It's hard to know how to react to this purportedly impartial review of the creation/evolution controversy. First of all, though Gallant claims that he is not taking sides, and though he does allot considerable if not equal time to biochemist Duane Gish's creationist argument, he doesn't hesitate to give evolutionists the last word (represented by lengthy excerpts from Richard P. Aulie's critique of the Creation Research Society's high-school biology text and from geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky's more far reaching arguments). He also characterizes the politically powerful CRS as ""ultraconservative"" and points out that ""the vast majority of scientists today regard evolution through natural selection not as theory but as fact."" (In fact, Gallant often seems to be playing the creationists' own game, citing the number of advanced degrees and Nobel prizes on his side in answer to their pathetic roster of hydraulic engineers and such.) But even without the pretense of objectivity, doesn't a pro-Darwin argument at this point take his opponents more seriously than their case and status warrants? There's also an Antigravity Society in America--why not a YA book pro and con gravity? The answer of course is that same political power which Gallant notes has been sufficient to change a number of state laws. And it's on political terms that this has to be judged--depending on whether you interpret his ""on the other hand"" approach as giving in to the pressure or the best way to resist it. . . or maybe simply on your degree of pessimism.