and what does ‘qualified secular scientists’ mean to you? Someone who unquestioningly beleives reptiles evolved into mammals? Because if that is the only criteria for ‘qualified’ then you would indeed be correct- if however, you include scientists who might have differing beleifs, and believe the evidence supports their claims that there were other mechanisms at wwork and that different lines were taken in the evolutionary process, then you are quite wrong. There are indeed scientists who don’t buy into it yet have no religious agenda. To hold a beleif that God created many original creatures from which our current species evolved is not a ‘religious agenda’. Do a great many scientists unquestioningly beleif in common descent? You betcha- do a great many beleive somethign else and beleive the evidence supports their beleifs? You betcha. Do the second group ever get major airtime by an agenda driven public comunication system? Not a chance.
As I mentioned, the doubts are never, ever, hardly ever barely ever, only occasionally, presented in public forums such as NG, PBS etc, and when they are presented, they are derided and maligned in snotty immature ways by those who have an obvious preconceived liberal bias on the issue. Just ask Dr. Richard Sternberg and others who have been ostracised and attacked by agenda driven ‘scientists’ and dogma driven prostelytizers.
I was just responding to your expression of the belief that some scientists in addition to creationists think there is something fundamentally wrong with the fossil evidence of a reptile into mammal transition. I think you're delusion. At least I am aware of NO "secular scientists," not a single one, who hold such a position.