I didn't understand it the first time I read the statement. After second reading I went to read the reference: https://ncse.ngo/our-history; There, it's more clear the information about the topic, which is not clear on the SEPM draft Statement. I agree with other colleagues that the statement need a deep revision. I am Christian Catholic and pray everyday and thanks God for everything. But let me tell you something: there are different versions of the Bible; everyone write on the translation the way they think is the correct one; it's common to find several explanations as footnotes. Said that, I choose to follow the one that is more clear to me. And, I love evolution. I have done a lot of micropaleontological work, with foraminifera. I do not see any conflict between my faith and my scientific researches and conclusions. Please, if you insist on the statement, I dare to suggest to do it in a direct, clear and broadly understood by all members and the general public. Francia A. Galea Alvarez Sunday, July 25, 2021

Too long, too confrontational. The statement that scientists in the petroleum industry accept and use principals of an ancient Earth and evolution may resonate with the people being targeted, but I doubt they will read that far. There's a quote, usually ascribed to Mark Twain, that goes something like this: Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Mike Palin

My first thoughts were “Why? Why in the world would sedimentary geologists issue a statement on evolution and creation, young earth/old earth. Why? Then I read Dr. George Anderson III in a reply post dated June 29, 2021 (posted by Howard Harper) and Dr. Anderson explained it all perfectly. The subject post is relisted below; "Why This Issue Statement – Why Now? There is so much destructive, hate-filled, arrogant ignorance abroad in Academia today, not to mention questionable applications of science in several areas that are considered unquestionable - settled, Why This Particular Issue Now? Professional Geologists I’ve spoken with over the years who are Christians, have each resolved this issue for ourselves within the context of our Faith. Given that personal understanding, we still understand the complexity and work with the principles and fundamentals of stratigraphy, sedimentology, paleontology, petrology, petrophysics, geochemistry and reservoir engineering we use in surface and subsurface evaluation." What is SEPM’s position on gender reassignment? Let’s put out a statement. How about CRT? Let’s let the world know our position. There are so many controversial issues that we must address. It just confirms the haughtiness of academia, repeating the Darwinist bullet points and omitting other discoveries and alternate views, because they just don’t fit into academia’s liberal path. Personally, I will cancel my membership to SEPM if this statement is released as presented. My goal in becoming a member of SEPM, as a 40-year retired petroleum geologist, was to financially contribute to my profession and to aid in its youth advancement. We are scientist. Let’s act like one by always asking questions, always seeking answers and being fair to all hypotheses. I’m just one and I’m sure this organization can muster along just fine without me, but I think we should be moving in another direction. Steve Warren

A self-gratifying statement. This piece categorizes people thinking about this type of question/issue into two and only two buckets. In reality there is a continuum of opinions between the two extremes staked out in this statement. Personally, I don't fall into either bucket. I wasn't there to observe evolution happen, and there are some truly big problems with how the evolution story is concocted. That a large number of people "believe in evolution" (whatever THAT means - a statement of faith perhaps?) is no reason to think that conclusions of that large population are totally correct and, without question, circumscribing the truth of the entire matter. Think about the aether of physics. "Everyone" was completely convinced about that idea/belief. Until the evidence was dispassionately and objectively considered. This SEPM statement (in my opinion) is hardly dispassionate and objective. It displays an uncomfortable ignorance about evidence that does not coincide with current evolution thoughts/beliefs. Those thoughts and beliefs are themselves evolving and are very much (radically?) different than they were even when I was a kid (1950's). It is not well-considered to take as hard, unchanging truth an investigation that continually offers conclusions based on new evidence that changes and evolves past "truths". The theory of evolution is not an unchanging, static list of facts that are held to be self-evident. Yet that is how this policy statement makes it out to be. I am a member of SEPM and do NOT fully support a brittle, static concept of past change-events in biology, geology, engineering, physics, etc., as posted in the statement.

Some amendments to the Evolution Statement: *p.3, Other indicators of an ancient earth, para.1, line 7- archaeocyaths, stromatoporoid sponges, and tabulate, rugose and scleractinian corals not archaeocyathids, stromatoporid sponges, and rugose, tabulate and scleractinian corals [Corrections to anglicised taxonomic terms, and note that tabulate corals appeared a little before rugose corals] *p.4, Very few working geologists ..., para.6, last line- accept biblical creation as interpreted by YECs not accept biblical creation [YECs err in reading the early chapters of Genesis literally. When understood in their likely literary genre (poem/song, allegory) the Bible mandates no time constraints on creation] Hope these amendments can be actioned -Pierre

Great work Marianne.

Nice write-up which should be intelligible to a reasonably educated audience with a sound understanding of basic scientific principles [college(?) education & higher]. Leaves the question though: what is your target audience and are they going to read it? And what do we want them to do after having read this position paper?

A nice thorough statement. You might want to add the evidence of erosion and burial of ancient mountain ranges.

Why do we need this and who is it intended for? I started reading the statement but did not finish because I got bored with it (too lengthy). If the purpose is to educate the educators, then this needs to be done at the state and local school board level where curricula are developed approved. If the intent is to change the minds of so called creationists, then good luck. Their beliefs are faith-based, not science. My minister told me when I was young who is to say that God did create life through evolution. Do we really need to fight over the Old Testament again?

Why do we need this and who is it intended for? I started reading the statement but did not finish because I got bored with it (too lengthy). If the purpose is to educate the educators, then this needs to be done at the state and local school board level where curricula are developed approved. If the intent is to change the minds of so called creationists, then good luck. Their beliefs are faith-based, not science. My minister told me when I was young who is to say that God did create life through evolution. Do we really need to fight over the Old Testament again?