Punctuated Equilibrium and the Validation of Macroevolutionary Theory 983
equilibrium and creationism because both deny pure Darwinian gradualism, falls
into the same category.)
The Chicago meeting also produced many good and responsible
commentaries in the general press (Rensberger in the New York Times, November
4, 1980, for example) and in professional journals (Lewin in Science for November
21, 1980, for example). But some very bad accounts also appeared, especially
unfortunate in their linkage of success for punctuated equilibrium with the spread
of creationism. For example, a lead article in Newsweek (November 2, 1980),
perhaps the most widely read of all reports, did properly brand the link as a
confusion, and also stated that punctuated equilibrium represents a revision, not a
refutation, of evolution, but such passing "subtleties" can easily be missed when
subjects become so tightly juxtaposed, as in the Newsweek story: "At a conference
in mid-October at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, the majority of 160
of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists and
developmental biologists supported some form of this theory of 'punctuated
equilibria.' While the scientists have been refining the theory of evolution in the
past decade, some nonscientists have been spreading anew the gospel of
creationism."
This kind of reporting kindled the understandable wrath of orthodox
Darwinians and champions of the Modern Synthesis. They became justifiably
infuriated by two outrageous claims, both falsely linked to punctuated equilibrium
by some press reports. First, some absurdly hyped popular accounts simply
proclaimed the death of Darwinism (with punctuated equilibrium as the primary
assassin), rather than reporting the more accurate but less arresting news about
extensions and partial revisions. For example, the same Newsweek article stated
that "some scientists are still fighting a rear-guard action on behalf of Darwinism,"
and "it is no wonder that scientists part reluctantly with Darwin." Moreover, even
the best and most balanced articles often carry exaggerated and distorted headlines
(most scientists, I suspect, don't know that reporters are not generally permitted to
write their own headlines). Boyce Rensberger's New York Times story on the
Chicago conference could not have been more fair or accurate, but the hyped
headline proclaimed: "Recent studies spark revolution in interpretation of
evolution." Since the article focussed on punctuated equilibrium, some colleagues
then blamed Eldredge and me for an exaggeration promulgated neither by
ourselves nor by the reporter.
Second, since punctuated equilibrium had served as the most general and
accessible topic among the many questions debated at the Chicago Macroevolution
meeting, our theory became the public symbol and stalking horse for all debate
within evolutionary theory. Moreover, since popular impression now falsely linked
the supposed "trouble" within evolutionary theory to the rise of creationism, some
intemperate colleagues began to blame Eldredge and me for the growing strength
of creationism! Thus, we stood falsely accused by some colleagues both for
dishonestly exaggerating our theory to proclaim the death of Darwin (presumably
in our own cynical quest for