Introduction In February this year, Moore and Cotner (2009) published in The American Biology Teacher the results of a college student survey that revealed the continuing chasm between evolution theory and creationism in the high school science classroom. The authors are Distinguished Teaching Professor of Biology and Associate Professor of Teaching (Biology Programs), respectively, at the University of Minnesota, whence they drew a sample of 1,000 Biology and non-Biology majors (from all those taking introductory Biology courses) for the recall survey. The Facts The two fundamental findings of the study are that: a) no better than two-thirds of students could report that only evolution was taught in their high school biology courses; and, b) from 11% to 41% of respondents consequently believed in something other than pure evolution to explain the physical characteristics of modern-day man, animals and plants. The findings did not differ, either statistically or in any meaningful way, between Biology majors and those taking up other courses. Why This is a Problem Being educators primarily concerned with preparing college students to teach biology with a purist focus on biological anthropology, Moore and Cotner are unreservedly dismayed by these findings since, they hold, teaching creationism is illegal, conflicts entirely with evolution science, and is likely to perpetuate mixed teaching for a segment of high school students in the future. The authors point out that the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard overturned attempts by creationists to include anything other than Darwinian theory in public school science classes. The plaintiff Aguillard had brought suit against Gov. Edwards of Louisiana because of a law passed by the state legislature (the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act”) requiring teachers to incorporate creation science with evolution. Less than a decade later, in 2005, biological anthropologists had reason to hail another court decision that struck down attempts by creationists to have their own textbooks advancing “intelligent design” and advocating that this be adopted in schools alongside regular, evolution-focused science textbooks. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District , a U.S. District Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs who argued that intelligent design creationism was a patent attempt to introduce religious beliefs yet again. The second point of Moore and Cotner, that creationism is wholly incompatible with the theory of evolution, is definitely borne out by their study findings. By using Rutledge and Sadler’s (2007) Measure of the Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) as their study instrument, the authors showed their willingness to learn whether University of Minnesota students believed what they had been exposed to in high school. The results (Table 1) speak for themselves. Table 1: Selected Survey results (Source: Moore and Rotner) Further, the extracts shown from the 20 items that comprise MATE suggest that biology majors differ not at all from those pursuing other courses. For instance, from 13% to 22% of both student groups disagreed with the statement “modern organisms are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years,” a core te