'Creation science' has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.

My own field of paleontology has strongly challenged the Darwinian premise that life's major transformations can be explained by adding up, through the immensity of geological time, the successive tiny changes produced generation after generation by natural selection.

Charles Darwin viewed the fossil record more as an embarrassment than as an aid to his theory.

I don't think academic writing ever was wonderful. However, science used to be much less specialized.

In the great debates of early-nineteenth century geology, catastrophists followed the stereotypical method of objective science-empirical literalism. They believed what they saw, interpolated nothing, and read the record of the rocks directly.

So much of science proceeds by telling stories.

Orchids were not made by an ideal engineer; they are jury-rigged from a limited set of available components.