This is an opinion piece--an equivalent of an op-ed--and it need not conform to the requirements for good journalism, for which I am grateful. As a biologist, college teacher of biology, and journalist, I do not understand why, in a story about science, our standard publications, such as The New York Times, are required to show "both sides" of the evolution story. There is only one side and that side is the science. This opinion piece makes it clear that there is science and there is nonscience, and Americans tend to err on the side of nonscience when it comes to evolution. And the author and I pretty much agree that it's a shame. Don't get me wrong. There are lots of controversies among scientists on fine points of evolution. But there is no controversy about evolution having occurred...and continuing to occur before our very eyes. This is a very good opinion piece. My chief quibble is the author's explanation of the term theory. It is a term that has a very different definition in science than it has in common parlance. In science, a theory has been proven many times over by the results of many different experiments and observations. It may be tweaked a bit, as, for example, people had no knowledge of genetics and DNA during Darwin's time, and evolutionary genetics have had a tremendous impact on how we look at evolution. But a scientific theory is as close to fact as you can get. I say, "Bravo!" to the author.