…and this is a 
Pity Roger Highfield, editor of New Scientist, which published an issue in which the cover was the large, bold declaration that "DARWIN WAS WRONG". He has been target by a number of big name scientists who have been hammering him in a small typhoon of outraged private correspondence (I've been part of it) that his cover was a misdirected and entirely inappropriate piece of sensationalism. We're already seeing that cover abused by creationists who see it as a tool — a reputable popular science journal has declared Darwin to be wrong, therefore, once again, science must be in retreat! — and I expect we're going to have to face the headache of many school board meetings where that cover is flaunted as evidence that students ought to be taught about how weak Darwinism is.
I think it was a mistake on New Scientist's part. They could have published a cover that announced "DARWIN IS DEAD!", which would be just as true and just as misleading, and would also bring nothing but joy to the ignorant. I don't think it would really help sell magazines, even; I suspect that most creationists are going to only use that cover to flog their cause, and never read any deeper than the widely available cover image.
And you should read the inside. It sends a different message. Roger Highfield encouraged me to distribute the editorial that accompanied the article.
"THERE is nothing new to be discovered in physics." So said Lord Kelvin in 1900, shortly before the intellectual firestorm ignited by relativity and quantum mechanics proved him comprehensively wrong.
If anyone now thinks that biology is sorted, they are going to be proved wrong too. The more that genomics, bioinformatics and many other newer disciplines reveal about life, the more obvious it becomes that our present understanding is not up to the job. We now gaze on a biological world of mind-boggling complexity that exposes the shortcomings of familiar, tidy concepts such as species, gene and organism.
A particularly pertinent example is provided in this week's cover story - the uprooting of the tree of life which Darwin used as an organising principle and which has been a central tenet of biology ever since (see "Axing Darwin's tree"). Most biologists now accept that the tree is not a fact of nature - it is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable. Other important bits of biology - notably development, ageing and sex - are similarly turning out to be much more involved than we ever imagined. As evolutionary biologist Michael Rose at the University of California, Irvine, told us: "The complexity of biology is comparable to quantum mechanics."
Biology has been here before. Although Darwin himself, with the help of Alfred Russel Wallace, triggered a revolution in the mid-1800s, there was a second revolution in the 1930s and 1940s when Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright and others incorporated Mendelian genetics and placed evolution on a firm mathematical foundation.
As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.
Nor will the new work do anything to diminish the standing of Darwin himself. When it came to gravitation and the laws of motion, Isaac Newton didn't see the whole picture either, but he remains one of science's giants. In the same way, Darwin's ideas will prove influential for decades to come.
So here's to the impending revolution in biology. Come Darwin's 300th anniversary there will be even more to celebrate.
The cover is going to cause us some headaches, but just be prepared with that bit of text — I think even just the paragraph I've highlighted will be sufficient — and when a creationists sticks those 3 words in your face, just ask them to stretch their reading abilities a little bit further and read those 72 words.
It's going to be hard, though. Most creationists can't read that many big words strung together all at once without twisting them, either.
Comments
Posted by: Brownian
|
January 28, 2009 12:40 PM
One day, when we're past all this bullshit, we'll all stand together united as humans and give the sad, pathetic hangers-on of creationism a collective kick in the ass for forcing us to live in a world in which language cannot be used in any sort of fun or creative way for fear that the semi-literate fools will misinterpret it to support their hate-mongering.
Creationists: you fucking suck, you drab, deceitful drones.
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
January 28, 2009 12:40 PM
It's gonna be the mother lode for quote-mining Cretinists.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 28, 2009 12:41 PM
Reportedly, it's already been used in the Texas hearings (pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/new-scientist-i-1.html). Apparently NS failed to bring that up in reporting on the Texas battle.
Sure, NS told the correct story, even predicting the dishonest misuse of their headline. But it's old news, stuff they've reported on many times, hardly meriting the sensationalistic title they gave it even apart from the cretin/IDiot issue.
Of course it's just a cheap gimmick, nothing to get too worked up about. They could try not to give fuel to the dishonest morons, though. It might make the scientists they interview more forthcoming.
Are they really so uncaring about how science fares in the US?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Hairhead | January 28, 2009 12:43 PM
WHY OH WHY ARE SCIENTISTS, OTHERWISE INTELLIGENT, SO BRAIN-DEAD WHEN IT COMES TO BASIC PUBLIC ARGUMENTATION?
First rule of any public debate, don't say to your opponent, "Yes, your statement is absolutely correct: abortion is murder/blacks are dumber than whites/liberals are pedophiles/science and religion are exactly the same/black is white/up is down/ and you're NOT a lying, duplicitious, sex-neurotic, backstabbing godbot.
Please? Please!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead
|
January 28, 2009 12:44 PM
The editors should have known better, but all print media is suffering in the internet age. They haven't done anybody any favors, and they need to acknowledge that they oversold the hype other than halfway down a page. Sigh.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | January 28, 2009 12:47 PM
Oh but the cover doesn't mention religion, so it's a good job of framing!
Posted by: Alex
|
January 28, 2009 12:49 PM
I don't idolize Darwin, so I don't see it as sensationalist to say he was wrong. Creationists would be correct in asserting Darwin was wrong. They'd also be correct in asserting Newton was wrong. So what if they have another incredibly weak argument (Creationist: "Look at this magazine cover! It says Darwin was wrong, therefore ID should be taught in science class!")? If they actually use it, it just gives people another very easy opportunity to make them look like the fools they are.
Posted by: RM | January 28, 2009 12:49 PM
Pathetic gimmick to sell magazines when the editor admittedly knew it wood cause harm, yet he speaks down to creationists. They seem to be in about the same ark as far as I can see.
Posted by: E.V. | January 28, 2009 12:51 PM
Our first twit of the day contest:
Looks like we have a winner! Darwimpcritic!
You'll be receiving your new tinfoil hat replacement in the mail. Just keep waiting under that rock of yours.
Posted by: Pablo | January 28, 2009 12:52 PM
It's one thing to inadvertantly make statements that creationists can twist and contort and take out of context. Given their acrobatics, it's almost impossible to avoid such situations. But jeez, given that you know they do it, how irresponsible is it for a fairly authoritative source to simply hand it out, admitting full well that are going to use it out of context?
Posted by: Tom Foss | January 28, 2009 12:53 PM
More gimmicky, and more correct, was the National Geographic from a few years ago, which asked on the cover "Was Darwin wrong?" The first page of the article: a huge "NO."
Posted by: Norman Doering | January 28, 2009 12:55 PM
The cover of my newest National Geographic is sprawled with the title: "What Darwin Didn't Know." Of course, the articles are very pro-Darwin.
Posted by: Dr. J
|
January 28, 2009 12:55 PM
The problem is they don't care...they are NEVER wrong. It must be grand to never have to think about whether or not you are correct - difficult to do for those of us that understand science.
Why on Earth would they stop now? Does anyone think they will ever see themselves as fools?
Posted by: wombat | January 28, 2009 12:57 PM
Obviously, the headline is overly simplistic in the way that a good number of headlines are. The editorial is a very good answer to it but who will read it? Those of us who are centered around a scientific mindset will understand that "Darwin was wrong" really means "Darwin didn't exactly get the processes by which simply life traded genetic information". The Creationists aren't really the problem with the cover. They would discount the article either way. It's the non-science fence sitters that will be the problem. While I appreciate the editorial that was attached, I still object to it. It was unnecessary to the story and will cause unneeded confusion to the lay person who will have it thrown in their face by the Christian fascists.
Posted by: Pyrrhonic
|
January 28, 2009 12:57 PM
It's an easy enough mistake to make, but the creationists have taken non-propositional language (it's satirical) for propositional. One of the things that has always amazed me about these types is their inability to understand literary language. Conservatives et al., seem simply unable to detect irony, understand metaphor, or to piece through other more difficult linguistic problems. So sad, too, because, if you skip the more monotonous books of laws, the Bible is full of good literary material.
How do we develop the kinds of critical reading practices that will help us to avoid these problems?
Posted by: Josh | January 28, 2009 12:58 PM
Anybody have any idea in what way the Tree of Life is not a fact of nature? Are they saying the theory of common descent is wrong? Because that's what I think of when I think of the Tree of Life.
Posted by: JD | January 28, 2009 12:59 PM
Great, more facile sensationalism for the tard brigade.
Posted by: J-Dog | January 28, 2009 1:05 PM
Put me down also for some of that "I don't care what the fine print says either" - what a stupid-assed stupid cover!
The "creator", I mean "designer" of the cover was probably wearing a "kick-me" sign taped to their back through-out high school, and I would like to help them re-live those vital years.
Posted by: Norman Doering | January 28, 2009 1:06 PM
Dr. J asked:
I'm pretty sure that Ray Comfort never will.
Posted by: Qwerty | January 28, 2009 1:08 PM
As a non-scientist, this headline is indeed misleading when reading the editorial that accompanied the article, but I guess "Darwin's 'Tree of Life' Maybe an Inaccurate Representation of Evolution and Is Probably Outdated, but His Basic Discoveries Still Remain the Foundation of Evolutionary Thinking" might be a more accurate representation of what they are trying to say but they couldn't get it all on the cover.
Yea, I can see why PZ and other scientists are pissed. It's hard enough to get the average non-scientist to ignore creationist crap when stuff like this emanates from a periodical that calls itself NEWSCIENTIST.
Posted by: AJ Milne | January 28, 2009 1:10 PM
I'd expect from that sort of phrasing they're probably referring to the rather more 'incestuously self-grafting bush' view of some early ancestry. As in prior to and outside modern eukaryotes and their relatively simple chains of branching descendance, there was probably rather more of a gene-swapping free-for going on--so you can't really draw it just as a simply branching tree--more one in which shoots from some branches collide and graft with others...
(That said, no, I haven't read it. But that is something of an issue with respect to that particular metaphor, anyway.)
Posted by: WizardJim | January 28, 2009 1:12 PM
You know, one day I hope to see a world where any science publication can put whatever they damn well like on their cover without risk of misrepresentation by idiotic science-deniers. Sadly this is not yet that world, and New Scientist should damn well know better.
Posted by: AJ Milne | January 28, 2009 1:13 PM
More on this: Dr. Moran had a series on this a while ago--see The Web of Life and related, if you're interested.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | January 28, 2009 1:18 PM
I absolutely detest this kind of crap, and consider it journalistic malpractice. I still remember the headlines going around on the web a few years back, not long after medical researchers discovered the role of a carbohydrate molecule -- a normal component of cells -- in the inflammation pathway characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis. At least one newspaper ran the story under the headline "CAN CARBS CAUSE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS?"
The New Scientist cover is mind-bogglingly stupid, unprofessional, and an insult to the intelligence of the publication's readers.
Posted by: Aaron | January 28, 2009 1:18 PM
Pyrrhonic @16 : "How do we develop the kinds of critical reading practices that will help us to avoid these problems?"
I've recently been advocating the necessity of critical reading, logic, and statistics as the necessary tools to fight ignorance, but most of society seems indifferent.
Perhaps, with a slight evolutionary nod, we should add to the adaptive pressure by modifying society so these tools are necessary in day to day life.
1. Crossing the street at a stop light would require you to solve a puzzle before knowing if it was walk / don't walk.
2. Rid ourselves of most consumer protection laws. Leave it up to the individuals to read the fine print and do the calculations and experiments to determine if a product is harmful.
3. Bribe publishers to start adding random variation into religious texts. At first it might be simple, such as occasionally changing Eve's name to Steve, but we could work our way up to promoting courthouse monuments espousing the 17 commandments.
Posted by: William Gulvin | January 28, 2009 1:18 PM
¡Ay, caramba!
There are a whole lot of fools out there that figure if they've read the title they've read the book. Not good.
Look, everyone is "wrong" in some respect, but that doesn't debase those points where they are right, sometimes, as is the case with Darwin, spectacularly so.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | January 28, 2009 1:20 PM
And I thought the Ms. cover trying to paint Obama as a feminist was bad...
Posted by: Pete UK | January 28, 2009 1:20 PM
Perhaps it's time to move on from Darwin. Yes, there was much he didn't know and things he got wrong. The edifice we should be admiring and explaining is the one we have now, replete with the insights of Fisher, Hamilton and co and the foundations of modern genetics, molecular biology, evo-devo etc.
Headlines such as "Darwin was wrong" only serve to imply that it is important that he was right. It isn't. His huge contribution started us all in the right directlon, but we don'r want to give the impression we're propping up an idea that hasn't moved forward for 150 years.
You might as well say that the Greeks were wrong - it isn't earth, air, fire and water after all. It's trivial compared to modern chemistry, which is vastly different, rests on far more data and is, frankly, unassailable in its power to interpret and predict.
THe upside of the anniversary of the publication of "The Origin" is that it's an opportunity to take Evolution to the masses. The downside is it focuses attention inevitably on the 150 year old version and the blanks on the map that have actually been filled since. Better to my mind to present the full canvas rather than the (wonderful) studio daubs of the original artist.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 28, 2009 1:21 PM
epic fail
first the "God Particle", now this. why do some scientists/publishers try so hard to make it more difficult for the rest of us to fight the plague of creationism?!
and I can't even write this up as an accidentally bad phrasing. it was willfully negligent, as the editorial proves.
Posted by: I am so wise | January 28, 2009 1:25 PM
Given the flak given to creationists by some here and elsewhere for calling the modern evolutionary synthesis "Darwinianism" or "neo-Darwinianism," this magazine cover should be welcomed. After all, declaring Darwin "dead" and showing how far science has advanced in his absence is a good way to do it because it deflates Darwin as a target, complaints about creationists’ misuse of the cover aside.
Also, kudos to New Scientist for not dumbing down a provocative presentation of advances in science and Darwinian history for free of idiots miss using it. It is high time the forces of common sense, basic intelligence, and rationalism stop pandering to rank idiocy, the dumb-dumbs, and the lowest common denominator.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 28, 2009 1:27 PM
We'll never hear the end of this. What a damn fool stunt.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 28, 2009 1:27 PM
also, I suspect this cover will haunt us for decades, just like that sensationalist piece of shit Newsweek headline from 1975: "The cooling world"
Posted by: Sceptical Chymist | January 28, 2009 1:28 PM
I had a subscription to the "New Scientist" several years ago but did not renew it after concluding that many of the articles claimed novelty for old and well established scientific facts, while others were merely trivial or downright incorrect.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | January 28, 2009 1:30 PM
Why was this thought timely? I have known about horizontal evolution for many years, and have lectured about it in the context of antibiotics in livestock feed to my 'biology for music majors' classes. It's nothing new, and has been discussed in articles in Systematic Biology, for example.
Posted by: Sigmund | January 28, 2009 1:31 PM
Come on, New Scientist are a UK based publication, standing up for UK science and what better way to do that then by helping bugger up the competitors science education system!
On a more serious note there is some current irony in that Darwins biggest mistake was missing genetics in favor of a blending theory of inheritance - whereas the fatal flaw of the bifurcating tree of life is that it misses out the fact that a certain degree of 'blending' - in the form of horizontal gene transfer - was clearly important in the history of life on earth.
Posted by: Spyderkl
|
January 28, 2009 1:32 PM
But see, that would also require a creationist to be able to open the magazine to get to the editorial page.
Sorry, IMO New Scientist knew exactly what they were doing when they published the issue with that cover/title. It's a big part of why I'd sooner slog through my sister's copy of C&E News before I'd pick up New Scientist. I'd be reading about, well, science at least.
Posted by: LisaJ | January 28, 2009 1:33 PM
Honestly, what the hell were they thinking?? If ever you want to purposefully bait creationists and IDiots to make our plight of enhancing public rationality more difficult, well, this is the way to do it. Well done, I guess.
Posted by: Sastra
|
January 28, 2009 1:34 PM
If the political controversy wasn't so dangerous right now, there'd be nothing wrong with the title. But it is, so there is. Couldn't they have at least made the title "DARWIN WAS (partly) WRONG?"
You don't see the religious doing this. They don't put "KEN HAM IS GAY" on the cover of their magazines -- and then you open it up and find out that they really mean he's happy about something or other (ooh gotcha, huh?). No, they know a lot of people only look at covers, and they're not going to play into the fantasies of those who don't like their views and put themselves into a position where they have to keep explaining lest an urban legend get started.
Posted by: Stephanurus | January 28, 2009 1:36 PM
"If anyone now thinks that biology is sorted,'''"
That phrase is in the 2nd paragraph. What does "sorted" mean in this context? Is it a typo?
stephanurus
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 28, 2009 1:36 PM
WAIT A MINUTE?!?!?!?!
Ken Ham is gay?
Does Ted Haggard know?
Posted by: Matt Heath | January 28, 2009 1:36 PM
NS is often very readable and informative, but it does suffer from sensationalist desire to proclaim revolutions every 6 minutes. Taking the normal progression of understanding and rewriting it as "Scientists are shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, by finding out that they didn't quite have things right before" is just what they do.
It's kind of like the NME constantly turning random collections of bands into the New Big Movement that will Change Rock N Roll Forever!!1
Posted by: cactusren | January 28, 2009 1:38 PM
"biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse." Yeah, thanks, New Scientist, for simultaneously admitting that creationists will quote-mine, while not being careful at all in what you say.
@Jim Thomerson--The bicentennial of Darwin's birth is coming up on Feb. 12, so the timing of this article likely has much more to do with that than with any new discoveries in the area of horizontal gene transfer.
Posted by: Jason | January 28, 2009 1:40 PM
I just received my issue of National Geographic and the cover says "What Darwin didn't know"
So maybe there was pressure from marketing to have the same cover.
Posted by: themann1086 | January 28, 2009 1:40 PM
New Scientist is a barely-influential journal that only gets cited by other scientists ripping into it for giving credence to psuedoscience (aren't they the ones that published that "Free Energy!!!1!" article a couple years ago?). Now they've found a new way to get attention.
Posted by: E.V. | January 28, 2009 1:42 PM
I'm sure I've said this before, I love you Sastra.
Posted by: Treenewt | January 28, 2009 1:44 PM
Time to cancel subscriptions en masse. Log in here and cancel it:https://www.qssweb.co.uk/nssubs/Account/Login.aspx?type=S
Posted by: Matt Heath | January 28, 2009 1:44 PM
Sigmund@36: You know the UK has it's own Creationists, right?
Stafanurus@40: "Sorted" in informal British English is roughly "All in order" (or "currently in possession of all the speed and ecstasy one requires", but I doubt he meant that)
Posted by: peon | January 28, 2009 1:45 PM
Crazy deluded scientific minded people:
Evolutionists flock to Darwin-shaped wall stain:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
Posted by: Tony Popple | January 28, 2009 1:45 PM
Just the humble opinion of a amateur....
I think we will need to remind creationist of the Correspondence Principle. (I seem to remember Gould applying the principle to biology in one of his books.)
The discovery of Relativity in physics showed Newton’s laws to be incomplete, but this doesn’t mean that Newton was wrong. Newton’s laws are still valid under the conditions we encounter in our everyday lives, and they are used by thousands of scientists and engineers everyday. The important point is that the knowledge we acquired through Newton’s laws was not discarded; it was put into a larger framework.
The same is true of evolution. The observations we collected over the years are still valid and must be accounted for. The same princples are there; they have simply been put into a framework that reflects a larger picture.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
January 28, 2009 1:51 PM
Argh. No. Just don't go there.
Posted by: bobxxxx
|
January 28, 2009 1:51 PM
On the internet the National Geographic article includes a video: What Darwin Didn't Know
Posted by: Sastra
|
January 28, 2009 1:53 PM
E.V.:
*kissies* ;)
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | January 28, 2009 2:16 PM
Ultimate controversial title:
"DARWIN IS IN HEAVEN WITH 72 VIRGINS"
Or is it 74? I lose track of those fine philosophical details as I age.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | January 28, 2009 2:20 PM
There are a whole lot of fools out there that figure if they've read the title they've read the book. Not good.
With the notable exceptions of "See Spot Run", "If I Did It" and anything with "Ann Coulter" under the title.
Posted by: Austin | January 28, 2009 2:24 PM
Not surprised in the least. I actually expected the inside to match the cover, with interviews of "revolutionary, maverick scientists pushing the boundaries of what we think we know". New Scientist suckered me once when they reported on the factual basis of the "memory of water". Never again
Posted by: J.D. | January 28, 2009 2:30 PM
Darwin was wrong much like Newton was wrong. True only in the strictest sense. Their genius is the synthesis of observations into a coherent framework (i.e. theory) that represented true breakthroughs in human understanding. Frameworks that made testable predictions that were verified over decades due to how good those first approximation frameworks were.
The general public and creos in particular just can't get over the idea of absolute certainty which science never has. All we can do is prove things wrong and we celebrate when such leads to new and improved insights and when theories stand up to the relentless assault on their veracity by scientists over time. All completely foreign concepts to IDiots. We can never be absolutely sure, only asymptotically closer to how the universe actually behaves. Creos like their knowledge to be absolute cocksure ignorance.
Posted by: Sam C | January 28, 2009 2:51 PM
Not all the world is America. In Britain, where New Scientist is written and published, there is no huge baying crowd of frothy-mouthed creationists. We have a few, but creationism has no influence. Religion in faith schools, yes, but that's a separate issue.
The creationist movement is your problem with your loonies, you sort it. Should British magazines pander to America's failings just because you understand our language?
Yes, it was a sensationalist cover. No, it was not a problem in Britain, where it can be recognised as an attention-grabber. Remember, our culture is different - how many of you realise that? The same words do not always carry the same significance.
And it's so irrelevant: too few commenters seem to appreciate that creationism is not a scientific issue, it's a political one. The scientific argument is an irrelevant distraction, the creationists aren't interested except for its trouble-making potential, it's power and influence they want.
Good luck with your struggle, but this blogomobolynching thing is very distasteful.
Posted by: Tulse | January 28, 2009 2:57 PM
This is not the first time that New Scientist has gone for sensationalism over science -- their 2006 article on the "reactionless" Em Drive caused a huge outcry in the physics community, as the drive violates the law of conservation of momentum. The magazine published a notpology a few weeks later, with such choice phrases as
Ya think? But their excuse?I presume they'll be covering the hypotheses of homeopathy and feng shui next...
Posted by: eddie | January 28, 2009 3:01 PM
On the subject of horisontal (brit spelling ;¬) evolution and gene transfer; it helps to see the early development of single celled organizms (US spelling ;¬) evolving together and only later, with multicellularity and differentiation do we see splitting of gene lines. Kinda like a tree, with a trunk at the base and later branching out. So tell me again how darwin was wrong.
Also, NS magazine must be in some deep doodoo. I stopped reading it after one too many templetons. I remember that their advertising was of 2 types; job adverts directed at students looking for a career, and ads for flash cars, directed at research directors, etc. I lot of these readerships have moved online and don't need to pay the cover price NS needs to ask to stay afloat.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 28, 2009 3:26 PM
Sam C @57
First they came for America....
1)You have creationists, too. and you REALLY shouldn't encourage them
2)The rest of Europe has a growing number of creobots, too
3)Whether we like it or not, everybody should care about what happens to the U.S.A. It's the most weaponized country in the world, and no sane person would want creobots to get powerful enough to use those toys.
Posted by: Brownian
|
January 28, 2009 3:30 PM
Do you mean 'know' in the Biblical sense?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 28, 2009 3:50 PM
Get them to stop selling their magazine in this country, and you might have a point.
Posted by: davem | January 28, 2009 3:52 PM
Eddit: "On the subject of horisontal (brit spelling ;¬) evolution and gene transfer; it helps to see the early development of single celled organizms (US spelling ;¬) e"
Er, that'll be 'horizontal' in real English, thank you. (and 'organisms' too). Damned yankees and their corruption of our fine mother tongue :0)
Posted by: kev_s | January 28, 2009 3:53 PM
New Scientist is used as a source by other journalists too lazy to research science stories for themselves. Stories in NS appear in other UK papers a day or two later. I believe NS has a substantial non-UK readership so perhaps non-UK newspapers 'lift' items from it too. Therefore although professional scientists might not pay NS much attention, its influence on the general public's perception of these issues is probably greater than you might think.
This was an irresponsible head-line which might do much damage.
Posted by: Maus | January 28, 2009 3:53 PM
"when a creationists sticks those 3 words in your face, just ask them to stretch their reading abilities a little bit further and read those 72 words."
Nigh impossible. Though everyone who has the capacity to research and think critically knows that the insides will say something different, this sort of attention-whoring damages science at large in the public eye.
Posted by: E.V. | January 28, 2009 3:57 PM
Easy to fix. Cancel your subscriptions to NS.
What do you mean you don't read it? -somebody has to!
Oh, the marginally scientific crowd who used to read Omni....
Posted by: KenG | January 28, 2009 4:05 PM
Ooi, it took until #59 to get to the crux of the article- the linear progress with bifurcations that we see in the branches of the tree of life gets really messy down in the microbial (and lower eukaryotic) world where horizontal gene transfer is certainly functioning to give a sort of "reticulated" structure. Now, of course Darwin wasn't and couldn't be aware of this with the technology available in his time which just goes to emphasise the sensationalist nature of the NS cover. I have 2 thoughts:
1) roots often anasmotose (sic) to give a form of reticulation so the microbial world can be seen as the "roots of the tree of life"
2) if creationists rush out and actually buy the magazine then hopefully someone in their family will get to read the whole thing and may be captured by the excitement of science.
Posted by: Crystal D. | January 28, 2009 4:09 PM
There was a National Geographic issue a few years ago with the headline "Was Darwin Wrong?". When you flipped to the article, it started with "NO." in a giant font. Very funny.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
January 28, 2009 4:14 PM
Posted by: maxamillion | January 28, 2009 4:26 PM
I canceled my subscription
Posted by: Silver Fox | January 28, 2009 4:31 PM
My-O-My, but I do believe, Beauregard, that this fellow Darwin's approval rating in lower than Our Ex-President's.
Well, Olivia, that's what he gets for trying to make monkeys of us and I say he is well deserving of a good thrashing.
And, Beauregard, didn't he say something about mutations?
Well now, Olivia, you know that when I see Prescott's boy, the one who lives up the road, I think that crazy Darwin fellow might actually have been on to something.
Now, Beauregard, our neighbors would not take kindly to that; the boy is maybe a little morphologically deprived but there is no need for you to be running him back up the tree of life.
Watch your driving of this here carriage, Beauregard, you just hit that possum. And just think in a few years that possum would've been a full grown man.
Posted by: Aaron | January 28, 2009 4:42 PM
One question for all those who have canceled their subscription or are planning to do so:
Have you first written a letter to complain, or are you at least planning on subscribing to another science magazine?
If not, then all your efforts will accomplish is to add to the continuing drop in the magazine and newspaper subscription rates around the country. The publishers will not know why, and will have no recourse to correct that behavior. If you enjoy good science journalism, then you should encourage it with your dollars.
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | January 28, 2009 5:03 PM
I thought it was all straight for years, that of course Darwin was wrong because he didn't understand mutation and modern selection. BTW the issue really isn't whether a particular theory of how evolution works is true, but the continuity of life in the context of long-term change. If critters begat other critters, then there had to be evolution if life was different in the Cambrian etc. than it is now.
Posted by: Prometheus | January 28, 2009 5:08 PM
I don't see anything about New Scientist using a puerile ridiculous headline to sell a magazine that conflicts with fine British journalistic traditions. Perhaps the next headline can announce a cash prize for the first mathematician to develop a formula to "Find Maddy" or the mechanical physics of a conspiracy to murder "The People's Princess".
Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 28, 2009 5:12 PM
Speaking of Ted Haggard... he's going to be on Oprah today. I've got my barf bucket ready, this should be quite a show.
Posted by: CJO | January 28, 2009 5:21 PM
And just think
in a few yearsright now that possumwould've been a full grown manis smarter than a creationist.Fixed that for you, Max.
Posted by: Prometheus | January 28, 2009 5:21 PM
I too am rather nauseous at the thought of Haggard but let's you and I make a pact to refrain, for the sake of decorum, from mentioning the gag reflex when he is a topic.
Posted by: Prometheus | January 28, 2009 5:23 PM
I too am rather nauseous at the thought of Haggard but let's you and I make a pact to refrain, for the sake of decorum, from mentioning the gag reflex when he is a topic.
Posted by: Hambydammit | January 28, 2009 5:27 PM
This reminds me of the snit between Gould apologists and Darwin apologists regarding punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism. It seems that scientists face a kind of catch-22. On one hand, they can write headlines which are dry, meticulously factual, and virtually impervious to quote mining. If they do this, only scientists will read the magazines, and the public's demand for sensationalism will be met by Christians and Pop Stars. On the other hand, scientists can try to "sex up" their headlines, but if they do that, they get quote mined by the Creationists, and we have to go through another round of explaining the basics of the scientific method.
It's enough to make me want to cry.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | January 28, 2009 5:58 PM
Having read the article in question (I have a subscription to NS) it makes the point that the vast majority of life is prokaryotic, most of the rest is single celled eukaryotic and us multicellular lifeforms are just a little bump on top. Down amongst the protists having whole sections of your genome from different relatives is simply de rigeur dahling. Even the idea that the multicellular bit might be a tree is creaking. Remember the tunicates (sea squirts) the only animals who can make cellulose because they have the entire synthesis pathway from an algae? Draw a narrow colour coded line denoting the proportion over to the plants from the chordates.
I have reported here before recently about the gene I cloned from a chicken that hit only humans and mosquitos on the database. That discovery was an accident but chalk up a line linking Homo sapiens, a dinosaurian and an insect. Still think that tree analogy is right with a webwork lacing and looping amongst the branches?
Oh and before I forget, there is increasing evidence that us placental mammals owe it all to some viruses for the placenta. But then at base the eukaryote cell is a syncitium of different bacteria so at base multicellular life just smears into that indivisible soup of the mass of life.
Posted by: helvetica | January 28, 2009 6:46 PM
I think #71 is overcompensating just a weeeee bit to #15's criticisms.
Posted by: mothra | January 28, 2009 7:00 PM
Thanks 'New Scientist' for that new doorstop at the entrance to the Dark Ages! JD #56 beat me to the perspectives of 'wrongness' comment. I can only add, had the cover put a number of scientists (even leading with Darwin), i.e. Darwin was wrong, Newton, Bohr, Pauling, etc. and used this as a springboard to discuss the progress of science since TOoS it could have been a good retrospective issue. As is, The editor should be docked a month's pay (each February) for his remaining tenure as editor.
@Sam C. #57. 1) I am rather sure that there are more American than British subscriptions to New Scientist, probably by a factor greater than 20 to one. 2) It is NOT solely a political issue- research dollars at state and even regional levels could and may be negatively affected by such tripe. You sound like a 'cultural misanthrope.' 3) Dispelling ignorance in the world and, about the scientific world we live in, is to varying degrees the responsibility of everyone in the scientific community. This editor has abrogated his editorship and abdicated his responsibility.
Posted by: Pareidolius | January 28, 2009 7:24 PM
#57
Distasteful? RahTHER! Purveyors of advertising (oh, sorry, adVERtisments) here on this side of the pond have an old saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Of course, this is nonsense. There is such a thing as bad publicity and it's usually the result of creative hubris run amok. I can't tell you how many meetings I've sat through where the creatives have presented what they thought was just the greatest thing in the world, only to be greeted by stony silence and glares from the account executives and clients. Sometimes it's the caffeine. Sometimes it's lack of direction. Sometimes it's lack of sleep. But if the hubris-laden creative makes it past the client and AEs, it's usually a decision based on desperation to sell something. These are desperate times. Expect more hyperbole in the year to come from all publications as they scramble for readers to pick them up. Natural. Selection.
Posted by: mothra | January 28, 2009 7:33 PM
@ 80
"I have reported here before recently about the gene I cloned from a chicken that hit only humans and mosquitos on the database. That discovery was an accident but chalk up a line linking Homo sapiens, a dinosaurian and an insect. Still think that tree analogy is right with a webwork lacing and looping amongst the branches?"
You may be next in line for editorship at New Scientist. The paragraph quoted above conveys the idea that you would draw relatedness between taxa other than the currently understood phylogeny (based upon many genes, morphological and fossil evidence). Your limited evidence only suggests that: the gene you found originated far further back in time, or, horizontal transfer (with a helper virus and a bacillus for example). It does NOT indicate any relatedness between the disparate taxa you listed beyond that already known. Or to state it concisely: a dendrogram showing the relatedness among organisms does not mirror a dendrogram for an individual gene- but you should know this.
On the positive side, your discovery is very exciting and maybe you have the first piece of a puzzle leading to discovery of new mechanisms/symbionts in gene transfer. Or, your gene may be part of a family of genes that might reveal some 'deep ancestry' roots or a deep time horizontal transfer.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | January 28, 2009 7:45 PM
Should British magazines pander to America's failings just because you understand our language?
Should British scientists suffer when research in the U.S. is hampered by fundagelical loons with altogether too much political power?
We're in the same boat.
YOU FAIL IT!
Posted by: Arne | January 28, 2009 8:08 PM
Let's tell the editors of New Scientist they should have DARWIN WAS RIGHT on their next cover.
His being right is of more importance than his being "wrong".
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 28, 2009 9:07 PM
Even if claims of major lateral genetic transfers among multicellular organisms are confirmed in abundance, the tree metaphor still works.
I have seen long-abandoned crepe myrtles whose forked branches grew together without assistance, and deliberate re-joining of live branches, aka pleaching, is a well-developed art.
Posted by: Egaeus
|
January 28, 2009 9:20 PM
Since when are New Scientist headlines not inappropriate and sensationalist.
Posted by: Frank Anderson | January 28, 2009 9:55 PM
Ooi, it took until #59 to get to the crux of the article- the linear progress with bifurcations that we see in the branches of the tree of life gets really messy down in the microbial (and lower eukaryotic) world where horizontal gene transfer is certainly functioning to give a sort of "reticulated" structure.
I keep complaining about this article, despite having only read a blurb about the article on The Guardian's website...
Anyway, yes -- horizontal gene transfer (HGT) definitely happens. Even with microbes, though, it doesn't completely splinter relationships among lineages. HGT happens, but we recognize it as such because in the major lineages, the tree of life remains the best explanation for the genetic and morphological patterns we see. HGT, hybridization, incomplete lineage sorting, etc. have all been known about for a long time, and they are recognized as such in the context of a phylogeny (i.e., an tree depicting evolutionary relationships among lineages of organisms).
But whatever. If Darwin was wrong and the Tree of Life is just an outdated metaphor that should be abandoned, someone had better call NSF. They're running the "Assembling the Tree of Life" program again this year. And have them cancel the Systematic Biology cluster while they're at it!
Just kidding. Please don't do that.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | January 28, 2009 10:52 PM
By the way, Jeffrey Dach has two blog posts up already including the cover as his illustration:
http://open.salon.com/user_blog.php?uid=5400
Oh, and I sent an email to the Salon editors complaining about his bullshit in the earlier post (I didn't use words like "bullshit", though... I was much more polite).
Posted by: Kel | January 28, 2009 11:12 PM
This is going to take a lot of explaining, I'm betting creationists will use this as an argument against evolution without even bothering to read what was inside. *sigh* it's going to be a long year.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead
|
January 28, 2009 11:20 PM
Kel, creobots reading beyond the title? That would actually require them to open a book or magazine. I just don't see that happening. A well read crebot. What an oxymoron.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 28, 2009 11:25 PM
As many of you know, we are fighting the science standards battle right now in Texas.
Dealing with the creationists on our state board of education is like playing whack-a-mole with evil robot moles. No sooner did we get rid of the "strengths and weaknesses" language, than they popped back up with amendments to
1) cast doubt on common ancestry
2) substitute “analyze and evaluate” in place of other verbs, such as “recognize” or “describe”
3) require that “differing theories” about “the structure, scale, composition, origin and history of the universe”
Creationists just relentlessly hammered with amendment after amendment clearly crafted to open the door to ID while casting doubt on science. These are just the ones that passed. It's pretty clear that this flurry of punches confused some of the pro-science board members; they blocked most of the blows, but a few connected . . . and they were very damaging. I believe that these new standards, if adopted as they are currently worded, have the potential to provide MUCH more cover for creationist teachers and local school boards than the original "strengths and weaknesses" language ever did.
The very LAST thing we needed at this juncture was a sensationalist pop-science take on Darwin, all ripe to get quote-mined and to influence public opinion. Shame on you, New Scientist!
Posted by: Kel | January 28, 2009 11:27 PM
Yeah, I don't see it happening either. Better make sure to get the magazine so I can have a reference for myself if any creationist wants to bring it up.Posted by: Brain Hertz | January 28, 2009 11:40 PM
Never mind - apparently Salon blogs are not editorially controlled in any way by Salon.
Seems to be a bit of a mistake to associate the brand with any nutter who wants to create a blog, but then it isn't my brand. The editors were good enough to send me a reply in any case...
Posted by: Doesnt Matter | January 28, 2009 11:42 PM
I can't see the reason for the uproar.
The battle for rationality hardly seems like one that can ever be won on the basis of having all scientists and science publications spinning every idea in hopes that creationists do not twist their words or quote-mine. Surely everyone who is switched on can plainly see from copious evidence that such an effort is utter folly. Need one be reminded that the cretins take the debates at evolution conferences to mean the theory evolution is wrong?
Going further, it can be argued that the New Scientist cover is actually a trap. You believe the cover of New Scientist? Good, so you should also agree with the editorial, which shows, let's see, aha! you've clearly been mislead by people who want to blind you from the truth by quote mining. This trap won't ensnare many people, but those it cannot sway have little hope regardless, I'm afraid, and a different New Scientist could hardly have made a difference.
Posted by: Mobius | January 29, 2009 12:18 AM
I am not a biologist, so my opinion on the subject should be taken with a grain of salt. However, it strikes me that Darwin's Tree of Life is not dead, but rather grown a bit fuzzy, particularly around the branching points.
The more we learn about biology, the more we understand that the concept of species is not solid, but a bit hazy. Closely related species can and do occasionally cross breed. This appears to have happened for some time between the "human" and "chimp" lineages after they had moved to different environment. Personally, I do not find this surprising.
Then we have ring species, which in many ways defy the old rigid concept of species.
This is something creationists will likely never grasp. In their world, things are absolute. The modern, hazy, concept of species does not fit in their world.
Posted by: Silver Fox | January 29, 2009 12:52 AM
"to get quote-mined and to influence public opinion. Shame on you, New Scientist!"
That's all the creationists needed - a cover on a two-bit magazine. Hummmm, do I smell Ockham's Razor here.
Posted by: Brian's A Wild Downer | January 29, 2009 1:06 AM
Yeah, I don't see the problem. I'm planning on putting out a sign on Darwin Day that says Darwin Was Wrong and then handing out pamphlets that list the things that he actually was wrong about but that strengthen the theory of evolution.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 29, 2009 1:43 AM
Silver Fox, don't use phrases you don't understand.
Posted by: woodstein312 | January 29, 2009 2:03 AM
I'm going to agree with Sam C. on this one.
The editors were under no obligation to account for how some fringe group of American religious nuts might misconstrue the intent behind their headline.
It is unfortunate that the headline has been/or might be used by the creotards for their nefarious purposes, but to get all bent out of shape over one story in one magazine is simply unnecessary and, frankly, alarmist. One magazine does not have the power to undo all of the scientific progress behind evolution.
Speaking as a journalist, I actually would applaud the editors in a way for their independence. I'm not sure if I would have written the same headline, but I also think they had enough ground to write it themselves. Folks in the scientific community might not like the article but the editors certainly aren't bound by what they may or may not approve of when writing. Having a free press means one must often tolerate press one dislikes. This should comes as no surprise to anyone.
Posted by: Janine, Leftist Bozo | January 29, 2009 2:09 AM
Posted by: Jadehawk | January 29, 2009
Silver Fox, don't use phrases you don't understand.
If he were to do that, he would have nothing left to say.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
January 29, 2009 2:22 AM
not exactly an undesirable resultPosted by: FishNChimps | January 29, 2009 3:38 AM
The solution's obvious. Persuade NewScientist to publish a countering front page. Oh, something like GOD DOES NOT EXIST, perhaps.
And then, when the creationists wave the DARWIN WAS WRONG cover at rationalists, we can whip out the newer edition with a flourish and a loud "AHA - GOTCHA!"
Posted by: Peter Ashby | January 29, 2009 3:56 AM
@Mothra
If memory serves it was a protease, so most probably viral in origin. It was obviously a case of lateral transfer. But the article makes the point that when you use genes to track relatedness which genes you use can give you very different answers. The line my trivial example would draw would be minor indeed but there was a continuum of bodies in which that gene was copied meaning relatedness in that gene. Better relatedness than weird creatures like platypuses or narwhals faced those relying on physical characters.
In essence Dawkins was right in the Selfish Gene, the gene centred view is the one that allows you to understand stuff like this. Bodies are vehicles in which alliances of genes travel through time. Sometimes other genes come in for a ride while others leave for other bodies. But at base you do not transmit anything other than genes (and some methyl groups) to your offspring. My spectacular and noble family nose did not get expressed in the eldest despite a very strong resemblance in other respects. Neither of them got their mother's red hair, but the gene is there, it must be.
Posted by: Daniel C | January 29, 2009 4:41 AM
its all good, its how science should work. when stuff are proved wrong they should be discarded to make place to new theories, we all knew that we cannot depict the evolution of life on earth with the tree of life, as it doesn't carter for cross breeding, but we continued to use it hindering our scientific research.
Now just imagine what if creationist pointed out to HDT first instead of we addmited it was wrong. Id be ashamed of my self and go hiding somewhere.
My suggestion is to buy this issue and read the article, so that you can explain to creationist exactly what it means
Posted by: Daniel M | January 29, 2009 5:41 AM
I think the old adage "give them enough rope to hang themselves..." comes to mind here.
I think setting up little stumbling blocks just like this could prove useful to the cause, since creationists have proven themselves time and time again ignorant of the actual content of scientific articles. Imagine their faces in some high-profile setting when they trot out their big reveal...and we trounce it and show them up as the fools they are.
Posted by: Heraclides | January 29, 2009 5:43 AM
woodstein312,
Good editors have a good handle on how their publication is perceived by its readership and what they expect of it. Readers of science magazines--and that's not just scientists--expect a level of accuracy beyond that of a "pure" entertainment magazine. Humour or clever titles, etc., are fine, but headers that are inaccurate or strain credibility are likely to make readers grumpy. Likewise, if an article doesn't put its issue at hand in a balanced context, it probably won't be taken very well. Personally, I think that the editors have, hopefully temporarily, overlooked what readers expect of them. My take on it is that they played a "hype" game that didn't suit the kind of publication they are, that ran counter to the expectations of their readership.
The "brave free press line" would make sense in, say, international or political reporting, but it's misplaced in this context. It's not hard at all to present most controversial subjects in science magazines, but how you present it matters to the readership.
I think that science magazines lose their grip if they let journalism rule over the science: journalism and writing strategies, etc., should add to and aid the presentation of the science, not replace the science or contradict it.
My recollection of reading of the article is that it could be a lot better, but to be fair, that's true of almost anything in retrospect. (And journalists do have limited time to work on a piece.) That said, two things in particular bothered me: it pushed one "theme" without much of the context that would have balanced it, and it presented the issue as a "conflict" or "battle" that doesn't really exist. Most of the individual points, in and of themselves, are fine, but their context and presentation could be better in my opinion.
Before you object that I'm standing up "only" for scientists, I happen to have spend a fair amount of time researching doing science writing. I'm familiar with the main issues and the "usual" lines of argument. While I have sympathies with some of the problems science journalism faces, I also think that it overdoes the "defending itself" bit.
PS: I've seen mainstream publications take the lead from the NS cover.
Posted by: Celtic Warrior | January 29, 2009 6:54 AM
Everyone is going on about how NS has supposedly handed the creationists a load of ammo with this headline.
I wonder if the science blogosphere's furious reaction mightn't have done more damage?
One of the standard creationist tropes (cf Expelled) is that evolutionary biologists are dogmatic and don't allow discussion or conflicting evidence. NS published a headline that is factually correct, but which everyone seems to feel is sensationalist or misleading - the result of which was that a bunch of scientific bloggers have created a massive hoo-ha.
Those twats at the Discovery Institute must be laughing their asses off right now. "Behold the foolish Darwinists proving our point! If you point out where Darwin [completely inadvertently, obviously] got something wrong, you get ripped on. How scared must the Darwinists be that their edifice will crumble beneath the mighty onslaught of our raising the same old stupid questions time and again, that they feel the need to slam people for this..."
Posted by: Ray Ladbury | January 29, 2009 8:37 AM
OK, first off, the perceptions of creationists, IDiots and other anti-science types should not be a concern. ID/creationism can never be scientific. It will never make any testable predictions. That can be rigorously--even mathematically--demonstrated.
The problem I have with the headline is that it is a purely sensational--and meaningless--attempt to sell magazines. Of course Darwin was wrong about some things. He lived circa 1850, ferchrissake! What is astounding to me is how right he was about so many things. His musings on social insects adumbrate the future work made quantitative by Hamilton et al. And he managed to reconstruct accurately relations between species with no concept of the mechanism of genetic information. That's an astounding accomplishment. Yeah, maybe Darwin was wrong, but the editors of New Scientist are assholes!
Posted by: hen | January 29, 2009 10:12 AM
I thought the article was really interesting. Screw people that are incapable of looking beyond the front cover. People that infer things from headlines are morons and should be told as much. It was a crap headline, but was basically correct.
More fundamentally, New Scientist offers an easy to read weekly digest of current research in areas well beyond what I would normally acquire through my own research. Sometimes its a bit sensationalist, but its generally pretty reliable in my experience.
Posted by: TetrahedralPete | January 29, 2009 12:26 PM
New Scientist was wrong! That evolutionary tree will just be replaced by another. Don't conflate Darwinism with evolution - or Newtonianism with physics...
Posted by: eddie | January 29, 2009 1:14 PM
First this NS mess-up and now the latest Material World on radio4 is trying to ressurect Morphic Fields!
Is no-one safe?
Posted by: eddie | January 29, 2009 1:17 PM
First this NS mess-up and now the latest Material World on radio4 is trying to ressurect Morphic Fields!
Is no-one safe?
Double post? Moi?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 29, 2009 1:20 PM
When you get that submission error. DO NOT REPOST.
just hit the back arrow and reload the page.
Posted by: Dolly Sheriff | January 29, 2009 1:32 PM
You can start worrying when you see a cover that announces:
"Darwin was right! - natural selection does explain some of the story."
http://darwinstories.blogspot.com
Posted by: eddie | January 29, 2009 3:25 PM
Thanks Rev, but it's sometimes more fun to edit the post and resubmit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 29, 2009 3:28 PM
If you edit it it shows up twice... but I guess you realize that.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 29, 2009 4:32 PM
hen: "Screw people that are incapable of looking beyond the front cover. People that infer things from headlines are morons and should be told as much."
Alas, here in Texas we can't afford such an attitude. The morons are running major institutions of state government; they MUST be engaged.
Posted by: Markos | January 29, 2009 5:53 PM
Holy Mother of Jesus, New Scientist says that "DARWIN WAS WRONG" and "biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse"!!!1!ONE!
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: drtomaso | January 30, 2009 2:41 AM
The quote mine will be like this:
As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a ... revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. This should give succour to creationists, whose ... universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that Darwin was wrong. Expect to find ... evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are ...
Posted by: Ancient Brit | January 30, 2009 3:47 AM
As a long time subscriber to NS my heart sank when I saw the cover of that issue.
It's not that long since the magazine published an opinion piece in which the emphasis was placed on NOT doing precisely what NS just did, because it provides easy ammunition to creationists and their ilk, who view such covers as executive summaries of the contents.
The editors at NS could not have failed to know this, so the only sensible conclusion to be drawn is that they deliberately chose to use that cover, figuring that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
For marketing types, that's true. In terms of the increasingly complex battle being waged against science and science education by anti-evolution factions, it's anything but.
Shame on you, NS - you just added another piece of "evidence" that will be touted by creationists and others as proof positive that there is a controversy to be taught in the classroom, and they'll use that in their presentations to boards of education across the US.
(I'm not sure why some folks here think that NS is a purely UK-published magazine; it's also published in the US - I get my copy every Friday in Los Angeles in the mail, and it isn't sent airmail from the UK).
Then groups in the UK will point to actions taken by the US boards as strong evidence that the education system in the UK should likewise teach the controversy, and the frenzy will continue.
Posted by: mark | January 30, 2009 5:25 AM
can't wait for the Creationist creative quoting:
.....we await a third revolution that will see biology changed..... "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". ......biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. .....
Posted by: poke | January 30, 2009 5:59 AM
I don't think they were trying to be anymore sensationalistic than they usually are. I think they have a standard template made up for "____ WAS WRONG!" covers and just fill in the blank with "EINSTEIN" or "NEWTON" or, in this case, "DARWIN." If there were no Creationists I'm fairly certain New Scientist would still have gone with this cover; I don't think they were trying to stir up controversy in that sense (too much). At least this article isn't based on obscure non-peer-reviewed preprints like most of their articles on the death of this or that theory in physics and cosmology.
Posted by: Luke | January 30, 2009 6:05 AM
Bloody New Scientist bugs me a lot these days.
First the "EmDrive", now this.
Posted by: milding amused | January 30, 2009 7:26 AM
Creationists like to cut and paste in an attempt to overwhelm the rest of us poor sods with their apparent biological knowledge.
Apparently the core 31 genes referred to in the article consititute Front-loading or pre-adaptations (0%) of human genome, the effects of Random Mutation are of course minute (1% percent to be generous), and HGT accounts for 40-50% of the human genome.
The rest of the human genome was no doubt puffed into existance 6000 years ago.
Posted by: zombie_bot | January 30, 2009 11:32 AM
it's newscientist, only idiots read newscientist.
Posted by: Rob | January 30, 2009 11:59 AM
I have to say that although they may not have anything in the way of facts on their side, the marketing machines of the creationism/ID movement are brilliant by comparison to a lot of science output, such as this, which is real 'AK47 blasted at your own foot' level publishing.
As one of the commentators above pointed out, they know exactly what to do and what to avoid when it comes to getting people onside with their views - they would never have done the creationist equivalent of this in my opinion.
Posted by: Rob | January 30, 2009 12:04 PM
I have to say that although they may not have anything in the way of facts on their side, the marketing machines of the creationism/ID movement are brilliant by comparison to a lot of science output, such as this, which is real 'AK47 blasted at your own foot' level publishing.
As one of the commentators above pointed out, they know exactly what to do and what to avoid when it comes to getting people onside with their views - they would never have done the creationist equivalent of this in my opinion.
Posted by: rob
|
January 30, 2009 12:33 PM
I think there is a very positive side to this. Those who quote mine it will so quickly be presented with the quote from inside that directly refutes it, that it will hurt their cause a lot more than it will help. It will simply highlight the lack of depth of their argument and how quick they are to pick up on anything that they think will help their cause, without researching it a bit. At least that is the impression that will be given to many of the lurkers and fence straddlers (which there are more of than you may think).
Posted by: Anne | January 30, 2009 1:46 PM
Hi Pharyngula - BBC is coming out with a special on Sunday related to this issue. It's bound to be just as controversial, I think: host David Attenburough calls the effects of Genesis "devastating" for the natural world. I have referenced this post of yours in a new post about it on my own (new) blog, "100 Days of Science." I'd be honored if you'd check it out: http://anneminard.com/2009/01/30/day-7b-genesis-has-produced-devastation/
Posted by: Anne | January 30, 2009 1:48 PM
Hi Pharyngula - BBC is coming out with a special on Sunday related to this issue. It's bound to be just as controversial, I think: host David Attenburough calls the effects of Genesis "devastating" for the natural world. I have referenced this post of yours in a new post about it on my own (new) blog, "100 Days of Science." I'd be honored if you'd check it out: http://anneminard.com/2009/01/30/day-7b-genesis-has-produced-devastation/
Posted by: Leigh Williams | January 30, 2009 2:14 PM
Rob: "I think there is a very positive side to this. Those who quote mine it will so quickly be presented with the quote from inside that directly refutes it, that it will hurt their cause a lot more than it will help."
If only that were so. But that's now how it works. The quotation stands on its own, is read and transmitted over and over again by creationists, and the refutation gets left in the dust. Twain said it best: "A lie goes around the world in the time it takes the truth to put on its boots".
Consider this: if creationists were capable of finding and evaluating evidence objectively, they wouldn't BE creationists, now would they?
Add in the fact that they're authoritarion personalities. They believe anything they hear from a trusted source. In fact, as far as I can tell they believe damn near everything that comes their way via email. I can't tell you the number of times I've told my clients about Snopes, yet all those bogus emails keep clogging up our mail servers.
It's not so bad when it's scaremongering about product contamination, but I got really pissed at the number of "Obama is a Muslim" trashmails.
Posted by: Bryan | January 30, 2009 6:05 PM
Ok I'll start:
"New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong . . . biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse."
New Scientist, 2,2008.
(Tongue firmly in cheek)
Posted by: george.w | January 31, 2009 10:36 PM
The cover was a big mistake. I have been a long-time subscriber to NS because it is so entertaining, and I'm pretty good separating the wheat from the chaff. But stunts like this are irritating, and they do it all the time. Science Daily does it too.
It's been a few years since I let me Science News subscription lapse - they were getting sensationalistic and I didn't need two nearly identical magazines.
Anyone know of a respectable, affordable, and not dry-as-sawdust science weekly?
Posted by: Gerard | January 31, 2009 11:42 PM
...yeah uh I guess it doesn't matter if your a scientist, creationist, typist, hate is as strong as ever love the comments, gotta love the comments....it's a balance thing!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 31, 2009 11:46 PM
Hate? Where?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
February 1, 2009 12:30 AM
Rev BDC wrote:
Rev, you mean you don't know that, by refusing to accept that Christians are correct, and better than everyone else and should be allowed to whatever they want, whenever they want, atheists (and other non-Christians) are being hateful?
Suggesting they aren't telling the truth? Hate. Not letting them force atheists and non-Christians to pray to the Christian god in schools? Hate. Secularism of any kind? Hate. First amendment? Hate. Respecting what Darwin did for science? Hate. Pointing out hypocrisy? Hate. Correctly identifying their actions as hate? Oh, you better believe that's hate.
I'd go as far as saying that anything short of complete supplication and forelock-tugging obsequiousness is perceived by the persecution-obsessed Christians as 'hate'.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 1, 2009 12:33 AM
Oh geez. My bad.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
February 1, 2009 12:45 AM
Rev, you forgot to apologise to the nice Christians. How hateful of you...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 1, 2009 12:46 AM
nice Christians?
Posted by: Stanton | February 1, 2009 12:52 AM
Yes, do remember that not all Christians take being saved by Jesus Christ as a license to act like malicious morons 24/7.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 1, 2009 12:54 AM
Oh of course, I was referring to the ones making a stink here.
My In laws are very nice Christians.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
February 1, 2009 1:13 AM
Stanton, that was my bad, not the Rev's. He was just referring to my comment #140, not casting aspersions on Christians in general.
Posted by: John Morales | February 1, 2009 1:14 AM
Rev BDC,
Why, some of my best friends are Christians!Really.
Posted by: Onotheo | February 4, 2009 8:41 AM
I'm actually in favor of this magazine's cover page, (no not in favor of creationism or ID if that's what you think).
Ways of communicating have different styles, sometimes it seems sensational to most. It certainly is if your easily bothered. Youtube freethinkers have very varying styles and I found a lot of them to be interesting. It's not like they use this sensationalistic style all the time. Sometimes it's favorable - the more people notice, the more information is circulated, the more education.
It's not like this kind of sensationalism would actually dent the solid Theory of Evolution, if anything it would led the curious or even creationists to read a pro evolution magazine.
Posted by: Dave J L | February 17, 2009 8:46 AM
Another example of the cover being misused by morons (about 3/4 of the way down, if you can read that far without punching the screen with rage):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/17/evolution-versus-creationism-science
Posted by: gypsytag | February 20, 2009 8:31 PM
#145
As an atheist i too have christian friends that annoyingly pray for me. One time I asked my "best" friend how much fun they're going to have in heaven while I was being tortured in hell.
I ask them how they lived with themselves accepting this fact of their religion.
I asked them why they wouldn't stand up to such blatant sickness, hypocracy and vileness.
Yeah I tried that once, and i no longer have that "best" friend.
You see that kind of shit always gets in the way of friendship. Its best not to discuss "how" much your friend cares for you.
Posted by: Russ Finley | March 22, 2009 12:01 PM
Those are the exact same words my daughter's biology teacher used at the school open house a few years ago. I asked him what he meant by that, assuming he was kidding. Turns out he is a "Convinced Christian" and thinks God is guiding evolution. This is a private school and after a few meetings with the dean I gave up because I realized they were too stupid to comprehend anything I said and I was about to ruin my daughter's perfect grade point average (she graduated with a perfect average).. Now my second daughter is in high school and will soon have this same teacher. If he gives her anything less than an A I will be coming down on him like a ton of bricks. She also has a perfect average and makes her big sister look slow. If you can't brag in your kids what the hell good are they?
http://www.biodiversivist.com
Posted by: Why all this yahoo | June 15, 2009 9:44 PM
Well!!!!
If ever there was an argument which plays up to the creationists it is this string of comments!!
I am speaking as somone who is has a respect and background in science, but reads around the whole issue - including creationist arguments. The headline was factually correct and justifiable.
Of course the creationists are going to love it. Of course they WILL read why he is wrong - suggesting that they wont is bizarre. Be honest if you read a headline like
"Creationists dumbfounded - irreducible complexity argument flaw found"
you wouldn't read it!
Frankly if we are to claim the moral high ground, which some here claim, while pouring scorn on others holding different opinions - which I see in this thread. You should be less tetchy about sensational headlines. How often do you tolerate sensationalist Darwinist claims without demanding that the media print a retraction.
For example - the recent discovery of an extinct lemur. Scientists searched for evidence of divergence from "True Lemurs." They found a single bone in the foot different. Result:
"Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution"
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link:_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor ">SKYNEWS.
Honestly - it's embarrassing. Would you demand that in the next bulletin that 'just to counter this' Sky should print a headline like "SCIENTIST CANNOT ACTUALLY PROVE ANY LINKS ARE LINKS AT ALL."
If we are to claim the high ground we should be honest and open and if Darwin was wrong, then he was wrong. I read it. You read it. Creationists read it. Live with the facts and explain the title.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 9:57 PM
How often do you tolerate sensationalist Darwinist claims without demanding that the media print a retraction. For example - the recent discovery of an extinct lemur.
you mean THIS:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masillae.php
your argument is specious at best.
Posted by: Why all this yahoo | June 16, 2009 1:24 PM
Let me clarify. (I shouldn't post so late at night!) The link you give provides a fair and frank discussion of Ida. There are many reasons why she is important. The hype around her detracts from this. I watched a TV programme in the UK, I was sure they were about to tell me she was my Great, great Gran Mama. The science was interesting but the claim wild, and the argument didn't justify the claims.
As regards the New scientist title. The big news to me - and I am staggered to accept this, cause I fully expected that DNA MUST confirm Darwin's TOL, was that DNA is 'failing' in this regard. Further reading justified the title, and explains the problem. If creationists use this to thier own end, then I guess that is regretable, but Sensationalism sells.
Palaeontologists want to find "the missing link" - Creationists want scientist to prove Darwin wrong. Everyone should read past the headlines. Of course "Darwin is wrong" claims will fuel their arguments, but so will the DNA facts discussed in the passage. (Not all creationists are Cretins!) Wild claims of "missing links" fuel their arguments, and treating a "sensationalist" headline as though it was "Blasphemy" will fuel their arguments.
Scientist accept empirical data with honesty. Journalists sell news.