To the article entitled "A bad day for evolution" that
Art Chadwick supplied, Kevin responded:
> Assuming that the theory [formulated by David Haig]
> is wrong, my reaction is, so what? There are lots
> of theories that try to explain how evolution works;
> most of them probably are wrong, as are most theories
> in science. That does not, however, invalidate the
> historical fact of evolution. It just means that some
> other theory will have to be developed to explain it.
As someone who is comfortable with evolution, let me
convey my belief that this is a misleading response.
For the stakes were higher than merely the validity of
or falsity of Haig's theory. For Haig's theory assumes
the validity of evolution, a negative result could
indicate problems with any link in the chain --
including the evolutionary model.
Had the results come up positive, one can be confident that
it would have been heralded not as a vindication of Haig's
theory within a theory, but as (an) experimental confirmation
of evolution theory itself -- and reasonably so.
But that is not what happened. So, the theory must be scored
as some (modest) evidence against the evolutionary model. I
do agree with Kevin (except for his wording) that it does not
"invalidate the historical fact of evolution." (There is lots
of other evidence supporting evolution.) But calling a theory
a "fact" in no way excuses it from empirical challenges to
its validity (any more than calling Newtonian mechanics a
"fact"; we no longer believe this.) -- and the recent research
does provide such a challenge.
Let us be clear about it. Intellectual honesty can lead to
no other conclusion.
Steven's response was similar:
> 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."
Good response. "That's the purpose of science" -- even if
her work were to contribute to the toppling of evolution.
Gordon Simons