Question: In which United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism stated that Creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
Context: Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.  In this case, the Court overruled its decision in "Aguilar v. Felton" (1985), now finding that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for a state-sponsored education initiative to allow public school teachers to instruct at religious schools, so long as the material was secular and neutral in nature and no "excessive entanglement" between government and religion was apparent.  This case is noteworthy in a broader sense as a sign of evolving judicial standards surrounding the First Amendment, and the changes that have occurred in modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir.  1994), was a 1994 court case heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a creationist schoolteacher, John E. Peloza claimed that Establishment clause of the United States Constitution along with his own right to free speech was violated by the requirement to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism".  The court found against Peloza, finding that evolution was science not religion and that the Capistrano Unified School District school board were right to restrict his teaching of creationism in light of the 1987 Supreme Court decision "Edwards v. Aguillard".  One of the three appeals judges, Poole, partially dissented from the majority's free speech and due process opinions.  It was one in a long line court cases involving the teaching of creationism which have found against creationists.  Peloza appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case, originally filed on September 19, 2001, challenging the constitutionality of the application of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, a treaty seeking to equalize copyright protection on an international basis.  In the United States, the Act restored copyright status to foreign works previously in the public domain.  The two main arguments against the application of the Act in the case were that restoring copyright violates the "limited time" language of the United States Constitution's Copyright Clause, and that restoring to copyright works that had passed into the public domain interferes with the peoples' First Amendment right to use, copy and otherwise exploit the works and to freely express themselves through these works, thus also violating the Constitution's Copyright Clause. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law.  Prior to this decision the First Amendment words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.  This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The decision in "Everson" marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era. Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the judicial determination of the Illinois Supreme Court violated the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments.  In matters of dispute within hierarchal religious organizations, the Establishment Clause precludes intervention by civil courts regarding internal disputes of church governance.  Per the Establishment Clause, decisions imposed by hierarchal religious organizations are binding in civil courts. Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community.  It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture.  This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in "Edwards v. Aguillard" that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Wright v. Houston Independent School District was a 1972 American legal case brought by a parent of a student in the Houston Independent School District in Houston, Texas suing on behalf of her daughter and fellow students to prevent the district from teaching evolution as fact and without reference to alternative theories.  The plaintiffs claimed evolutionary theory endorsed a secularist religious view, and argued the school's failure to incorporate the teaching of a particular religious alternative to evolutionary theory as derived from the Bible's creation account held that religious view up to ridicule and contempt.  To allow evolution while avoiding creationism was unconstitutional, the suit claimed, because it advanced one particular sectarian view over another.  The plaintiffs maintained that the school's evolutionary teaching constituted "the establishment of a sectarian, atheistic religion" and was an interference of their own rights to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Establishment clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  The case is one of a series of legal battles over the teaching of evolution in American public schools, and the first to be initiated by opponents of such teaching. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the Town of Greece, New York may permit volunteer chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer.  The plaintiffs were Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.  They argue that the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the town, and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the issue.  On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town of Greece, and that the town's practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools.  The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."  The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught.  These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case "Edwards v. Aguillard". Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism.  The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.  It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction".
Answer: Edwards v. Aguillard