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

<P0-S0> 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. <P0-S1>  It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. <P0-S2>  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. <SEP> <P1-S0> Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. <P1-S1>  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. <P1-S2>  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". <SEP> <P2-S0> 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. <P2-S1>  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." <P2-S2>  The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. <P2-S3>  After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught. <P2-S4>  These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case "Edwards v. Aguillard". <SEP> <P3-S0> 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. <P3-S1>  In the United States, the Act restored copyright status to foreign works previously in the public domain. <P3-S2>  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.