Sasq, there is no "Controversy in Science" regarding evolution. Perhaps they should call their lecture series "Controversies in Fundamental Christianity" ...

Sasq, there is no "Controversy in Science" regarding evolution. Perhaps they should call their lecture series "Controversies in Fundamental Christianity" ...

I'm sorry, has the controversies of abiogenisis, origin of hominid bipedality, and altruism and homosexuality, been resolved when I wasn't looking?

I'm sorry, has the controversies of abiogenisis, origin of hominid bipedality, and altruism and homosexuality, been resolved when I wasn't looking?

Again, these are only "controversial" to Christian Fundamentalists.

You mean besides the fact that it shows not knowing how the process started (and thus not being able to be sure it even did), not being able to find in the fossil record where humans divirge with apes (and thus not sure if they ever had a common ancestor), and the other being direct evidence against the very core of what evolution is all about as we have been so smugly told for centuries.

Humans have not diverged from apes.  They are a type of ape.  What the fossil record shows is that the hominid line split off from gorillas much earlier than it split off from chimpanzees.  The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived roughly 6 million years ago.  The hominid line then went through many variations until humans emerged as the last surviving variant of that branch.  The fossil evidence is quite clear, overwhelming,  and unambiguous about that.

Obviously these are problems to evolution, but as far as a threat to it itself, I believe that's impossible as it has been clearly shown that evolution is unfalsifiable. Making it more of philosophical belief than science. 

There are many ways to falsify the theory of evolution, just as there are to falsify the theory of gravity.  So far, no evidence to the contrary has shown up, but evolution-scoffers remain hopeful--not about evidence against gravity, although they might also rejoice at that discovery, too. 

Stat:

Sasq, there is no "Controversy in Science" regarding evolution.

Tell that to the scientists who presented.

Perhaps they should call their lecture series "Controversies in Fundamental Christianity"

What would be the point of that?

__________________________________

Cop:

Hey, Sasquatch.  It's good to hear that you work at my alma mater--all three of my linguistics degrees were from the OSU linguistics department.  I have many fond memories of my 9 years spent there, although I must also admit that I enjoyed saying "Goodbye, Columbus" when I left for my first job in New York at Columbia University.

A Philip Roth fan, eh?

I'm quite looking forward to leaving Columbus one of these days, too. The winters are too cold for my taste, and there isn't much going on if you're not a Buckeyes fan. Still, it's nice to have a paycheck.

So you used to work at the libraries, huh? Maybe we know some of hte same people. Did you have much interaction with the linguistics librarians? I've since moved from the library to the office of research. It's a lot quieter over here, which is strange considering where I came from.

A friend of mine recently got his PhD in sociology and went off to do teaching/research/whatever the heck else it is you academic types do. He studies religious organizations and how they affect the spread of AIDS in Africa. He has lots of tatoos and generally goes around barefoot unless he absolutely has to wear shoes.

_________________________________

Everyone:

Going back to the original post, I would like to point out that, while they started with evolution, the intention was to spread into other controversial areas each year. What I liked about the discussions I had with the people inovled was the open-ness with which they presented themselves. There was no name calling, no ad hominems, no senselss railing against the "other side." There was a genuine search for truth coupled with an obvious sense of humility about one's opinions. Even when people disagreed, they believed they could learn something. It was civil. That's an attitude you don't often see with these issues.