As Andrew Moore writes in his Commentary 'Science teaching must evolve' (Nature 453, 31–32; 2008), online resources may help to improve the teaching of evolutionary theory in European secondary schools. A broader comparison with other countries is warranted.

In Mexico, there is no creationist movement and the teaching of evolution is encouraged. The Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México has developed high-school programmes based around sequence comparison and phylogenetic reconstruction techniques, as well as the origin of life, early cell evolution and evo–devo issues. There are good reasons for this. First, as every practising scientist knows, understanding evolutionary processes is enriched by an eclectic attitude towards traditional palaeontology and comparative anatomy. Second, an evolutionary perspective is valuable as a teaching tool that provides a unifying framework for bringing together apparently disparate fields from the life sciences.

It is difficult to accept Moore's implication that the origin of life has no place in the evolution syllabus. If not there, where? There are risks in leaving this issue unattended, as shown by the infamous 2004 statement by Dover High School in Pennsylvania that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view ... The school leaves the discussion of Origins of Life to individual students and their families."

Equally disturbing is Moore's questioning of the scientific maturity of origin-of-life studies, which he describes as "far from sound evolutionary theory". How life appeared is not known, but a better understanding of the prebiotic environment and the recognition of the RNA world as an early evolutionary stage have provided important insights. As molecular phylogeny cannot be extended to an evolutionary period before the emergence of ribosome-mediated protein