Re: Corrected Insert

Arthur V. Chadwick (
Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:57:14 -0800

At 09:38 PM 11/22/97 -0600, Keith wrote:
>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.

I agree. Maybe I think it ought to be, but you are right. There is no
controversy among evolutionists when confronted with creationists, about
whether or even how (at least until the creationists are gone!) evolution