An establishment clause lawsuit against dogmatic teaching of Darwinism?

It's possible. As has often been said, often the best defense is an offense. Instead of just waiting like sitting ducks to be attacked by the Darwinists, the Darwin Doubters should do the attacking. I know of two cases where suit was initiated by Darwin Doubters instead of Darwinists -- Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004 (1990) and Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F. 3rd 517 (1994).

In a letter addressed to the Florida Board of Science Education (should be "Florida Board of Education" -- there is no separate board of education for science), attorney David C. Gibbs III wrote (pages 4-5 of letter, pages 5-6 of pdf file),

The final category of the Proposed Science Standards that we suggest should be reconsidered is the opening paragraph in the Grades 9-12 Standards entitled

Evolution and Diversity: A. Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence. B. Organisms are classified based on their evolutionary history. C. Natural selection is the primary mechanism leading to evolutionary change.

. . . . . Making evolution the fundamental concept by which all life-science is interpreted or understood limits the scope of scientific inquiry and demands that all biological inquiry be predicated on the evolutionary hypothesis. Making this gigantic jump moves the evolutionary hypothesis from the realm of science into a philosophical faith-based belief system. It has fallen into the same trap of which science has accused religion. It posits its entire interpretive rationale on something which is unobservable and untested. In fact, it could easily be argued that the science curriculum has now moved away from objective and neutral inquiry and has moved into the realm of promoting one particular religious (or more specifically, non religious) viewpoint or belief system. Since the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit public schools to inculcate students with any particular belief system or religion (or non religion), if this standard is employed in Florida schools, as is now being proposed, it could face legal challenges for violating the separation of church and state . . .

. . . we want to emphasize that we are not objecting to the study of evolution in these grade levels. We are merely pointing out that the study of science in public schools must be a study of hypotheses, theories and evidence, and possible limitations and alternatives. We cannot morph science education into a form of unconstitutional religious (or non religious) indoctrination.

Darwinists are fond of likening criticisms of Darwinism to the flat-earth theory and denial of gravity. But gravity and the sphericity of the earth are not in question because they have actually been observed. Darwinism, on the other hand, is based on events the likes of which have never been observed. So Darwinism is just a "faith-based belief system" -- as attorney Gibbs called it -- and as such should not be taught dogmatically in the public schools.

The Darwinists are not satisfied with the status quo on state evolution education science standards but are trying to make those standards more pro-Darwinist. For example, the Fordham Institute (no connection to Fordham U.) report on state science standards gives F grades to the evolution education standards of states that do not teach Darwinism dogmatically -- and in the case of Ohio, threatened to drop that state's overall science grade from a B to an F just because the Ohio evolution lesson plan included the weaknesses of Darwinism. Paul R. Gross, the lead author of the Fordham Institute report, is also a co-author -- with Barbara Forrest -- of "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design."
.