In any state where gullible or publicity-seeking legislator can be found, there is an opportunity to introduce bills, no matter how foolish, with which the mechanism of the state must deal. In Colorado, Senate Bill 394, which would require that school districts in which evolution is taught allow equal time for the teaching of creationism, was introduced by scientifically naive legislator. No matter how apparently foolish such bill may appear to be, it is essential for the scientific and educational communities of state to be prepared to counter such legislation. Unfortunately, for the most part, neither the educational nor the scientific apparatus of any state has either plan of action or prepared positions and resolutions concerning such matters. The anti-evolutionists, on the other 'hand, have welloiled and -financed machine, ready to spring into action at moment's notice and to carry the day in the face of apathy and unpreparedness on the part of scientists and educators. It usually falls to relatively small number of concemed individuals in any given state to act as Paul Revere to alert appropriate individuals and organizations that the antievolutionists are coming. In Colorado, I have the dubious distinction of having performed the Paul Revere role twice-once in 1972 when similar bill was introduced and defeated, and again in 1981. On Tuesday, March 24th, hearing was held before the State Senate Education Committee, chaired by Senator Alvin J. Meiklejohn. Two anti-evolutionists, Richard Bliss and Wendell Bird, had been flown in from California for the occasion and had come prepared to take most of the allotted time with an illustrated presentation consisting of numerous overhead transparencies and large carousel of Kodachrome slides. The Education Committee, however, saw through the ruse of the elaborate, time-consuming presentation, and posed as ground rules that each side, pro and con, would have only half an hour, which they could use in any way they wished to present their case. The creationist side was wellorganized and -orchestrated. The scientific and educational side was ad hoc and uncoordinated. It consisted mainly of group of individuals who had self-declared themselves as opposing the creationist bill, but who, for the most part, had never met or communicated prior to the Senate hearing. It must also be noted, however, that representatives of the scientific, educational, and theological communities of the state were present and available for testimony. This was in contrast to many state hearings where the opposition to such bills does not even materialize. The creationists made their usual semantic jumps and, like Humpty Dumpty, used words to mean whatever they wished. The bill itself specifically mentioned the theory of creationism. The sponsor of the bill indicated that distinguished creation scientists would testify on its behalf and made the opening argument that the issue was basically one of academic freedom. The creationist presentation was what they termed a two-model approach, implying that scientific creationism was the only alternative explanation to evolution worthy of consideration and asking for equal time and fair play for the introduction of their materials into classrooms. The anti-evolution attorney, Bird, stated that students could make up their own minds, and if one of the models was foolish or unsatisfactory, it would be discarded. As the first witness against the pro -