The first problem with this argument (“teach the controversy”) is that — Eugenie Scott

"Important to note is that Johnson is not trained as either a scientist or a theologian, nor has he ever practiced either discipline. His analysis of evolution is therefore based upon his own reading of the lay literature to which he has access and the interpretation on the scientific literature by popularizers. As a result, neither this book (Darwin on Trial) nor his subsequent ones provide a satisfactory scientific critique of biological evolution. Nor does it break new ground theologically. Nonetheless, its publication led to a large following, and he has had an active career on the lecture circuit as a result."

"Creation science argues that there are only two views, special creationism and evolution; thus, arguments against evolution are arguments in favor of creationism. Literature supporting creation science is based on alleged examples of evidence against evolution, which are considered not only proof against evolution but also positive evidence for creationism. Understandably, there is nothing in the creation science canon providing a positive scientific case for the sudden emergence of the universe in its present form at one time, let alone for its specific doctrines a six-thousand-year-old Earth and universe, the occurrence of a worldwide flood responsible for the fossil record and geological features such as the Grand Canyon, and the impossibility of evolution except within sharp limits."

"The critiques of evolution offered in such ID literature, however, is recognizable as a proper subset of the critiques offered by creation science literature, and they are no more valid."

"Significantly, the first publication to use the phrase intelligent design was not a theoretical paper but a high school textbook, Of Pandas and People! Ordinarily, one does the research first and then produces the textbook."

"To a biologist, the “it’s just microevolution” argument is painfully obtuse."

"Dogma doesn’t build better medical devices; good science does."