I found the theory engaging when I first read about it, too. Here's the author of the theory, the late Elaine Morgan, explaining it in a TED video.
I was being sarcastic. As far as I can tell, most biologists think it doesn't have much going for it.
(haven't watched the TED video yet, will eventually)
Pity. It is an exciting and fun theory that does have some merit but the boring old savannah monkeys theory more likely to be true.
Then again, this wouldn't be the first time that a scientific breakthrough is ignored because it went against the old theories AND was made by a woman. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Matzinger Though her theory has flaws as well.)
I would definitely suggest watching her TED talk. She did make excellent points, and was not a crackpot as far as her scientific credentials go. Most people outside of anthropology just "know" she's wrong from what they've read of the majority opinion, held for close to a century, about ancient apes and early hominid ancestors, not having been interested enough to go beyond their initial doubts to actually read up on the theory in question.
There is a pretty strong tendency in the life sciences for vituperative argument and disdainful dismissal without first giving new ideas some hard thought. It took decades of vigorous, and sometimes raging, disparaging argument for the now-accepted fact that many, if not just about all, dinosaurs were warm blooded. This actually happened during my own lifetime, as I was taught in school that they were cold blooded back in the '60's and '70's. One of the current hot-and-heavy arguments about saurians is whether the T-Rex was primarily a scavenger Versus a predator. Those teeny foreleg "arms" seem kinda sketchy for either an ambush predator, or sprint/chase capture predation. But, they would work okay for steadying a Rex as it leaned into a big carcass, gnashing away and crushing bones with it's peg shaped, massive, non-serrated teeth.
Scientists in the hard science fields like astronomy and physics are comparably quite a bit more pragmatic and civil in their discourse about new theories, since the maths can be replicated or audited, and the discoveries are repeatable and falsifiable without so much reliance on personal opinion about existing theories.