> Personally I think the public would take a keener interest in evolution
> if the anomalies were not swept under the rug, and it was made clear
> that there are wonderful mysteries to be puzzled out. But so many
> teachers, fearful of creationism, put forth the view that everything is
> under control except the details, and that competent people have this
> mop-up work in hand. They make it seem that evolutionary biology is
> a dead field, no place for an ambitious scientist.
I agree that this is a common misconception: that without profound mysteries,
there is no interesting science to do. In point of fact, however, as a
working scientitist I can attest to the fact that the most interesting
science is often found in studying what seems to be an extremely trivial
point. Like devils, the best science is found in the details of ordinary
everyday work, not the profound mysteries.
I disagree, however, that this misconception is caused by sweeping
"anomalies" under the rug. If at times it seems like scientists are
reluctant to admit to the existence of "anomalies" and "wonderful mysteries"
it is more likely because the phenomenon is not either an anomaly or a
mystery to them, even though it might seem so to non-scientists. In those
circumstances, it is better for non-scientists to learn why the phenomenon is
not such a mystery than for scientists to make more of it than it really is.
Kevin L. O'Brien