I learned very early on that it's necessary but not sufficient for scientists to go to school board meetings and say, 'We shouldn't be teaching creationism.' Being right doesn't mean it'll pass.

Evolution is not controversial in the field of science. It's controversial in the public sphere because public education is highly politicized.

You can't really be scientifically literate if you don't understand evolution. And you can't be an educated member of society if you don't understand science.

Science is a limited way of knowing, looking at just the natural world and natural causes. There are a lot of ways human beings understand the universe - through literature, theology, aesthetics, art or music.

There's a bait and switch going on here because the critics want the textbooks to question whether evolution occurred. And of course they don't because scientists don't question whether evolution occurred.

People don't show up here (at the courtroom) because they believe evolution is bad science. They show up because they believe that if they accept evolution, then they are abandoning their religious beliefs. They see it as an either/or proposition: Either evolution happened, or God loves you.

Evolution makes biology make sense. And if you don't teach your students the evolutionary core of biology, you're making it harder for them.

Public schools are where the next generation of leaders are educated and where cultural exchange will take place.

In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.