Our investigation into the politics of evolution and creationism has shown that, beginning with Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), U.S. federal courts have increasingly narrowed the range of acceptable public policies that state governments may enact concerning evolution. Today, states may choose to de-emphasize evolution in their curricula and select textbooks based on how extensively evolution is covered, so long as they do not also promote explicitly biblical creationism or “creation science.” In addition, although the district court decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover only serves as a legally binding precedent within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, it is likely to discourage efforts to introduce intelligent design into public school curricula elsewhere.

Nevertheless, we showed in the previous chapter that this narrowed range still allows for enormous diversity in state curricular standards, with some of this diversity being a reflection of public opinion (less rigorous standards where opinion is most opposed to teaching evolution). Where standards are more rigorous than public opinion might suggest (e.g., Indiana and North Carolina), we see evidence of the success of scientific organizations to get state educational bureaucracies to enact model curricula. In states whose curricula are not as sophisticated as the public might demand (e.g., Maine), the explanation may be due to state bureaucratic capacity and limited resources.