Tug of War! Biologists Haggle over How New the Improved Evolutionary Theory Will Be
r changes ahead for evolutionary theory -- an upcoming conference by the Royal Society seeking a "revision of the standard theory of evolution," and a $8.7 million research project underwritten by the Templeton Foundation offering, according to Science Magazine, an "evolution rethink" ("Intelligent Design Aside, from Templeton Foundation to the Royal Society, Darwinism Is Under Siege").
Developments like that obviously stick in the craw of Darwin defenders. For years they have assured the public that the theory requires few or no emendations.
Think of it in domestic terms. You might make improvements around your house -- replacing worn fixtures and appliances, say -- or even add on a room or two, but it's still the same house. Or is it? Deconstruct and rebuild enough and, lo and behold, before too long you've gone and built a completely different structure, sharing little with the old other than the piece of property it sits on.
What then do we mean when we speak of the heralded "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis"? Journalist Susan Mazur got hold of two leading articulators of the Extended Synthesis and asked them how extensive the revisions will be. It turns out there's a fundamental disagreement on that.
One, Kevin Laland, an organizer of the Royal Society meeting, has in mind something improved but not entirely new. Mazur got this comment from him:
The other, Gerd Müller, is clear that he is building a new house, not merely refurbishing the old. He told Ms. Mazur:
He added, after consulting a thesaurus:
Laland and Müller are co-authors of a paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, "The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions." They wrote there:
Heading into the November Royal Society meeting, we predict more haggling over the nature and extent of the renovation.
A lot rides on the question, including the reputations of some hardline Darwinists. It's not merely a question of academic, or philosophic or theological, interest. There are issues of personal prestigehere, and we know those trump all for many people, not excluding scientists. The hardliners are not going to go down without a fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment