@mrstickball
I wouldn't be surprised if they do. If it is based on observable fact, then it might be worth looking into. And you are probably using the word "theory" over-broadly. Its probably still a hypothesis within the scientific community if only for the reason that it sounds pretty recent.
Science can postulate about whatever it wants if it is using facts. That doesn't necessarily mean that science always gets it right. Sometimes a question is just really hard to answer even with good data. Ask a scientist to explain to you what gravity is, not what it does, but what it is. We still have no idea.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
