Chris Lintott’s Universe

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 of Darwin which provides a more nuanced view. If you want a more forthright, shorter explanation of why the first point might be rubbish try the Evolution Blog. For an explanation of why point 2 isn’t controversial see Sandwalk.

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.

It hasn’t been a good week for my blood pressure. Reading stupid things written by people who know nothing is fine. Reading stupid things written or said by people in a position of authority who really should know better is just upsetting.

First up, NASA chief executive Mike Griffin.

First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.

I’m not sure where to begin with this, so I’ll let the Bad Astronomer say it for me, and move on to something more local.

Step forward the Rev Jan Ainsworth, the Church of England’s new head of education, who according to the Guardian said about intellegent design

You would get howls of protest from the scientific community, which would say there is absolutely no place for it in the curriculum. But you could do it in history of science,” she added, pointing out that religious education lessons in CofE schools include discussions of different beliefs.

This is just utterly wrong, so consider this my howl of protest. Would it be possible to include discussions of the alternatives to evolution that were considered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Yes, and such a discussion might even be a useful way of demonstrating the evidence in support of evolution. Is intellegent design such an alternative? No. It was invented 20 years ago when the US supreme court ruled that teaching ‘creation science’ breached the ban on mixing state and religion. See this and much else on the Panda’s Thumb for more details.

I’m writing to the Guardian right now.

This worries me a little; the idea that creationism could gain any sort of foothold in the UK is disturbing. Luckily, the important quotation is at the bottom of the article, where

“A spokesperson for the DfES said: “Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum. The national curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction.”

Following the fuss earlier in the year, it’s good to see that the government is holding firmly to this line. The important thing is to keep watching, and making sure that they stick to it. In the meantime, may I recommend the Panda’s Thumb for a virtual pint?