It was also gratifying that Niall Shanks at Wichita State professes to require only that students simply understand—not fully endorse--Darwinian evolution. Not only is it good science policy to require that students understand evolution, but this policy should be agreeable to anyone, if, indeed, the standard is fairly applied.

Of course, it also would make sense for Dr. Shanks to give the anti-Darwinian scientific view a fair hearing. A one-sided approach to this subject only turns off many would-be scientists who know there is more to the issue than they're being told. Failing to discuss the issues fairly only raises the intensity of their skepticism. As Allen Orr wrote in The New Yorker last summer, "a policy of limited scientific engagement has failed."

In practice, allowing a robust debate on the scientific issues could only add to students’ enthusiasm for the course work. Why full disclosure about evolution wouldn't be a desirable outcome in a country that doesn’t graduate enough scientists now is a mystery. Thus I agree with Shanks when he states:

Like it or lump it. If you’re going to prosper in this kind of environment, you’ve got to be biologically literate.

Perhaps current problems with the state of science in the U.S. are linked to the fact that the status quo forces students to swallow evolution uncritically, and neither interests them in science nor objectively informs them about the facts to become better critical thinkers.