Earlier this week, we reported on efforts by an Indiana state legislator who was interested in getting creationism inserted into the state's science classrooms. He managed to get a modified bill, one that was less sectarian but still overtly promoted religion, passed by the state's Senate. Yesterday, however, the leader of the Indiana House voiced unease about having the state wade into an area that the Supreme Court has declared an unconstitutional promotion of religion.

Many similar bills are introduced in state legislatures each year and, in cases where their sponsors speak to the press, they tend to reveal a great deal of ignorance regarding both science and the law. In terms of science, they tend to misunderstand the meaning of the term "theory," think that there are multiple scientific explanations for life's diversity, or suggest evolution is a theory for life's origin. The Indiana bill's sponsor, Dennis Kruse, appears to get all of these wrong.

When it comes to the legal issues, many of the sponsors of these bills seem to be blissfully unaware of precedents, including Supreme Court decisions, that have determined that teaching creationism is an unconstitutional promotion of religion. Here, Kruse is an exception: he is aware of the precedents, but is hoping his bill will prompt a lawsuit that will get the Supreme Court to turn its back on its own precedents. The House Speaker, however, has now said challenging Supreme Court decisions is "someplace we don't need to go," suggesting he will not bring the bill up for a vote.

ScienceInsider, in covering this decision, suggested national media attention to the bill had made it politically toxic. That, in turn, suggests that continued coverage of similar bills can play a vital role in promoting accurate science education.