>I don't know how old you are, but there was a time when plate tectonics was
>a very controversial topic, and the Myerhoffs, one of whom was head of the
>AAPG at the time wrote a number of papers poking fun at the very idea. I
>remember one paper (I believe in the AAPG news bulletin at that time) on
>Continental drip, illustrating that the continents could have come to their
>proesent positions just like the Sherwin Williams paint sign, and another
>which purported to show that the direction of the continental movement
>might just aas easily be going in reverse!
Plate Tectonics is not controversial _now_! Of course it was in earlier
years. In fact its non-controversial character is relatively new. Even
heliocentricity was controversial in its time. What I am saying is that
evolutionary theory should not be described as a controversial now, because
of its nearly universal acceptance among scientists in relevant fields. It
should be mentioned that a theory being widely accepted and
non-controversial does not imply that it is true. That must be evaluated
by a theories ability to stand the test of time and new data.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/