I think what bothers me so much of the time, is they take the data and theory and distort it. They must know they’re distorting.

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.

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

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.

I never say that evolution is a fact. Evolution is a theory. It’s much more important than a fact, because theories explain things.

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.

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.

This is neo-creationism, trying to avoid the legal morass of trying to teach creationism overtly and slip it in through the backdoor.

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.