The New York times has a story about the desire of some in the field of evolutionary biology to have a paradigm shift.
Is Darwin due for an upgrade? There are growing calls among some evolutionary biologists for just such a revision, although they differ about what form this might take. But those calls could also be exaggerated. There is nothing scientists enjoy more than the prospect of a good paradigm shift.
This story will give Intelligent Design pimps (ID’ers) a couple conflicting issues to deal with. ID’ers love to claim how rigid and unchanging scientists are concerning evolutionary theories, and this article highlights the desire of many scientists to change the theory. Of course, it could also lead ID’ers to now claim there is a real “controversy” within the evolution community. The article, to me, clearly outlines the technical differences all within the context of Darwinian evolution. It highlights the greatness of science: the constant pursuit of knowledge without superstition. If this is ever what ID’ers mean by “teaching the controversy”, I might be for it.
It’s interesting how the ID’ers claim that science is rigid and unchanging, when it’s really the ID’ers themselves. Science can always change itself to fit the facts when it becomes apparent that current science is not correct. How do the ID’ers handle that situation? They just ignore the stuff that doesn’t fit into their world view, regardless of the evidence.
If science were to highlight this, the very basis of the scientific method, the ID’ers would lose more arguments.