Pretty interesting stuff but hardly a major setback for evolutionary theory
in general, just for someone's specific hypothesis about imprinting. Haig is
completely correct in stating:
"I'm incredibly grateful to her," Dr. Haig said, "and I'm glad that
she came up with questions to which we don't have ready answers. That's
the purpose of science."
I think it's wonderful to get results like this in science because it forces
us to modify incorrect ideas and advances our scientific knowledge of God's creation.
Haig's response, as well, is in marked contrast to how opponents of evolutionary
theory generally behave when confronted with evidence in opposition to their ideas
of a young Earth or a global flood (ignore it, change the subject, and continue to
advance the same tired old arguments).
Now, of course, we'll see young-earth creationists everywhere misrepresenting
this experiment as "scientific" proof against "evolution" (which it isn't by any
stretch of the imagination).
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich, Assistant Professor of Geology Department of Geology, Geography, and Environmental Studies Calvin College, 3201 Burton Street SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 sschimmr@calvin.edu (office), schimmri@earthlink.net (home) 616-957-7053 (voice mail), 616-957-6501 (fax) http://home.earthlink.net/~schimmrich/