Refusing to support any religion was ruled Constitutional because it neither promotes or demotes any specific religion. Hence it is OK for government to refuse to support any religion. Or it is OK for them to support all equally. Discriminating between them is a no-no.

If the state denied scholarships to the students of professors who believed in evolution, that might or might not pass muster. If it was ruled to be a law that was there specifically to support the views of certain religions, I don't know if it would be struck down or not. While I would like it to be otherwise, my guess is not.

Certainly (contrary to popular belief), the Scopes Monkey Trial didn't find the Tennessee law against teaching evolution to be unconstitutional. When the case was overturned, it was on a technicality (the fine was set by the judge when it should have been set by the jury). And it didn't stop 2 more states (Arkansas and Mississippi) from banning the teaching of Darwin's theory.

Of course that was then. Interpretations do shift over time, and the evidence for viewing Darwin as fact is better today than it was in 1924. But given that most adults (and probably most judges) are not familiar with that evidence, this probably would prove to be irrelevant.

OTOH a bill mandating the teaching of Creationism alongside evolution is unconstitutional. See [link|http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/evo/bldec_EdwardsAguillard.htm|Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)].

Cheers,
Ben