James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Often have I tried to draw attention to creationist propaganda masquerading as reasoned discourse. Lest I leave the impression that the mainstream media are incapable of portraying biological evolution as the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, it is perhaps appropriate to praise a couple of articles from a couple of the country's top science writers. Both treat evolution for what it is and make no concessions to the alleged, pseudo-scientific alternatives.
First is Sharon Begley's cover story in Newsweek,"Beyond Stones and Bones." The lengthy feature explores the contribution that molecular biology, specifically DNA research is making to the effort to understand where we come from, literally. It's not ground-breaking, but a good overview of the back-and-forth between those who study molecules in the lab and those who dig for fossils in the lab.
If you had asked paleoanthropologists a generation ago what lice DNA might reveal about how we became human, they would have laughed you out of the room. But research into our origins and evolution has come a long way. Starting with the first discovery of a fossil suggesting that a different sort of human once lived on this planet--it was a Neanderthal skull, unearthed in a mine in Germany's Neander Valley in 1856--our species' genealogy was inferred from stones and bones. Fossils and tools testified to our ancestors' origins in Africa, the emergence of their ability to walk upright, the development of toolmaking and more. But now two new storytellers have begun speaking: DNA and brains.The only reference to the unfortunate refusal of half of the American population to accept evolutionary theory is a subtle backhanded dismissal:
Whether or not you believe the hand of God was guiding these changes, the discoveries are overturning longstanding ideas about how we became human.Note that Begley didn't write "whether not God was guiding these changes" but "whether or not you believe..." Very good. Second is a shorter piece in today's New York Times by Nicholas Wade, "Epic of Human Migration Is Carved in Parasites' DNA." Considering the length of the piece, it's no surprise that Wade (and/or his editors) can't find room for even a brief mention of creationist dissent. Very very good, indeed. To tempt you to find two minutes to read the whole thing, here's the brillant closer, which is also the only reference to religion:
If pigs had a religion, it is pretty easy to guess which species they would designate as unclean.
Every now and then, of course, Newsweek, the New York Times and other major media outlets, find it necessary to give creationists a few column inches, usually in the form of a story about the controversy itself. But it is important to remember and acknowledge that the vast majority of coverage of evolution in the leading newspapers and newsmagazines generally portray evolution by natural selection properly: as a time-tested, unrivaled, scientifically robust theory.
