It is difficult to dispute Andrew Miall's statement that "evolution is a fact. You all know it."

His strong opinion on the evolution 'theory (philosophy or a philosophical world-view) reminds me of what happened to the geological sciences some 50 years ago. It was then when most certain that the data correlated perfectly with a model that pointed to the continents as being stationary.

It was then when a few geologists promoted the notion of continental drift, and they were being accused of indulging in pseudo science. Yet today few repudiate continental drift and plate tectonics. The point being that there are those who are so wrapped up in Darwinism that they are not open to other possibilities, "imagination and of free inquiry."

The statement that evolution is not being discussed by biology teachers since he feels that the teachers and principals try to avoid getting into trouble with conservatives. Perhaps that may be partially true, but it is only part of the story as there are other reasons.

Darwin's Origin of Species revolutionized the biological sciences and, to my knowledge, some 145 years later many of the unexplained events in his theory still exist, still remain unsupported and are being disclaimed.

Numerous problems with Darwin's approach to macro-evolution are the fossil records, where there is difficulty reconciling his expectations:

• The abrupt appearance of fully formed and fully functional fossils in the Cambrian. They appear abruptly, transition between major groups are characteristically abrupt, some don't change (stasis), others change downward (deteriorate), while others go extinct. And the first appearance of multicellular fossils are found with no evolutionary ancestors.
• In the cambrian, the gap from marine invertebrates to the first vertebrate fish also is immense and the evolutionary distance between single celled organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex, marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution.
• The fossil record gives no clue that any basic styles or types of animals have ever changed into another basic animal nor were new basic styles introdued throughout geologic time.
• Fossils do not occure from simple to the comlex from oldest to youngest (botom to top).
• Fossils are supposed to show gradual change, yet over 200,000 species have been studied and it is clear that they do not document gradualism.

I take it that Miall has conflated a fervent belief in macro-evolution with scientific process and that he believes scientific processes are beingheld up and wants the "American petroleum community" to make this an issue.

In practical terms how has the belief in evolution directly resulted in the finding of any hydrocarbons, fossil fuels or mineral deposits? The geologists, whether working on the surface or subsurface, use fossils or fossil zones to correlate beds or zones since they are remarkably persistent. And I am sure that the majority of the AAPG members have interest in finding the ever elusive hydrocarbon, but neither these scientists nor modern man need to believe in evolution in order to do that.

One fossil type gives rise to another, but can anyone give a single example of side-wise progression from one kind of fossil creature into one of a fundamentally different kind? The school text books have no such examples.

If children are skeptical of fish-to-human evolution and the variations of human skin color explained through evolution, should they be berated when petroleum geologists cannot demonstrate a single bona-fide succession when even a foraminifera changes into a non formaminfia?

Certainly most earth scientists believe that micro-evolution was and is present, but Darwin's macro-evolution is more of a philosphy than a theory ...

The statement that some of our most conservative states are Texas and Oklahoma, and "are the most backward when it comes to integrating the knowledge that arises from the earth sciences into their daily lives," is not only insulting and degrading but completely untrue.

To set the record straight, it is not only "the most petroleum rich" conservative states that have benefited "from the full expression of the earth science enterprise," since those talented scientists also apply their expressions globally and universally, and perhaps in their daily lives they believe in a book that is thousands of years old, that has accurately predicted future events and has over the years never been disproved.

Furthermore, Nicolaus Steno's principles of geology from the (pre-Enlightenent) are still in use today; seems he got right despite being an overt biblicist.

Paul S. Horvath
Ponte Verda Beach, Fla.