Here are answers to several important questions that educators and others would appreciate having answers to:

Question: Is not creationism based on the Bible? Why then should it be in the public schools?

Answer: Scientific creationism is not based on the Bible or on religious teachings, but on scientific facts (such as are found in this entire set of books). Scientific creationism is keyed to facts about astronomy, geology, genetics, paleontology, zoology, botany, thermodynamics, physics, and other sciences. The scientific case for it is based on our knowledge of sedimentary strata, radioactivity, astrophysics, DNA, fossils, mutations, species, and similar things.

Question: Is not creationism more religious than scientific?

Answer: There are only two basic models of origins, creation and evolution. The first is theistic, the second is atheistic. The American Humanist Association declares in their charter that their organization is a religion and belief in atheism is a religious belief. Evolutionists call evolution a religion. (For more on this, see the section in chapter 31, Scientists Speak, entitled, Evolution Is a Religious Faith.) Each model, creation and evolution, is essentially a world view. Keep in mind that all agree that there are only two alternatives: creation or evolution. Each of the two is a philosophy of life and meaning, and explains origin and destiny.

Question: Is not scientific creationism merely a back-door way of introducing religions into the public schools?

Answer: We could reply, is not evolution taught in public schools merely as a way of introducing atheism to the students? Actually, scientific creationism is instruction about scientific topics, and, as such, should be taught in public schools. Scientific creationism, plus Biblical topics should be taught in churches, synagogues, mosques, and church schools.

Question: Why should such a small minority be permitted to impose their ideas on the majority? Most people do not want creationism taught in the public schools.

Answer: Most people DO want creationism taught in the public schools. Polls, such as those mentioned in this chapter, clearly establish that point. Yet creationists only ask for fair treatment, not favored treatment, in the public schools. In contrast, the liberal humanists want total control over the public schools. They want only their theories and beliefs to be taught, and that is not as it should be.

Question: Would it not be better to teach theistic evolution in the public schools, instead of creationism?

Answer: Theistic evolution is still evolution; it is not creationism, as such. The belief that God used stellar evolution, earth evolution, and life evolution to produce our present stars, world, plants, animals, and man is evolutionary theory; NOT creationism. It is confusion to call theistic evolution, "creationism," because it is not. There is no scientific way to discriminate between regular evolution and theistic evolution. Both teach the same thing, both assume the same framework of evolutionary theories, processes, history, and mechanisms. In contrast, creationism and evolutionary theory are two clear-cut alternatives, and both can be analyzed on the basis of scientific facts. But, on the basis of scientific facts, there is no difference between theistic evolution and regular evolution.

Question: Why should creationists insist on teaching creationism in public schools, when they do not permit evolution to be taught in their own churches and religious schools?

Answer: We are here talking about public, not private, schools. All the public-both creationists and evolutionists-support the public schools with their money. Therefore, instruction in both views should be made available in the textbooks and class discussion of those schools. But private schools are different. When atheists build and fund their own schools, they have a right to teach what they want in their own schools; the same is true for creationists, when they finance and maintain their own educational institutions. If creationists want only creationism to be taught, they should build their own schools to do it; if evolutionists only want evolution to be taught, they should construct their own private schools for that purpose. It is not right for evolutionists to insist that the creationist public fund schools for evolutionists to have exclusive control over. What is needed is the two-model approach, with both sides presented on a strictly scientific and objective basis. Only such an approach is consistent with the constitution, civil rights, religious neutralism, scientific objectivity, educational effectiveness, academic freedom, and general fairness.

8 -

WHAT CAN TEACHERS TEACH

IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

In relation to creation science and evolutionary theory, the question is frequently asked, "What CAN and CANNOT be taught in the public schools?" Here is a brief summary overview:

There is widespread puzzlement over exactly what can and what cannot be taught in the classroom. This concluding summary should provide you with some answers you can use.

In private and parochial schools, you can teach anything which agrees with public morals and the standards adhered to by the private school authorities. If they believe in creationism, then you can teach it, recommend it, and ignore or vigorously oppose evolutionary concepts.

Schools that are funded by the taxpayers are different. We will here focus our attention on public schools in America. A little history will help us understand where we are today:

Over a hundred years ago, only the creation model of science was taught in the schools. But in the late 1900s, evolutionary teachings entered some of the universities, and by World War I those teachings began to be felt in some high schools. At the time of the 1925 Scopes Trial, the Tennessee State legislature had a law on the books (the Butler Act), that required the teaching of a creationist approach in regard to the ancestry of mankind. In the years since then, evolutionary science teaching has taken over the public schools on all levels: grade schools, high schools, colleges, and universities.

All state or county requirements that creation must be taught and evolution cannot be taught in state-funded schools are now illegal in America. The courts have rejected them, while Congress has remained silent. On November 12, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in tax-supported schools is unconstitutional.

Fifty-six years after the Dayton Scopes Trial, the Arkansas legislature passed an "equal time" law. The "equal time" requirement was this: Whatever amount of time is spent in the classroom teaching the evolutionary view of origins, an equal amount of time must be given to teaching that same classroom of students the alternate view, which is abrupt origins-the creationist view.

'This Arkansas law was enacted in 1981, after the failure of several attempts to have evolution banned from high school science courses. Act 590 required "equal time" or "balanced treatment" for the two views. The ACLU promptly sued the Arkansas Board of Education and the suit came for hearing before a federal court on December 7-16, 1981. Half of the witnesses for the ACLU were scientists (including *Gould, *Eldredge, and *Ruse), and the other half were liberal Protestant and Catholic theologians and religious historians. Nearly all of the witnesses for the creationist position were competent scientists. That would be understandable, since evolution consists of philosophy, while creationism has scientific evidence on its side. It was really a battle between humanism and scientific facts.

On January 5,1985, Judge William Overton released his 38-page ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the ACLU. Overton ruled that creation science could not qualify as an alternative scientific explanation, on the pretext that it was primarily held by people who believed in the existence of God. This made them religious, and therefore all they believed was tainted with religiosity. Therefore creationism was a religious teaching, and therefore it could not be required in the schools on an "equal time" basis.

Overton ruled that Arkansas Act 590 was therefore an attempt to establish religion in a state-supported school in violation of the First Amendment of the federal Constitution.

A similar test case of a "balanced treatment" law occurred in Louisiana in 1981-1982, after passage of Louisiana Act 685 in 1981. It dragged on through several years of suits, countersuits, and appeals. On July 8, 1985, a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that "The act's intended effect is to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief."

Ultimately, the case reached the Supreme Court, and in 1987 it ruled that it was unconstitutional for a U.S. government entity to require an equal amount of time for the teaching of the evolutionary and creationist interpretation of scientific facts.

Now, in practical terms, what does that mean for the creationist classroom teacher?

Obviously, it means you cannot teach creationism in the classroom. NO, IT DOES NOT! You still can teach it!

The 1920's Tennessee Butler Act required the teaching of only a creationist view of human origins. That later became illegal. You are free to teach both in the public schools.

Later, an effort was made to require the teaching of both views ("equal time") in the public schools. That was declared illegal. But you are free to teach in the public schools.

It is illegal for a school, county, state, or federal agency to forbid the teaching of evolution, or to require the teaching of creation science. But it is not illegal for a teacher to teach aspects of it. It is the requiring or forbidding by governmental authorities that is illegal, not the freedom of the teacher to teach!

Acknowledging this fact that the individual teacher still has a right to teach both, as he or she sees best, the following statement was included in the official Supreme Court ruling in 1987:

"Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution,

about the origin of life." -*Supreme Court of the United Stales, "Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al., v. Aguillard, et. al., No. 85-1513.

In our own words, let us summarize the position of the Supreme Court in this 1987 ruling:

The Louisiana legislature wanted to require equal teaching time for both views in tax-supported American schools, so that both positions would equally presented. This governmental "equal-time" requirement is hereby declared illegal. But in so ruling, we would point out that, aside from governmental efforts to require and forbid, the teacher in the classroom still retains his or her right to academic freedom in the selection and teaching of the state-required curriculum (English, Science, Mathematics, etc.). The flexibility of the teacher to personally decide the specific presentations to be made to the students in each curricular discipline remains inviolate. This 1987 ruling has not hindered that flexibility; indeed, it has safeguarded it. The teacher henceforth has as much right as before to select from and teach evolutive and non-evolutive views of origins.

That is the position of the Supreme Court as of 1987, and no cases affecting that position have come before the court up to the present time (1991).

You as a public school teacher retain the right to teach evolution and/or alternate views or theories in regard to "origins," that is, where everything came from: stars, planets, earth, plants, animals, and man.

The evolutionary view of "origins" involves beginnings and "evolving" of all those entities. The creation science position is keyed to abrupt origins. The evidence is clear: a super-powerful Intelligent Being created everything.

How then should you, as a public school teacher, approach this situation in the classroom? Here is the present writer's suggestion (who at one time was a public school teacher):

(1) Some teachers only teach evolution, so if you choose to do the same you will be in the regular pattern. Of course, each of us will ultimately have to answer for having done such a thing.

(2) Many teachers teach neither view. When they come to the evolution chapters, they skip past them, making no assignments and giving no tests over textbook material dealing with origins and evolution.

(3) You may only teach creation science interpretation of origins in the classroom, totally omitting the evolutionary position and giving no comment on it. Interestingly enough, there is absolutely no law or court ruling that says you cannot do so. But it would be well if you did not do this. In some localities, it would be highly accepted; in others, problems with parents would develop. It is better that you mention the applicable evolutionary theory, and then give the other side (see the next paragraph).

(4) The present writer would recommend this approach: Mention the evolutionary position, and then mention scientific facts that render that position an impossible one. As you have time, do more than merely mention theories and scientific facts; also open it to class discussion. In that discussion, let both sides be aired, while you focus more on asking questions and presenting evidence (and some quotations by scientists), than on urging one side. During the discussion, no student should be "put down" for his or her position. In a tax-supported school, just as you as the teacher have the right to teach as you see best, the students have the right to express their views.

Here are some suggestions for the presentation of these various scientific facts in a public school classroom:

Weeks or even months ahead of time (preferably at the beginning of the school year), sit down with the science textbook for that class and examine the table of contents to see what science topics will be covered that school year. Also note if there is an evolution chapter, where it is located (it is generally at the front or back), and then scan it to see what topic it deals with.

Having read through this present set of books, you will have an idea of some of the key areas of scientific facts which have special application to the creation-evolution controversy. (We will list some of the key ones near the end of this present section). First, decide to what degree you will wish to cover some of these topics and which topic would apply to which of the science textbook chapters. If an evolution chapter is included, will you want to reply to it, or skip that chapter?

Photocopy the table of contents of your science book, and on the photocopy jot down possible chapters of this present set of books which would apply to various of those science textbook chapters.

Then prepare your discussion material for each of the several topics you wish to present. This probably will not be many topics.

Does all that seem difficult? It really isn't.

1. Scan through the textbook table of contents.
2. jot down a few possible presentation topic alongside a few chapters in the textbook.

Remember: you are doing this initial survey and basic preparation months before it is presented in class. There is no rush, no hurry, no confusion, no pressure.

Next, in this present set of books read again through the first topic you might mention or discuss in class. You will want to decide on

1. a few lead questions to get the conversation started and keep it going,
2. a few scientific facts you may want to emphasize, and
3. a few quotations by scientists you might want to use (only use quotations by non-creationist scientists; those with *

before their names; tell the students that these are statements by scientists, most of whom are evolutionists and (and, if needed) that none of them, to your knowledge, are creationists).

(4)You should be aware of the basic evolutionary teaching that you will be confronting in this class presentation/discussion, as well as some of the basic reasons why it is incorrect. The basic teaching is generally given near the beginning of the chapter in these books, and the basic reasons against it are often given in full-caps at the beginning of paragraph sections.

Now, having said all that, it really does sound complicated! But it still is not. You have merely quickly looked through the available material ahead of time, and sidelined some points and quotations which you would want to refer back to as a refresher, prior to the later actual class presentation.

What would a class presentation be like? Here is a sample one, based on part of chapter 10 in this present set of books:

The class is studying a chapter dealing with the general topic of biology, or a chapter covering a narrated topic such as genetics. One day in class you present scientific information on Mendel's findings (explain about the rough- and smooth-coated guinea pigs) and the discovery of DNA (we have an entire appendix section on this at the end of chapter 10). Present the material simply or in detail, according to the level of the class (eighth grade, tenth grade, etc.).

Focus on two essential points:

1. What Mendel discovered was that the offspring can only inherit factors which were already in the genes of their parents; they could not develop new ones.
2. What scientists discovered in DNA was that all of the possible factors that determine what we can be like-are contained within the complicated coding we inherited from our parents.

(To help them grasp the issues, you may wish to assign topics for brief half-page, etc., research reports. If you have time, you may have them present their papers in class, before discussing the issues. There is no doubt but that a grasp of the implications of Mendelian genetics and the DNA coding are crucial to a proper evaluation of the claims of evolution concerning the origin and evolution of species.)

So, first, you told them-or had them read-some of the basics on the history and scientific facts about Mendelian genetics and DNA. Then, you may have assigned them reports to write, followed perhaps by class presentations and discussion of some of the reports.

Whether or not you assigned papers and presentation of reports, do have a class discussion on the DNA presentation you gave them. Part way through it, begin asking some lead questions. Ask a question, let them respond, discuss it. Ask another question and wait for responses.

For example: "Mendel discovered that the children can only inherit factors which were already in the genes of their parents; they cannot develop new ones. Then, a century later, scientists discovered DNA-and learned that all of the possible factors that determine what we can be like are contained within the complex coding we inherit from our parents. With hardly an exception, scientists today universally accept that as true.

"But if that is true, how can one species change into another one?" . . .

"This is important, for one species would have to change into another-in order for evolution to occur." Then, continue the discussion on the significance of Mendel's discovery that parents can only pass on their genotype traits to their children, and the DNA discovery that each species is locked into its own single genetic code from which it cannot escape. Discuss the "gene pool" of all the possible traits that individuals in the species can exhibit, and the "gene shuffling" that enables every person in the world to be a little different than every other one-yet all are still human beings.

What you did in that discussion was to disprove a basic teaching of evolution. You were not making an issue of the alternate position; you were simply presenting scientific facts which undermine an essential aspect of evolutionary theory. If necessary, you had quotations at hand, but you did not use them unless you needed to do so.

Here are additional examples of class discussions on other topics:

(Chapter One): [Briefly explain the Big Bang explosion concept.] "There is no real evidence in its favor, except background radiation and the expanding universe, and both items of evidence are extremely flawed, because ...."(Discuss the "not squeezable, not stoppable, no energy to explode it, no way to blow it outward, no way to slow it," etc., problems. Chapter one has an abundance of material on this point. Add your own sidelines in red beside those paragraphs you may especially want to refer to during class discussion. Then Xerox that chapter, place the photocopied pages in a file folder, or three-ring notebook, and have it on the desk when you make your presentation, so you can refer to it if needed.)

(Chapter Two): It might be best to postpone chapter one (the origin of matter) until high school level and, instead, discuss the origin of stellar objects. Discuss the impossibility of stars, planets, galaxies, and orbits making themselves by chance: "Where did the stars come from?" "How would you push propane gas into a solid?" "How could you keep it there?" "Could you do it in outer space?" ....

(Chapter Three): "Where did our planets and moons come from?" "How did the moons come to revolve about the planets?" "How could that get started?" "Why don't the moons fall into the planets or fly off?" "What does it take for NASA to put a satellite into orbit which will orbit the earth without falling in or flying out?" "Could it happen by itself?" ....

(Chapter Six): "How old is the earth?" "Here are some interesting facts: (Relate some scientific facts from chapter six about our moon, our planet, etc., and what they indicate about the age of our world; ask questions about those facts.) ....

(Chapter Nine): "How did life begin on our planet?" "What conditions would be necessary for that first little bit of sand and seawater to change itself into a living creature?" .... "Here are some things that would have to be there to start with: ...."

(Chapter Ten): "Here is a drawing of the DNA molecule ...." "Here are some facts about how much information is in one DNA molecule: ...." "How could such complicated DNA coding originate itself by chance?" "It would have to do it all over again for every different plant or animal species in the world. How many species are there?" ....

(Chapter Ten): "Let's learn a little about the science of probabilities today. Scientific notation helps us write big numbers. Scientists tell us that all the molecules in the universe-and there are a lot of them!-total 1⁸⁰. That is 1 with eighty zeros after it. Jimmy, would you come up and write that out on the blackboard for us? .... Here are some facts about amino acids and protein: " "Four thousand is a big number; how would you write one chance in 4,000 in scientific notation?" .... [1 ON - or the numeral 4 followed by three zeros]

"What do you think is the likelihood that just one DNA molecule could make itself by chance?' .... [the numeral 4, followed by one thousand zeros!]

"What is the possibility that a single, medium sized amino acid could form itself by chance?"

.... [listen to replies, and then say] "Well, to figure that out, we first need to learn about left- and right-handed amino acids" [explain] ...." "Now, we are ready for that question again: What is the possibility that a single, small amino acid could form itself by chance?" .... [10²¹⁰] ....

(Chapter Thirteen-Fourteen): "According to evolutionary theory, how did everything evolve?" .... "Evolutionists know of only two ways it could possibly happen: They call the one `natural selection,' and the other `mutations.' Natural selection, according to evolutionary theory, is `random accidents.' Let's look first at natural selection .... We said there were two means---or mechanisms by which evolution is supposed to take place: natural selection and mutations. Now, let's look at the second of these, which is mutations. Here is some information about mutations: .... Some evolutionists think that natural selection alone produced all the plants and animals in the world; some think that natural selection and mutations together accomplished it all. Do you think either could have done It?" .... "Why?" .... "What about ....?" ....

(Chapter Seventeen): "We're going to look at fossils and sedimentary strata for a few days. Today, we'll want to start by learning what they both are and where they are found ...." "What is `science'? .... It is a collection of facts about nature. Let's look at some facts about fossils and strata. To begin with, ...." [List points, and individually discuss most of them. If you have a class that likes to spend time discussing, then focus on only a few outstanding points, and merely bring others into the discussion where appropriate.]

(Chapter Eighteen): "What are `cave men'?" "Did they ever live?" "What did they look like?" [hairy half-apes] "How do we know?" [pictures by artists] "Well, now for some scientific facts: .... [data from first half of chapter 18, interspersed with such questions as:] "Why would they [Neanderthals] have more brains than we do?" "Did people have bigger brains back then; I thought we're supposed to have come from apes, and they all have brains only half as big as ours." "What does this mean?" etc. [There is much in chapter 18 that can be discussed.]

(Chapter Twenty-one): "The 'similarities argument' is supposed to be another strong evidence that evolution has occurred. What did we say that `evolution' is again? [If they do not reply with all three aspects of evolution, mention them: (1) Dirt and water changed into living creatures, and (2) those first living creatures changed themselves from one species to another, gradually producing all our millions of present plants and animals, and (3) it all happened by random accidents (natural selection) and harmful mutations, most of which are lethal within one or two generations.] Well, the similarities argument is this: Similar things descended from a common ancestor. Do you think that is a good argument?" .... "The best similarities argument is this one: [explain about the 'five-bone limb.'] You want to realize that this argument by similarities is one of the very best evidences offered for evolution. Now, find those 'five bones' in your arm and hand." .... [Some discussion.] "What about DNA? Remember? It is that super-complicated code in your genes. It is actually a wall that one species cannot cross to become another species,-or can it? What do you think?" .... "Now, if the code could somehow be changed,-would that do it? Could one species become another one?" .... "No, it would be useless-because it is not enough to merely change the code; it must be changed in just the right way-or only rapid death would result! That code is more complete than a dozen sets of encyclopedias-yet just a few code chemicals changed the wrong way would cause death. But now, let us look at some more 'similarities': ...." [Discuss additional similarities problems, and then go into chromosome and DNA count differences. Question and draw out conclusions.] "But back to that five-boned arm.' Evolutionists say it could only mean one thing: if points us to a single ancestor. But is there not something else it could mean?" .... [It points us to a single Originator.]

(Chapter Twenty-two): "The textbook mentions 'vestiges' [or 'useless organs']. Did you know you have 'useless organs' inside you? That's what they say. Evolutionists tell us this is an outstanding evidence that evolution must be true; the fact that we have useless organs inside our bodies. These are supposed to be organs that our monkey-or other-ancestors needed, which we don't need today. What do you think about that?" .... "Well, actually, the truth is-there are no useless organs inside you! The problem wasn't useless organs, but ignorant minds. All the 'useless organs' of the 19th century were merely organs whose functions were not known. But by the middle of the 20th century, functions-vital functions-were found for the last one of them! What do you think of that?" [Briefly discuss importance of thyroid, tonsils, appendix, etc.) ....

(Chapter Twenty-two): "The textbook mentions 'recapitulation.' That is an evolutionary theory we need to talk about for a few minutes. The idea goes something like this: .... [Briefly explain the theory of each stage in growth of the embryo as a mirror of evolutionary changes in past ages. Then, discuss some the problems. Read some of the quotations by scientists refuting it.] "Well, that was an unusual error, wasn't it? And nearly all competent scientists now admit it. But there is an interesting story behind it. Tomorrow I'll tell it to you." [Next day (or in next science class) tell them the story of *Haeckel, ' Darwin's closest friend in Germany, and his fraudulent charts.]

(Chapter Twenty-five): "People have wondered how everything began. But does there have to be a beginning?" .... [Class discussion may, in response, may go one of two directions on this (yes or no). But you bring them back at this point.] "That is quite a question; it would seem that everything would have to have a beginning. But now, scientists have discovered that everything HAD to have a beginning!" [Explain and discuss the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, either simply or in more words, according to the level of the students. Then explain its implications, which are clearly discussed in chapter 25.]

The above will provide you with a brief overview of the possibilities.

Prior to each mention or discussion, be aware that discussion may arise-and be prepared. You will want to have thought it through carefully in advance. You should also have a tape recorder in your desk drawer. Better yet, keep one on your desk top all through the year; in that way everyone will be used to seeing it there. Earlier in the school year, record a discussion or two, and play part of it back the next day, and have a class discussion in the use of logic, etc. Then, when the crucial evolution/creation comments or discussions occur, push down the record switch before you begin. Write the date and start-time on each tape, and keep it on file. In case questions later arise, those tapes will establish certain facts:

In your discussion, you have presented evolutionary theory, by briefly telling what the theory is. Perhaps you presented a point or two in its favor (such points are hard to find!), and you only replied to it with scientific evidence. You did not tell the students which position they should accept, but you stated that they should make up their own minds in regard to the matter. If you mentioned a cause of the obvious abrupt appearance (rather than evolutionary origins and development) of the stars, planets, earth, plants, animals, and man, you spoke of the fact that all the evidence points to a Being of massive power and intelligence. Only such a Person could do the required advance design and planning, and then prepare each object and organism. Each living creature had to be instantly made-complete, or it would just die as instantly. But you should be very guarded about this. You do not want to enter areas of conversation that could be interpreted as "teaching religion." It is best that you stay with scientific facts, and let the obvious implications take care of themselves.

Your position is strongest if you briefly state the evolutionary point, and then ask questions, give scientific facts, and quote statements by some scientists as evidence against that facet of evolutionary theory. According to the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, and all earlier court rulings, you have a right to present "theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life," but instead of this, you do best to focus on disproving evolutionary theory.

Keep in mind that these issues can be discussed in three different classes: science, history, and literature. Back in the mid-1960s, the present writer saw a U.S. Supreme Court quotation in an American Bible Society catalogue. The quotation and accompanying information indicated that, when the ruling was made which barred Bible reading in the public schools, the Court definitely asserted that the right of the teacher to use the Bible in class as literature was in no way violated by that ruling. The Bible is one of the outstanding "great books" of ancient times. It is a literary masterpiece (selections from Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, for example). It is also one of the most accurate ancient historical records known to mankind (Genesis, and the historical books of the Old Testament, for example). The Bible is not to be used "for religious purposes" in tax-supported schools. But the teacher has a right to quote from earlier literary and historical writings, during the teaching of literature and history. This, of course, should not be done to an excessive degree.

In conclusion, let us summarize again the rights of the public school teacher:

In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that governmental agencies cannot forbid the teachers to teach evolution. Yet, both before and after that ruling, each individual teacher continued to retain the authority to choose whether or not to teach it.

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that governmental agencies cannot require the teachers to teach an equal amount of creation science if and when they teach evolution in the classroom. Yet, both before and after that ruling, each individual teacher has been able to choose whether or not to teach creation science and/or evolution in the classroom.

"Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life." -*Supreme Court of the United States. "Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et. al., v. Aquillard, et. al., No. 85-1513.