ScienceBloggers are up in arms about the cover article of New Scientist which boldly proclaims "Darwin was Wrong." The article, authored by Graham Lawton, explains that occurrences such as horizontal gene transfer and hybridization transform the shape of Darwin's famous tree into something more like a thicket with criss-crossing branches. But some argue that new information in genetics doesn't render Darwin's model obsolete, and, moreover, that the headline is misleading and could be used as a tool for Creationists. "Very few readers will read your article. But everyone will see the cover," ScienceBlogger Bora from A Blog Around the Clock wrote in a post addressing Lawton.
Related ScienceBlogs Posts:
- Log in to post comments
More like this
New Scientist's recent cover that heralded the stunning news (not) that "Darwin was wrong" has generated an enormous amount of antipathy in these parts. Bora's keeping notes, and the feature article's author, Graham Lawton, surely doesn't deserve the vitriol. (Although with the umbrage he takes in…
There.
How's the taste of your own medicine?
Yup, there was an editorial meeting. Coturnix, coturnix, @coturnix, BoraZ, Bora Zivkovic and @borazivkovic were there. I was there, too, and I could have said something, but I decided to remain silent as the traffic of this blog, which - cha-chink -…
Recently, ScienceBlogs own Abbie Smith made some trenchant remarks about the problems with science journalism. The combination of sensationalism with writers who frequently do not understand the work about which they are writing leads to some serious difficulties for scientists wishing to…
The smug and rather imbecilic face in this video belongs to Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, who was interviewed on a conservative talk show, Fox & Friends. Watch it at your peril. Like the recent Matthews/Tancredo incident, it's two people who know nothing about science babbling at…