Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Right on cue, the Worldnutdaily shows us why what the scientists, PR people and media outlets who overhyped the find of an early primate fossil did was detrimental to the public's understanding of science. Such exaggerations and overblown statements are easily turned around and made to cast doubt on the validity of science and the theory of evolution.
They immediately seized on the absurd marketing campaign to make the scientists look like buffoons and further distort the reality of the evidence for evolution by quoting the ridiculous and inaccurate rhetoric of David Attenborough, who damn well ought to know better:
"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals. This is the one that connects us directly with them," trumpeted Britain's nature television star Sir David Attenborough about the Darwinius masillae fossil, nicknamed "Ida.""Now people can say, 'OK, we are primates, show us the link,'" Attenborough said. "The link they would have said up to now is missing - well, it's no longer missing."
Any talk about a missing link is nonsense and Attenborough ought to know it. And quite frankly, the notion that any fossil is going to prove that humans are primates to someone who doesn't already know that is simply absurd. We are primates because we share those traits that are unique to primates; we hardly needed this fossil find to prove that.
Of course, the Worldnutdaily also has to add their own distortions to the list:
History is replete with discoveries initially proclaimed as some sort of missing link, but later proved to be hoaxes.
And then, of course, they can only name two - Archaeoraptor and Piltdown Man. The Archaeoraptor hoax was perpetrated by a Chinese farmer, not by a scientist, and the Piltdown Man hoax was nearly a century ago - and was discovered by scientists.
Ironically, the article also mentions Nebraska Man, which was another textbook example of the media overhyping a fossil find and building far too much out of a simple tooth. The scientist who actually reported the find, HF Osborn, authored a careful and tentative identification of the find; it was a popular British magazine that turned that into a picture of an ape man, complete with wife and child.
But in this case, the scientists themselves have been caught up in the hype and participating in the very thing that destroys their credibility. I hope this will serve as a warning to other scientists not to do the same thing, but I fear it won't.
Politics
Comments
According to PZed and some of his commentors, the program on the History Channel wasn't nearly as bad as the hype made it appear it would be.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/the_link.php
Posted by: SLC | May 26, 2009 9:46 AM
The ever-incredulous history channel was hyping this. Based upon some of the other shows they put up, and the title of the show itself I suspected it might be a 1-hour straw man show and easily made fun of.
I can't say for certain though because I avoided it.
Posted by: rpsms | May 26, 2009 10:50 AM
I didn't read comment #1, sry.
Posted by: rpsms | May 26, 2009 10:57 AM
I watched "The Link" and, overall, I thought is pretty well done. I agree with comment #1: the hype was far worse than the actual program.
There were a few annoying comments about "missing links" and such, but the main topic of the show was the fossil itself and its analysis.
One of my favorite comments was from Richard Leakey when he said something like, "We ARE apes - we never split off."
Of course none of this will change any Creationist minds. Most I'm sure never bothered to watch the show and never delved beyond WND's headline blurbs.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | May 26, 2009 11:12 AM
I'm not an ape, the tooth fairy smuggled these distinctively ape teeth into my mouth, I swear.
Posted by: Drew | May 26, 2009 11:38 AM
I mentioned this on PZ's blog, but I'll say it again here: Do you really think WND would have acted any differently or been any more or less effective if Ida hadn't been overhyped?
Very few adults minds are ever changed on this subject. If the hype gets a few kids/teens to watch a science show about evolution and the fossil record, then I think that is a net positive.
I mean, have you ever heard of an adult who was like, "Well, I was all set to be convinced that my Creationist beliefs were wrong, but then I heard about Nebraska Man..." No. This maybe gives the cdesign proponentists another sermon for the purposes of preaching to the choir, but I don't think it's really going to win them any converts.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 26, 2009 11:40 AM
I watched it (in HD no less) and I thought it was nicely done. It was very long and I fell asleep toward the end there.
I think they way the show was done did a good job of showing how paleontology and comparative anatomy are done and that's what science shows need to do, show the process.
Posted by: Oatwhore | May 26, 2009 12:47 PM
James Sweet,
I doubt WingNutDaily would have mentioned the fossil at all if it weren't for the hype. They don't exactly cater to a science-savvy crowd. If not for the hype, most of their readers would not even know the fossil existed. The ridiculous public hype around the fossil gave them an opportunity for distortion which they would not have otherwise had.
Posted by: Wes | May 26, 2009 12:48 PM
Wes: If not for the hype, most of their readers would not even know the fossil existed. The ridiculous public hype around the fossil gave them an opportunity for distortion which they would not have otherwise had.
So I guess it's better if their readers never heard of it.
Ed Brayton: Any talk about a missing link is nonsense and Attenborough ought to know it.
He's an entertainer. He gets paid for entertaining. No. Big. Surprise. There.
Posted by: 386sx | May 26, 2009 1:10 PM
The History Channel does some of the most disingenuous religious history reporting on television. If the creationists pick on the history channel, they should be informed of the wild inaccuracies and speculation regarding the flood, revelations, the Gospels, and the book of Joshua, none of it with any historical evidence. THC is there to make money, promoting shows they think people will watch, and the history be damned.
Posted by: Robert Faber | May 27, 2009 12:53 AM