Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). McLean v. Arkansas, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982). Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
REFERENCES
American Humanist Association. 1981. Update on creation bills and resolutions. Cre-
ation/Evolution 2 (1): 1–44.
Anonymous. 1983. Act 590 of 1981. In Creationism, science, and the law: The Arkansas case, ed. M. C. La Follette, 15–19. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Armstrong, Karen. 2000. The battle for God: A history of fundamentalism. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bird, Wendell R. 1979. Resolution for balanced presentation of evolution and scientific cre- ationism. Impact (May): 4.
Carnegie, Andrew. 1889. Wealth. North American Review (June): 653–664.
Grabiner, Judith V., and Peter D. Miller. 1974. Effects of the Scopes trial. Science 185 (4154): 832–837.
Grobman, Arnold B. 1998. National standards. American Biology Teacher (October): 562. Ham, K. 2008. The history of AIG-U.S. to the middle of 2008. Retrieved October 27, 2008
from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/history.asp.
Herlihy, Mark E. 1983. Trying creation: Scientific disputes and legal strategies. In Creationism,
science and the law: The Arkansas case, ed. M. C. La Follette, 96–103. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hileary, William, and Oren Metzger. 1990. The world’s most famous court trial: Tennessee
evolution case, 2nd reprint ed. Dayton, TN: Bryan College.
Holden, C. (2007). A journal is created. Science 316 (5827): 961.
Holmes, S. J. 1927. Proposed laws against the teaching of evolution. Bulletin of the American
Association of University Professors 13 (8): 549–554.
Holtzman, Eric, and David Klasfeld. 1983. The Arkansas creationism trial: An overview of the legal and scientific issues. In Creationism, science, and the law: The Arkansas case, ed. M. C. La Follette, 86–96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Institute for Creation Research. 1979. Creation science and the local school district. ICR Impact (January): 4.
Institute for Creation Research. 1986. Ken Ham joins ICR staff. Acts and Facts (December): 1–4.
Institute for Creation Research. 1988a. “Back to Genesis” programs have a successful start. Acts
and Facts (April): 2.
Institute for Creation Research. 1988b. First “Back-to-Genesis” program a resounding success; over 2000 in New England states hear creation message. Acts and Facts (July): 1, 5. Institute for Creation Research. 1993a. Creationist speakers available. Acts and Facts (August):
5.
Institute for Creation Research. 1993b. ICR museum visited by 25,000 in first year. Acts and
Larson, Edward J. 1997. Summer for the gods: The Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over
science and religion. New York: Basic Books.
Larson, Edward J. 2003. Trial and error: The American controversy over creation and evolution, rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lawrence, Jerome, and Robert E. Lee. 1960. Inherit the wind. New York: Bantam Books. Marsden, George M. 1980. Fundamentalism and American culture: The shaping of twentieth-century
evangelicalism, 1870–1925. New York: Oxford University Press.
McKenna, M. 2007. Lord of the ring. The Australian, June 5. Retrieved October 13, 2008 from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21848726-28737,00.html. Moore, John A. 1976. Creationism in California. In Science and its public: The changing relation-
ship, ed. Gerald Horton and William A. Blanpied, 191–208. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Moore, John A. 2002. From Genesis to genetics: The case of evolution and creationism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Moore, John N., and Harold S. Slusher, eds. 1974. Biology: A search for order in complexity, rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Moore, Randy. 1998. Thanking Susan Epperson. American Biology Teacher (Novem- ber/December) 60(9): 642–646.
Morris, H. M. 1946. That you might believe. Chicago: Good Books. Morris, H. M. 1951. The Bible and modern science. Chicago: Moody Press.
Morris, Henry M., ed. 1974. Scientific creationism, public school ed. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
Moyer, Wayne. 1981. Legislative initiatives. Scientific Integrity (June): 1–4. Numbers, Ronald. 2006. The creationists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rasche, M. D. 2002. To God be the glory! Acts and Facts 31 (8): 1–2.
Ruse, Michael. 1984. A philosopher’s day in court. In Science and creationism, ed. A. Montagu, 311–342. New York: Oxford University Press.
Skoog, Gerald. 1978. Does creationism belong in the biology curriculum? American Biology
Teacher 40 (1): 23–29.
Skoog, Gerald. 1979. The topic of evolution in secondary school biology textbooks: 1900–1979.
Science Education 63: 621–640.
Stewart, M. 2007. A decade for “Dr. Dino”; Kent Hovind gets 10 years for violating federal tax law. Pensacola News-Journal. January 20, p. A1.
Weinberg, Stanley. 1981a. Memorandum to liaisons for committees of correspondence, 1 (April): 1–4.
Weinberg, Stanley. 1981b. Memorandum to liaisons for committees of correspondence, 1 (Novem- ber): 1–4.
Weinberg, Stanley. 1982. Memorandum to liaisons for committees of correspondence, 2 (February): 1–4.
Whitcomb, John C. Jr., and Henry M. Morris 1961. The Genesis Flood: The biblical record and
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Neocreationism
In 1987, the Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard struck down a Louisiana law requiring equal time for creationism and evolution. Creationism is a religious idea, said the Court, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from promoting religion. Antievolution strategies subsequently were developed that avoided the use of any form of the words creation, creator, and creationism. In effect, proponents shifted their strategy from proposing to balance evolution with creation science to proposing to balance evolution with creation science in other guises. Antievolutionists proposed the teaching of “scientific alternatives” to evolution or evidence against evolution— avoiding referring to such purported disciplines as creationism. A school district in Louisville, Ohio, which had an equal time for evolution and creation science regu- lation in place before Edwards, rewrote the science curriculum to “avoid mention of creationism in its curriculum guide, calling it alternative theories to evolution and adding it to the science classes” (Kennedy 1992). The avoidance of creation science terminology and the development of creation science–like alternatives to evolution, plus the renaming of the content of creation science as evidence against evolution, constitute what I call neocreationism, which continues into the twenty-first century. These approaches were encouraged by creationist interpretations of the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.