The retired businessman dismisses Darwin's theory as "not even a low grade hypothesis" and said it had "no substantial science" in it.
Sorry, Darwin's theory of evolution has no substantial science in it? Well at least it's backed up by some scientific evidence, and has survived every attempt to dispel it for 150 years. Sounds fairly robust to me compared to some words written in a book over the last 2000 years by persons unknown and translated nobody knows how many times (thereby opening yet more opportunity to misinterpretation).
I should probably point out I'm reading The God Delusion at the moment. I don't have a problem with people being taught both versions, but don't ban evolution.
I also find it interesting that the people quoted seem to think they're the unheard minority in the US, when they're the loud majority who have been trying to ban students even being taught about evolution.