Other Cases
ACSI et al. v. Stearns et al.
On August 25, 2005, the Association of Christian Schools International, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, California, and six students at the school filed a lawsuit against the University of California. The plaintiffs objected to the UC policy of rejecting certain high school biology classes from Christian schools as "inconsistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community;" they claimed that this policy violated applicants' rights to "freedom of speech, freedom from viewpoint discrimination, freedom of religion and association, freedom from arbitrary discretion, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from hostility toward religion."
On August 8, 2006, Judge S. James Otero dismissed the claims against individual UC officials, but allowed the claims against the university system as a whole to proceed. On March 28, 2008, Judge Otero ruled in favor of UC's motion for partial summary judgment, which established that the university system's admissions policies were constitutional; on August 8 of that year, he further ruled that these policies were properly and constitutionally applied in the case of the applicants in question.
The plaintiffs immediately appealed the case, but in a January 12, 2010, ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal district court's summary judgment; the Supreme Court declined to review the case on October 12, 2010, bringing it to a definitive end.
All the legal documentation available to us for this case is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.
Key Documents
- Original complaint
Expert Witness Reports
- Court opinion and ruling granting UC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
- Court opinion and ruling granting UC's Motion for Summary Judgment on "as-applied" claims
- ACSI Brief of Appeal
- UC Responsive Brief
Briefs of Amici Curiae
- American Center for Law and Justice, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, et al., for ACSI
- National Legal Foundation, for ACSI
- American Historical Association & Organization of American Historians, for UC
- American Association of University Professors, for UC
- California Council of Science and Technology, for UC
- California State University system and University of Nevada, Las Vegas, for UC
- ACSI Reply Brief
Related NCSE Articles
News: University of California system sued over creationism
News: Creationist lawsuit against UC system to proceed?
News: Creationist lawsuit against UC system to proceed
News: Interim victory in California creationism case
News: Victory in California creationism case
News: What's new in ACSI v. Stearns
News: Victory again in California creationism case
News: The end of ACSI v. Stearns
Related Off-Site Material
University of California Newsroom page on ACSI v. Stearns
Nick Matzke, at The Panda's Thumb: ACSI v. Stearns, aka Wendell Bird vs. UC
Mike Dunford, at The Questionable Authority:
American Freedom Alliance v. California Science Center et al.
This page collects the legal documents from the case American Freedom Alliance v. California Science Center et al.
All the legal documentation available to us for this case is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.
Related NCSE Articles
Lawsuit against science center over creationist film
Related Off-Site Material
C. F. v. Capistrano USD
In December of 2007, the Farnan family sued the Capistrano Unified School District (Orange County, California), as well as one of its history teachers, James Corbett. The Farnan family charged that various remarks Corbett had made were an "exhibition of hostility toward religion and endorsement of irreligion in a public school classroom," thereby violating the First Amendment rights of their son, Chad ["C.F."], one of Corbett's students. Among the statements attributed to Corbett were, 'Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work' and 'When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want.'"
On May 1, 2009, District Judge James Selna identified only one of Corbett's statements as constitutionally impermissible: namely, his description of creationism as "superstitious nonsense." On July 13, 2009, in a "tentative ruling," Selna denied the Farnans' request for a declaratory judgment or injunction against Corbett or the school district. The case remains open, as questions of nominal damages and attorneys' fees have yet to be determined.
On February 11, 2011, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals listened to arguments from both sides whether: 1) the district court erred in finding that one of Corbett's statements violated the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution; and 2) whether the court erred in granting Corbett and the district 'qualified immunity' from damages. The proceedings are available as an audio recording.
On August 19, 2011, Judge Fisher of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Dr. Corbett is indeed entitled to qualified immunity. In so doing, he vacated the lower court's finding against Corbett and the school district. Also, he declined to rule on the constitutionality of the teacher's statements because the issue was resolved "on [the] basis [of qualified immunity] alone".
The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court which declined to hear the case. [Writ of Certiorari denied 21 February 2012.]
Key legal documents for this case are provided at the bottom of this page. They are arranged in chronological order.
Related NCSE Articles
News: Verdict against critic of creationism
C. Martin Gaskell v. University of Kentucky
On July 10, 2009, C. Martin Gaskell filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court in Kentucky against the University of Kentucky, alleging that he was turned down for the position of Director of the MacAdam Student Observatory on the basis of his religious beliefs and his expression of those beliefs.
On November 23, 2010, the court denied the defendant's and the plaintiff's requests for summary judgment, which sets the stage for a jury trial.
On January 18, 2011, the parties reached a settlement in which Gaskell received $125,000. The University did not admit any wrongdoing.
Caldwell v. Caldwell et al.
On October 13, 2005, Jeanne Caldwell filed suit against two professors of the University of California at Berkeley, Roy Caldwell and David Lindberg, and against Michael Piburn, Program Director for the National Science Foundation. Drs. Caldwell and Lindberg are the principal designers and overseers of the University of California website Understanding Evolution, a collaborative project between the UC Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education. The site initially received partial funding by an NSF grant.
Jeanne Caldwell objected to statements on the website which point out the compatibility of evolution and religion, arguing that they conflicted with her religious beliefs and constituted government endorsement of a religious position, thus violating the Establishment Clause. She was represented by the Pacific Justice Institute and by her husband Larry, who had himself filed two suits concerned with teaching evolution earlier in the year.
On March 20, 2006, US District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed Ms. Caldwell's suit, ruling that she lacked taxpayer standing and had not asserted a concrete injury as a result of viewing the "Understanding Evolution" website. Ms. Caldwell appealed, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision on October 3, 2008. Finally, the US Supreme Court declined without comment to review the case on March 23, 2009.
All the legal documentation available to us for this case is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.
Related NCSE Articles
News: Understanding Evolution lawsuit dismissed
News: Appeal of Understanding Evolution lawsuit dismissed
News: Understanding Evolution lawsuit over
Related Off-Site Material
Timothy Sandefur, at The Panda's Thumb: Caldwell Asks Supreme Court to Take Frivolous Website Case
Caldwell v. Roseville Joint Union High School District et al.
In July of 2003, a policy requiring teachers to discuss the "scientific strengths and weaknesses" of evolution was proposed to the school board of the Roseville Joint Union High School District, by a parent named Larry Caldwell. The district's science teachers, administration, and finally the school board all rejected this policy, as well as antievolution supplemental teaching materials provided by Caldwell and others.
In January of 2005, Caldwell sued the district and certain of its administrators, claiming that he was unconstitutionally obstructed from promoting and discussing his educational policies, leading to the violation of his freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection rights. Caldwell eventually amended his complaint four times, twice at the bidding of the court.
District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. ultimately dismissed all of Caldwell's complaints, in two rulings issued on October 25, 2005 and September 7, 2007.
In the spring of 2005, NCSE's executive director Eugenie Scott wrote an article on creationist activity in California for the magazine California Wild. This article touched on Caldwell and the Roseville case, and Caldwell subsequently sued Dr. Scott and the NCSE for libel. However, he later withdrew this lawsuit without comment.
All the legal documentation available to us for Caldwell v. Roseville JUHSD et al. is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.
Related NCSE Articles
News: School Board Won't Require Teaching "Arguments Against Evolution"
News: Roseville Teachers Reject Antievolutionist Materials
News: NCSE Sued by Caldwell
News: California Wild Re-Posts "In My Backyard"
News: Over in Roseville
Comer v. Scott and Texas Education Agency
All the legal documentation available to us for the case of Christina Castillo Comer v. Robert Scott, in his official capacity as commissioner of the Texas Education Agency, and the Texas Education Agency is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.
The ruling dismissing the case can be downloaded here.
Audio of the oral argument from the appeal can be downloaded here (WMA file)
Related NCSE Articles
Multimedia: Chris Comer: Expelled for Real
News: Barbara Forrest on Chris Comer's forced resignation
News: The latest on the Comer controversy
News: Science Supervisor Chris Comer Sues Texas Education Agency
News: Comer case dismissed
News: Chris Comer appeals
News: Comer appeal heard
Daniel v. Waters and Steele v. Waters (1973 - 1975)
On April 30, 1973, Tennessee became the first state to pass a balanced treatment law. Intended to ensure that creationism was taught alongside evolution, this statute required any textbook discussing "a theory about origins or creation of man and his world" to give equal attention and emphasis to "the Genesis account in the Bible," as well as other unspecified theories. However, it expressly excluded "the teaching of all occult or satanical beliefs of human origin" from this requirement. It further required such textbooks to contain a disclaimer stating that any such theory "is a theory....and is not represented to be scientific fact," but exempted the "Holy Bible" from this requirement, defining it as a "reference work" rather than a textbook.
Later that year, the National Association of Biology Teachers and three of its Tennessee members — Joseph Daniel, Arthur Jones and Larry Wilder — filed suit over the law in federal court (Middle District of Tennessee). Naming as defendants the members of the Tennessee State Textbook Commission, including its chairman Hugh Waters, the plaintiffs argued that the statute violated the First Amendment with respect to the Establishment Clause, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech and of the press. Before the state had answered the complaint in Daniel v. Waters, a second suit was filed against the Textbook Commission in state court (the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee) by Harold Steele and two other members of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, who claimed that the statute violated the constitutions of both the United States and the state of Tennessee.
The subsequent paths of Daniel v. Waters and Steele v. Waters through the legal systems were rather convoluted. The State of Tennessee moved to have the district court dismiss Daniel v. Waters, or at least abstain from adjudicating it until Steele v. Waters was decided. When the district court agreed to the later course on February 26, 1974, the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which vacated the abstention order and remanded the case to the district court for a new judgment. The district court reentered the abstention order, and the plaintiffs again appealed this. Meanwhile, the Chancery Court had decided Steele v. Waters in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling on September 9, 1974, that the statute was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state of Tennessee appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
On April 10, 1975, a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, decided Daniel v. Waters on the merits, ruling that the Tennessee statute was "patently unconstitutional." Judge George Edwards authored the majority opinion, which identified two constitutional violations in particular: the special treatment of "occult or satanical beliefs" on the one hand, and of the Genesis account on the other. Edwards wrote, "We deem the two constitutional violations described above to be patent and obvious on the face of the statute and impossible for any state interpretation to cure." Judge Anthony Celebrezze dissented, arguing that the Appeals Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutional issues, but should have required the district court to decide them instead. The State of Tennessee did not appeal this decision.
On August 20, 1975, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Steele v. Waters affirming the Chancery Court's decision. In its brief opinion, which acknowledged and concurred with the Daniel v. Waters decision, the Supreme Court added that the statute also violated Tennessee's constitution.
Although state and federal courts agreed that this law was clearly unconstitutional, creationists in other states continued to champion equal-time laws until the Supreme Court struck Louisiana's Balanced Treatment Act down in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Related Off-Site Material
Kenneth Fair's HTML reprint of the Daniel v. Waters decision at Talk.Origins
Kenneth Fair's HTML reprint of the Steele v. Waters decision at Talk.Origins
Discovery Institute v. California Science Center
This page collects the legal documents from the case Discovery Institute v. California Science Center
All the legal documentation available to us for this case is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.
Related Off-Site Material
LA Times: California Science Center is sued for canceling a film promoting intelligent design
Doe v. Mount Vernon Board of Education et al.
(Full Title: Doe et al. v. Mount Vernon City School District Board Of Education et al.)
On June 13, 2008, the "Doe" (pseudonym) family filed suit against the Board of Education of the Mount Vernon City School District, Ohio; against the district's superintendent and the principal of Mount Vernon City School; and against John Freshwater, their son's eighth-grade science teacher at the aforementioned school.
In its complaint, the Doe family claimed that Freshwater had proselytized in class, displayed religious material (which was not for his personal use) in the classroom, attacked evolution and taught intelligent design, and branded students with a Tesla coil; James Doe had received a painful brand on his arm in the shape of a cross. The Does also claimed that Freshwater had led prayer sessions for a Christian student club, and had violated various other administrative policies. When the Does complained to the principal and district administration, the latter did not take action to correct Freshwater's behavior or to prevent retaliation against their son. The Does' suit charges the defendants with violating the Establishment Clause and their right to free speech.
Shortly after the filing of this suit, the Board voted to terminate Freshwater's employment. Freshwater appealed, and an administrative hearing on the termination decision is currently underway. Freshwater filed a counterclaim in this suit against the Does on September 2, 2008, and filed his own lawsuit against the school district and associated persons in June 2009. The Doe family agreed to testify in the termination hearing under their true names, making their identities public, and voluntarily lifted the protective order keeping their identities secret. The Protective Order remains in place with respect to the identity of all minors other than James Doe.
On August 26, 2010, the Board agreed to a settlement with the Dennis family (who originally filed suit under the pseudonym "Doe"). The public terms of this settlement gave the Dennis Family $115,000 for legal costs, awarded $5,500 to the son, and $1 each to the parents.
On November 23, 2010, John Freshwater agreed to a settlement with the Dennis family. $25,000 was awarded for attorney's fees, $150,000 was awarded to the son, and $300,000 awarded to the parents.
On December 3, 2010, the judge presiding over the case approved the above settlement of $475,000 to the Dennis family.
Key legal documents for this case are provided at the bottom of this page. They are arranged in chronological order.
Related NCSE Articles
News: Creationist teacher sued in Ohio
News: Creationist teacher in Ohio to be fired
News: Hearing scheduled for creationist teacher's appeal in Ohio
News: Partial settlement in Freshwater case
News: Settlement in Freshwater case imminent
News: Settlement in Freshwater case
News: Settlement in Freshwater case final
Related Off-Site Material
Extensive blog coverage at The Panda's Thumb, including Richard Hoppe's day-by-day accounts of Freshwater's termination hearing
Coverage of the Freshwater Controversy at the Mount Vernon News
Mount Vernon News: School board resolves federal lawsuit
Coverage of the Freshwater case at the Columbus Dispatch. See the "Read the Report" and "Web Extras" sections of this page for district documents relevant to the case.
Freshwater v. Mount Vernon Board of Education et al.
(Full Title: Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education et al.)
On June 9, 2009, John Freshwater filed suit against the Board of Education of the Mount Vernon City School District, Ohio, and against several individuals and organizations.
Freshwater, an eighth-grade science teacher for the district, had been the subject of an investigation commissioned by the Board after student and teacher complaints. The Board determined that Freshwater had proselytized in class, had taught creationism and omitted required material on evolution, and had branded students using a Tesla coil. The parents of one child, who had been branded with a cross, filed suit against Freshwater and the district. That suit was settled in late 2010 when the family was awarded $455,502 plus $140,000 for legal fees. The Board voted unanimously on June 20, 2008, to terminate Freshwater's employment.
Freshwater appealed the Board's decision, and a Termination Hearing on the matter began that October; it is also ongoing.
In his lawsuit, Freshwater names as defendants the Board, two individual Board members and four other district administrators, the investigative firm and its two employees, and up to eight unknown (even to him) "employees, agents or others associated" with the Board who may have "conducted or facilitated" actions against him. The original complaint included sixteen counts including religious discrimination, defamation, conspiracy and breach of contract. An amended complaint includes Freshwater's wife, Nancy, as an additional plaintiff, and adds a seventeenth count of loss of consortium.
On October 21, 2010, all counts were dismissed by the involved parties "with prejudice," meaning that the plaintiffs' complaints would not again be raised in a court of law. This action indicated that a settlement was reached outside of the courtroom and the case has ended.
Key legal documents for this case are provided at the bottom of this page. They are arranged in chronological order.
Related NCSE Articles
News: Creationist teacher sued in Ohio
News: Creationist teacher in Ohio to be fired
News: Hearing scheduled for creationist teacher's appeal in Ohio
News: Creationist teacher in Ohio sues school district
Related Off-Site Material
Extensive blog coverage at The Panda's Thumb, including Richard Hoppe's day-by-day accounts of Freshwater's termination hearing
Coverage of the Freshwater Controversy at the Mount Vernon News
Coverage of the Freshwater case at the Columbus Dispatch. See the "Read the Report" and "Web Extras" sections of this page for district documents relevant to the case.
Hendren et al. v. Campbell et al.
On March 23, 1977, the Indiana Textbook Commission was sued by ninth-grade student Jon Hendren, his father Robert Hendren, and E. Thomas Marsh, another student's parent. The lawsuit followed the Commission's approval of Biology: A Search For Order In Complexity, a "creation science" textbook, for use in public school biology courses. After the plaintiffs' school district, West Clark Community School Corporation, had adopted that book as its sole biology text, the plaintiffs had requested that the book's approval be withdrawn. The Textbook Commission had convened an administrative hearing on the matter on March 18, 1977, and issued findings of fact reaffirming their approval of the textbook at the close of the hearing.
The case was heard by Judge Michael T. Dugan II, for the Superior Court of Marion County. On April 14, 1977, Dugan ruled that use of the textbook in public schools constituted government favor of a particular religious doctrine, thereby violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution. Dugan also ruled that the Textbook Commission's findings of fact were "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion," "inconsistent with the evidence at the administrative hearing," and also in violation of the aforementioned sections of the US and Indiana constitutions.
Like McLean v. Arkansas, this case was a precursor to the Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard, which prohibited state and local governments from requiring the teaching of creationism in the public schools.
A PDF of the Hendren v. Campbell decision is provided at the bottom of this page. It is text-searchable but poor quality; for ease of reading, we recommend the Talk.Origins copy linked below.
Related Off-Site Material
Nick Matzke's HTML reprint of the Hendren v. Campbell decision and editorial comments at Talk.Origins
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 4/14/77: Court decision (text-searchable but poor quality) | 1.01 MB |
Hurst v. Newman
The lawsuit concerned a class at the district's high school. Several parents raised objections to the class when it was proposed to the school board in December 2005. The course description, syllabus, and materials indicated that the class would advocate creationism and intelligent design and undermine evolution education.
The course description read:
"Philosophy of Intelligent Design: This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid. This class will discuss Intelligent Design as an alternative response to evolution. Topics that will be covered are the age of the earth, a world wide flood, dinosaurs, pre-human fossils, dating methods, DNA, radioisotopes, and geological evidence. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions. The class will include lecture discussions, guest speakers, and videos. The class grade will be based on a position paper in which students will support or refute the theory of evolution."The first version of the syllabus had been presented on December 14, 2005. Ken Hurst, a geologist and parent in the school district, raised objections to the class and critiqued the syllabus. A revised syllabus was accepted by the school board.
On January 17, 2006, the El Tejon School District settled the lawsuit, agreeing to end the course early and never again offer any course "entitled ‘Philosophy of Design’ or ‘Philosophy of Intelligent Design’ or any other course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science, or intelligent design.”
See these articles in the local paper, The Mountain Enterprise for documents and articles about the case.
All the legal documentation available to us for this case is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged in chronological order.
Related NCSE Articles
News: California parents sue school district over "ID" class
News: Settlement in Hurst v. Newman
Institute for Creation Research Graduate School v. Paredes et al.
This page collects the legal documents from the case Institute for Creation Research Graduate School v. Raymund A. Paredes et al.
The ICR Graduate School is "an unincorporated educational ministry unit of The Institute for Creation Research, Inc." The defendants are officers of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; Raymund Paredes is the CEO of the Board and Texas Commissioner of Higher Education. The ICR Graduate School filed two separate suits, one in Texas state court, and another in federal court, in the Northern District of Texas. The suits are identical, save for the fact that the Board itself is named as an additional defendant in the state court suit. The latter suit has been removed to federal court in the Western District of Texas. Judge Jane J Boyle is presiding over the federal case in the Northern District, and Judge Sam Sparks over that in the Western District.
All the legal documentation available to us for these cases is provided at the bottom of this page. It is arranged by case, and secondarily by chronological order.
Note: A number of documents were submitted to the Western District Court by the ICR Graduate School with the heading "Northern District of Texas: Austin Division." This division of the Northern District does not exist. We have assumed that the reference to "Northern District" is erroneous, and have accordingly titled these documents as belonging to the Western District case.
Related NCSE Articles
News: ICR seeks to grant degrees in Texas
News: Scientists oppose ICR certification in Texas
News: Decision on ICR's graduate school deferred
News: ICR fails to obtain certification in Texas
RNCSE: A Setback for the ICR in Texas
News: ICR sues THECB
News: A legal defeat for the ICR
News: ICR concedes defeat over its graduate school
Related Off-Site Material
Timothy Sandefur at Freespace: ICR lawsuit against Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science: The Institute for Creation Research Brings a Flawed Lawsuit Against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Pamela Hensley v. Johnston County Board of Education
In 2004, Pamela Hensley was teaching evolution in her 8th grade science class in a small community several miles outside of Selma, North Carolina, when a "lively" discussion ensued with her students. Parents of one of the students wrote a letter to the Principal charging that Ms. Hensley was rude to their daughter and gave her a poor grade in retaliation for her religious views. The parents wrote that it was their intention "to rid our school system of" Ms. Hensley who forces "her 'Alternative Live [sic] Views' on children who have proven they don't subscribe to the same beliefs as her."
After investigating, the Principal admonished Ms. Hensley for telling students that the Bible is not to be read literally, but allowed her to continue her teaching assignments.
In October of 2005, the same father met with the School Board and some weeks later Ms. Hensley was transferred to a remedial language arts position at a different school about 10 miles away. Hensley filed a grievance with the School Board shortly thereafter and filed a "Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial" with the County Superior Court in May 2007. The case was subsequently moved to the Federal District Court.
On 23 December 2010, the court dismissed all of Ms. Hensley's complaints except for one claiming insufficient accommodation under the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act], although she was denied punitive damages with that claim.
The Scopes Trial of 1925
Introduction
In 1925, the state of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, which outlawed the teaching of "any theory that denies the divine creation of man and teaches instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." The ACLU offered to defend any teacher accused of violating the Act, and John Scopes agreed to incriminate himself by teaching evolution.
With William Jennings Bryan among the prosecutors, Clarence Darrow among the defense, and journalist H.L. Mencken covering the proceedings, Scopes' "Monkey Trial" focused an unprecedented amount of public attention on the creationism/evolution controversy. However, the case had little impact on the actual legal issues involved. Scopes was rapidly convicted, and upon his appeal the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Butler Act to be constitutional; but the court also overturned his conviction on a technicality, blocking any chance to take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Recommended links
- Scopes Trial Home Page — A comprehensive collection of material about the 1925 Scopes trial, compiled by law professor Douglas Linder
- Monkey Trial — Web site for the American Experience's documentary on the Scopes trial, including audiovisual material and a guide on using the documentary and the web site in the classroom
- 20 Questions about the Scopes Trial — from American Heritage magazine online
- Evolution for John Doe — A college level lesson plan which focuses on the scientific diagrams used in the Scopes Trial.
Recommended Reading
Summer for the Gods
Larson, Edward J.
New York: HarperCollins. (1997)
A Pulitzer-Prize-winning re-evaluation of the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial and its relevance to the creation/evolution controversy today.