Abstract
Being an admirer of both Owen Gingerich and Phillip Johnson, I was frustrated to read Gingerich's closing So, what does Johnson want us to do about all this? Abandon teaching evolution in schools? Teach it as a scientific myth? Give creationists equal time? He call the writers of the ASA Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy "naive," but he seems to offer no obvious prescription. If he understood better how science functions, perhaps he could have proffered some advice, for he is obviously a thoughtful and intelligent author. As it is, he has written a fun, provocative, but ultimately very frustrating book. It was disconcerting to find two "should be" allies in the creation/evolution pseudo-controversy apparently so far apart in their understanding of basic issues. In this Communication I argue that Gingerich and Johnson are closer to common understanding than the Gingerich review would indicate, and conclude by suggesting that they would both agree with ASA's resolution calling for teaching evolution as science.