It pains me to say this, but New Scientist has just handed the creationists an enormous gift, something we’re going to be arguing over for years. It’s one they’re already making use of, as this report in the Dallas Morning News about recent Texas Board of Education meetings shows (Hat tip: Phil)
New Scientist Cover art
It must have seemed like a good idea. The cover above will certainly sell copies of the magazine, I imagine. I wouldn’t be surprised if they do a steady trade from back issue orders of this for years and years, although whether the people who want to read ‘Darwin was wrong’ are interested in the rest of New Scientist’s content is another matter.
Let me rewind. This week’s edition of New Scientist leads with a story by writer Graham Lawton. You can read the full article here. The idea is uncontroversial enough; that the image of a branching ‘tree of life’ was (a) central to Darwin’s view of the world (so critical that ‘Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened.’) and (b) Wrong, because hybridization and the swapping of genetic material between species quickly turns a nice, linear tree into a tangled bush.
I’ve just finished Janet Browne’s magnificent biography
Even if the article had been 100% true, the problem is this: By splashing the ‘news’ that Darwin was wrong, New Scientist plays up to the idea that evolution can be attacked by attacking Darwin. Of course he was wrong, about many things; he was writing a century or so before DNA was even discovered, for goodness’ sake. As PZ Myers says, It’s a symptom of creationist influence that journals would think that hyping a story that “150 year old theory gets revised!” is newsworthy.
I’m sure New Scientist’s intentions were either unconscious or innocent – perhaps they thought the headline would appear to their scientifically literate audience already sick of Darwin commemoration in this, the 200th year since his birth. But nonetheless that Dallas Morning News story gives us a taste of what we’re in for :
Rep. Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands … said there have been “significant challenges” to evolution theory. She cited a recent news article in which a European scientist disputed Darwin’s “tree of life” showing common ancestors for all living things.
It’s too late. The genie is out of the lamp, and all of us who deal with questions about creationism are going to have to get used to hearing about ‘The New Scientist article that said…’. Nonetheless, a contrite apology – as public as possible – by the magazine in next Thursday’s issue is now required.
Kevin Jardine on January 23, 2009
I appreciate your point, but I would be surprised if New Scientist apologises. This is actually a very typical cover for them and follows “Einstein was wrong”, and other covers implying that faster than light or time travel is possible and all kind of incredible things.
It’s all about competition on the news stand. Inevitably the actual cover story is much less dramatic (and usually less interesting) than the cover implies.
And in the context of the UK market, the New Scientist covers are actually pretty staid …
Philip S on January 23, 2009
Creationism is illogical
Zofia Magrian on January 24, 2009
After Dawkins did such a bad job with The God Delusion he gave creationists reasons to celebrate but this is a joke… Even if they just wanted to sell. Let’s trash Darwin and learn biology from the Bridgewater Treatises OMG… We’re coming back to the Middle Ages. What about Robert Grant? He had the same idea as Darwin. They were rivals and both collected their own evidence. Grant just didn’t get round to publishing it. Did they even mention him or dealt with his idea in any way? Obviously not…
I don’t think they’re going to apologize but one more story like that and people will stop taking them seriously.
Ed on February 17, 2009
You should at least respect the criacionists! Thats ok you dont agree with us, but at least RESPECT US and our ideas!
If someone comes up with any crazy new theory about anything, the guy will be heard. Right now everybody is hearing abou dark mater, dark energy, etc… , but if someone talk about ID, or creation … BANG!!!! … Burn him!!!
Mark on February 20, 2009
Some historical facts should be shared so that you have a basis of understanding whereby I do not know if you poses currently. Jesus did live here on earth. It’s recorded that he healed the sick, cured the lame, and raised people from then dead. It’s recorded that He raised himself from the dead as well. Now He’s no longer on Earth or to point Him out would be possible. We could say, “hey look, He’s right there.” But yet even while not on Earth He still does heal the sick and lame, Sandra Gardner ( loupus, MS, Brain damage, blindness, atripy(muscle loss) paralysis) all instantly healed when asked of Jesus, instant restoration of loss muscle mass (demonstrated by running about 1 mile non stop immeadiately after being healed, and raises the dead, a man in Miami after necrosis had set. read about it http://www1.wsvn.com/features/articles/specialreport/MI75423.
So before you roll your eyes to suposive creationism ammo understand that you don’t have perfect knowledge or perfect understanding of everything. But to roll your eyes at overblown marketing gimicks is quite fine and my eyes will roll right along with yours.
Simon on March 4, 2009
Mark – I don’t suppose you had anybody testing these healings for objectivity, in a scientific way did you. Didn’t think so. Until they are tested they will be treated as they sound – incredible i.e. not to be believed.
Also, as far as I’m aware, the only evidence for Jesus is the Bible, which can be excluded as it is a relgious text and subjective. Josephus can be excluded as there is suggestion that the original document was doctored.
IVAN3MAN on July 13, 2009
Mark: “Some historical facts should be shared so that you have a basis of understanding whereby I do not know if you poses currently. Jesus did live here on earth. It’s recorded that he healed the sick…”
Well, here are some real historical facts:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology
Mark: “But yet even while not on Earth He still does heal the sick and lame, Sandra Gardner (loupus [sic], MS, Brain damage, blindness, atripy [sic] (muscle loss) paralysis) all instantly healed when asked of Jesus, instant restoration of loss muscle mass) demonstrated by running about 1 mile non stop immeadiately [sic] after being healed…”
Hearsay evidence does not count. Can you, Mark, provide concrete evidence in the form of medical records to verify your assertions?
Dr. Chauncey Crandall: “His face, his arms, his legs were pitch black with death.”
Within an hour?! That is a load of rubbish! The fresh stage of decomposition occurs during the first few days following the death. There are no physical signs of decomposition during this time. Black putrefaction can take anywhere between 10 to 20 days after death, depending on region and temperature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Human_decomposition