is also restricted from promulgating a policy "respecting an establishment of religion," which is understood to be any policy that advances religion. (Unless the advancement is incidental to a valid secular purpose. So for instance if "Intelligent Design" really was an important scientific discipline -- rather than a popular and political movement -- it could be included in science curricula even if it advanced religion, since teaching science in a science class is obviously a valid secular purpose.)