Tell me what the controversy is over archaeopteryx.
Is a Bird, not a dinosaur:
Referring to Archaeopteryx, Ichthyornis, and Hesperornis, Beddard stated, "So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains." (F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1898, p. 160.)
Is a dinosaur, not a bird or transition species:
"Archaeopteryx is not an ancestral bird, nor is it an ‘ideal intermediate’ between reptiles and birds. There are no derived characters uniquely shared by Archaeopteryx and modern birds alone; consequently there is little justification for continuing to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird.” (R. A. Thulborn, “The Avian Relationships of Archaeopteryx and the Origin of Birds,” Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Vol. 82, 1984, p. 119.)
Can't be a "transitional" because birds already existed:
“Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds.” (Ricardo N. Melchor et al., “Bird-Like Fossil Footprints from the Late Triassic,” Nature, Vol. 417, 27 June 2002, p. 936.)
I've even read some claims that at least 2 of the specimines were fakes. However, I don't remember who made those claims so I'll leave them out.
Yes, all this controversy and disagreement within the evolution community and nothing is ever printed about it in our kid's textbooks.
"Kids, just drink your koolaid and repeat after me: Darwinism is how you got here . . . Nothing you heard in church is true . . . "