The BA mentioned this article in Ars Technica in his blog a while ago. I thought it was worth posting a link, and a quote:

"[...] might Discovery actually be on to something here? It's worth doing a comparison of the controversies they'd like to see taught with the topics that are considered controversial within the actual scientific community. It's pretty easy to get a sense for what Discovery thinks is a controversy by looking at Explore Evolution, the textbook they have created in the hope of encouraging schools to teach it."

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Now, that's oversimplifying the issue, if you ask me

There are at least one or two controversies that can be couched in everyday language--like the impact versus volcanism theory of mass extinction, for instance.

I agree, text books, and encyclopedias, don't often explain the controversies WITHIN the system. Plus they are often years out of date. I only started recognizing the truth of evolution when I read magazines like 'Discover' and 'Scientific American' at my local library. This is a thanks to them!

__________________

I didn't really begin to understand evolution until I grasped the depth of Deep Time, which is exactly what the scientists of the mid 1800's struggled with until radiometric dating was developed later in that century and is still being refined today.

Edit: First suggestion of radiometric dating 1905

__________________
(By the way, I hate it that so many papers in the areas of planetary science and geology are not easily avaiable to the dreaded "non-subscribers". It is like they are screaming at me: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". Good, I feel better now.)

I know you are a person who takes his physics seriously, but isn't it said that most great discoveries aren't discovered with "Eureka!" but with, "Hmmm, that's funny." Big Don