Thursday, February 19, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Darwin was right

by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers

Reposted from:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126960.100-darwin-was-right.html

What on earth were you thinking when you produced a garish cover proclaiming that "Darwin was wrong" (24 January)?

First, it's false, and second, it's inflammatory. And, as you surely know, many readers will interpret the cover not as being about Darwin, the historical figure, but about evolution.

Nothing in the article showed that the concept of the tree of life is unsound; only that it is more complicated than was realised before the advent of molecular genetics. It is still true that all of life arose from "a few forms or... one", as Darwin concluded in The Origin of Species. It is still true that it diversified by descent with modification via natural selection and other factors.

Of course there's a tree; it's just more of a banyan than an oak at its single-celled-organism base. The problem of horizontal gene-transfer in most non-bacterial species is not serious enough to obscure the branches we find by sequencing their DNA.

The accompanying editorial makes it clear that you knew perfectly well that your cover was handing the creationists a golden opportunity to mislead school boards, students and the general public about the status of evolutionary biology. Indeed, within hours of publication members of the Texas State Board of Education were citing the article as evidence that teachers needed to teach creationist-inspired "weaknesses of evolution", claiming: "Darwin's tree of life is wrong".

You have made a lot of extra, unpleasant work for the scientists whose work you should be explaining to the general public. We all now have to try to correct all the misapprehensions your cover has engendered.

Posted: Thursday, February 19, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 118 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #343370 by ReasonToBeCheerful on February 19, 2009 at 9:29 am

D'oh!

Surely at least one person of the editorial staff must have had enough sense to realise how irresponsible it would be to emblazen such a misleading statement across the front cover of such a prestigious scientific journal - but I guess not!

ReasonToBeNotSoCheerful

Other Comments by ReasonToBeCheerful

2. Comment #343373 by tieInterceptor on February 19, 2009 at 9:31 am

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

3. Comment #343374 by themanchoo on February 19, 2009 at 9:34 am

Hear, hear!

Other Comments by themanchoo

4. Comment #343377 by Annamation on February 19, 2009 at 9:37 am

I to saw this cover story and thought WTF...?

I could only think that this was a marketing ploy, as in 'controversy' sells. What a shame. Completely understand that this kind of thing from such a respectable source could undo a lot of hard work.
Regrettable.

Other Comments by Annamation

5. Comment #343382 by Caudimordax on February 19, 2009 at 9:52 am

Ugly graphics, too. Really, what were they thinking? Can a magazine cover be considered "trolling," i.e. deliberately inflammatory and intended to evoke an emotional response? Worked on me. What will they do for April Fool's Day?

Other Comments by Caudimordax

6. Comment #343383 by Coel on February 19, 2009 at 9:52 am

Comment #1:

Surely at least one person of the editorial staff must have had enough sense to realise how irresponsible it would be to emblazen such a misleading statement across the front cover of such a prestigious scientific journal - but I guess not!

Oh they fully realised how irresponsible it would be, they even said so in an editorial, but they went ahead and did it anyway, presumably thinking that `controversy' sells mags in newsagents.

Other Comments by Coel

7. Comment #343384 by Ygern on February 19, 2009 at 9:52 am

Oh good! I'm glad this not very smart headline is being challenged by such eminent names.

I also couldn't believe that muddled rationale that must have led the editorial staff to put that on their cover, especially as it was a relatively unimportant reference to the tree versus bush metaphor in the otherwise sound article.

I mean, why not a headline that read:

Darwin was more right than he ever knew.

It would have made just as much sense.

Other Comments by Ygern

8. Comment #343386 by Eshto on February 19, 2009 at 9:58 am

GREAT rebuttal. Concise and hard-hitting.

Ygern, that would be a great headline.

Other Comments by Eshto

9. Comment #343388 by Tyler Durden on February 19, 2009 at 10:05 am

The plus side here is that perhaps creationists will have seen the cover but will not have read the actual article.

Cue more ignorance from them; more evidence from us.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

10. Comment #343390 by black wolf on February 19, 2009 at 10:10 am

Tyler,
I'm certain some will. I don't remember where, but someone commented on a blog (Pharyngula?) that when there was a mag with a similar title (this one? my memory is horribly fuzzy today), a creo triumphantly waved it in his face. He opened the mag and the first word of the article was "No."

Other Comments by black wolf

11. Comment #343394 by Delsolar16 on February 19, 2009 at 10:12 am

Tyler that approach hasn't worked for the last 150 years so no reason to think it will work now. Maybe they will see the cover, mistakenly believe that it is on their side, and then read it and actually learn a little bit about how evolution works. Yeah, maybe.....

Other Comments by Delsolar16

12. Comment #343399 by SilentMike on February 19, 2009 at 10:22 am

That is simply unbelievable. New Scientist can be such a science rag.

Other Comments by SilentMike

13. Comment #343401 by Lucas on February 19, 2009 at 10:23 am

Headlines are headlines. They are almost always misleading and exaggerated. Generally, the best headline is one that describes the article accurately but excitingly. If you read the article, then read the headline again, and then feel as if you were lied to, it was a bad headline. This one was atrocious. Shame on the editors.

tieInteceptor, thank you for that image.

Other Comments by Lucas

14. Comment #343402 by Tyler Durden on February 19, 2009 at 10:24 am

Delsolar16 -

I wouldn't think for a second that any crazy creotard would read it and actually learn something - that would involve independent thought, and putting their Bible down for five minutes - my point was simply to illustrate that, as black wolf has shown, it will show them in an even worse light than before.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

15. Comment #343403 by Danish on February 19, 2009 at 10:25 am

I think what Tyler was saying is that now the damage is done, it might in some cases be used to our advantage. The ignorant creationist falls into the trap of bringing up a paper that he thinks supports his ideas. Then we crush him with the actual contents of the paper. As such the paper can work as a "honey pot". :)

Other Comments by Danish

16. Comment #343406 by Jamie Walton on February 19, 2009 at 10:28 am

Well said boys. I almost dropped some coin the other day on a subscription, I'm glad I didn't now.

Other Comments by Jamie Walton

17. Comment #343407 by Rodger T on February 19, 2009 at 10:30 am

Well, an obvious own goal by New Scientist,unfortunately one that will be quotemined by creofools for decades to come.

Keeping up the old journo creed of not letting the facts get in the way of a story.Maybe the editor was just trying to get experience for his next job at the Sun?

Other Comments by Rodger T

18. Comment #343408 by Degsy on February 19, 2009 at 10:31 am

I was bought a years subscription to New Scientist as a Christmas present and I was appalled to see this headline. I hope the editorial team realize that they have handed the Creationist/ID an arsenal of weaponry in that headline alone. They should apologize to their readership and scientists (like we don't have a hard enough job as it is) and then move to correct this heinous error in judgment and fact.

Other Comments by Degsy

19. Comment #343411 by Quetzalcoatl on February 19, 2009 at 10:41 am

I read this issue. It's obvious that they knew there would be a problem: otherwise why would they have a headline saying one thing, then an editorial on the very next page explaining that they actually meant precisely the opposite?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

20. Comment #343416 by BigJohn on February 19, 2009 at 10:52 am

black wolf

The magazine was The National Geographic. I don't know what issue it was, but it was several years ago. The cover said Was Darwin Wrong. And, indeed, the very first word in the article was NO.
Strangely, I saw this magazine at my gym where the owner and clients are primarily fundamentalist Christians and frequently play Christian rock music and post ads for all kinds of Christian activities.

Other Comments by BigJohn

21. Comment #343418 by Caudimordax on February 19, 2009 at 10:57 am

Well, an obvious own goal

I was thinking some more about this massive goof and unfortunately remembered the only goal I ever "scored" in field hockey - yeah, you guessed it.
On the up side, maybe a lot of creos will rush out and buy the magazine at the newsstand price.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

22. Comment #343422 by ahmunnaeetchoo on February 19, 2009 at 11:04 am

bah it's advertising.

If it tricks a creationist into actually reading something about evolution then maybe that's progress?

Other Comments by ahmunnaeetchoo

23. Comment #343424 by Stafford Gordon on February 19, 2009 at 11:11 am

I have to admit that as a non scientist I was baffled; after reading the article I had the impression that new ground had probably been broken and that we were going to have to adjust our thinking somewhat; after all, that's the way of things in the sciences.

I now feel a bit of a fool.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

24. Comment #343426 by decius on February 19, 2009 at 11:11 am

The New Ageist, formerly known as the New Scientist, is resorting to tabloid tactics of deceptive sensationalism. I wonder how they are doing financially for feeling the urge to sink this low.

Other Comments by decius

25. Comment #343431 by Mango on February 19, 2009 at 11:18 am

I agree with Dr. Dawkins et al. that "Darwin was wrong" will be interpreted by some honest and dishonest people alike as "Evolution is wrong." I wonder if the editor will be pressured from within and without to resign....

Other Comments by Mango

26. Comment #343432 by gazzaofbath on February 19, 2009 at 11:20 am

New Scientist lost me as a casual buyer after that headline. Print media are slowly dying anyway in this internet age - they're just assisting their own decline a little faster than would otherwise occur.

Other Comments by gazzaofbath

27. Comment #343441 by markg on February 19, 2009 at 11:38 am

Big John and black wolf-

black wolf

The magazine was The National Geographic. I don't know what issue it was, but it was several years ago. The cover said Was Darwin Wrong. And, indeed, the very first word in the article was NO.

I remember seeing that magazine cover at my father's house years ago. I found the article from Nov. 2004, unfortunately the cover photo archives only go back through 2005.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2004/11/darwin-wrong/quammen-text

edit: So it seems NatGeo is guilty of the same deception.

Other Comments by markg

28. Comment #343455 by j.mills on February 19, 2009 at 11:53 am

For years I've been toying with subscribing to New Scientist, out of lay interest - but too much to read in my life already. Nonetheless, reading about that dumbass headline a few weeks ago settled the question completely. I'm surprised Dawkins & co managed to be so mild in their criticism!

Other Comments by j.mills

29. Comment #343470 by Aquaria on February 19, 2009 at 12:12 pm

So it seems NatGeo is guilty of the same deception.

Not quite. At least NG put a question mark at the end. It reads like a sincere question. It's not a flat-out declarative assertion, like what NS did.

Other Comments by Aquaria

30. Comment #343485 by lordpasternack on February 19, 2009 at 12:47 pm

Markg and Aquaria - I was just about to mention that. My dad's subscribed to NatGeo since before I was born, and I distinctly remember picking up the copy a few years back with the big bold question on the front of: "Was Darwin Wrong?"

It played the same controversy card - but it redeemed itself completely by answering the question on the front of the magazine with a flat-out: "NO."

The article then went on to discuss some of the minor weaknesses in Darwins' original hypotheses - things that he could have known little about at the time anyway - while noting that Darwin was remarkably spot-on overall.

The NewScientist article could have gone with a similar template and come up clean. Perhaps they weren't allowed to use the same strapline that NatGeo used a few years back? Perhaps they wanted to be "original"?

Who knows? What is apparent is that, left as it is, it is outrageously ham-fisted, misleading, and downright irresponsible - and I'm glad Richard et al have got onto them on this.

Other Comments by lordpasternack

31. Comment #343492 by mmurray on February 19, 2009 at 1:08 pm

such a prestigious scientific journal -

It's not anywhere near that.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

32. Comment #343502 by k o n g on February 19, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Darwin was right in the scientific sense. I've just learned, from reading "God, The failed hypothesis" (just finished) that science uses methodological naturalism... not metaphysical naturalism. In that method you can't really speack about THE TRUTH. But when you test an idea, when you try hard to destroy it, and that idea passes the tests of methodological naturalism unharmed... them you can put your money on that idea and it's almost certain you will win. Darwinism sure is a winner. I hope i've learned Stenger Lesson well. Darwinism is true but no one can say it's the ultimate truth. That would be metaphysical Naturalism... not science...

Other Comments by k o n g

33. Comment #343532 by Border Collie on February 19, 2009 at 1:58 pm

I'll look for this copy of New Scientist in the magazine rack at the grocery check-out stand tomorrow.

Other Comments by Border Collie

34. Comment #343534 by Mr DArcy on February 19, 2009 at 2:01 pm

If the creationists are going to quote mine this stupid headline, then so be it. They would undoubtedly falsify other headlines if they wanted to.

When I last checked New Scientist was published by IPC, part of Rupert Murdoch's empire as is The Sun, The Times, Loaded and plenty of others. Having been a subscriber to NS for several years, I've long learnt to take the headlines with a pinch of salt. Unfortunately, the creationists will take their headlines with a drop of Jesus.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

35. Comment #343558 by MrPickwick on February 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Can somebody post a link to the whole letter? Or paste the text somewhere...

(NS website: "Find a longer version of this letter online" just for subscribers.)

Other Comments by MrPickwick

36. Comment #343566 by Caudimordax on February 19, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Must be something in the air - I just pulled my Scientific American out of the mailbox and read:

"Was Einstein Wrong?"

At least theirs was a question.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

37. Comment #343578 by shaunfletcher on February 19, 2009 at 4:25 pm

I own the nat Geo issue, and forgive them because it is phrased as a question and answered very clearly.

New Scientist however, which I read for so very long, has damaged its position in a deep way with this (and with many other decisions in recent years) and will need to think of major major changes if it is to rehabilitate itself. Major changes like a change of the senior editorial staff. Sorry for those guys but its time before they kill what was a journal that filled a crucial space.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

38. Comment #343588 by MelM on February 19, 2009 at 4:49 pm

At least, they could have waited until April to put out this cover.

Other Comments by MelM

39. Comment #343590 by AndreD on February 19, 2009 at 4:54 pm

Must be something in the air - I just pulled my Scientific American out of the mailbox and read:

"Was Einstein Wrong?"

At least theirs was a question.

True, but at least SciAm's January issue was an evolution special. Which, unlike New Scientist, made it clear on the cover that they were pro evolution and anti creationism.

Other Comments by AndreD

40. Comment #343598 by Jake Sigren on February 19, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Just read the original article, it is ridiculous and inflammatory. And of freakin course Darwin was wrong about certain things! As RD said, he lived in the 19th century. And of freakin course the concept of evolution is more complex than it was back then. And of freakin course it is continuing to grow as more new information arises. Why was this article put on the cover?!?! This completely gives a wrong impression to anyone who doesn't understand evolution.

Other Comments by Jake Sigren

41. Comment #343600 by Greyman on February 19, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Indeed, within hours of publication members of the Texas State Board of Education were citing the article as evidence that teachers needed to teach creationist-inspired "weaknesses of evolution", claiming: "Darwin's tree of life is wrong".

I wonder how they reconciled horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, and hybridization events with the creationist notion of independently created kinds? I mean, to accept them as a refutation for evolution, wouldn't they need to accept that they happened?

... oh right. They didn't even bother trying did they?

Other Comments by Greyman

42. Comment #343602 by JohnC on February 19, 2009 at 5:39 pm

I made the following observations on Jerry's blog (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/):

This sort of thing was always going to happen in this anniversary year and, were it not for the creationist mischief-makers, a bit of sensationalist pot-stirring can often be useful in exciting broader public interest.

The trick is to use this to our advantage. The current ID strategy is “teach the controvery”. Okay, here you have it: controversy. But nowhere is there the slightest suggestion of supernatural designers let alone creation. The fact of evolution is not in dispute.

So biology does have controversies that might be of interest to students, and there would be no harm in discussing the NS pieces in class, even in Texas, including the editorial.

Winning the war against creationism does not mean biology has to present a monolithic front of universal agreement, hiding its lively debates in the shadows of the academy, as if they were some kind of embarrassment. The actual practice of science is fundamentally energised by the dream of every researcher to overturn a ruling paradigm. That dream is very rarely realised, of course, since the ultimate test is evidence applied by the brutal processes of peer-review and replication.

So let’s turn strength into weakness and teach the controversies, the real controversies, as a way of inducing a real interest in science.

Other Comments by JohnC

43. Comment #343604 by Art Vandelay on February 19, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Yes, the magazine has shown bad judgement in the past. Last year they carried several publicity items for the Templeton Foundation.

Other Comments by Art Vandelay

44. Comment #343617 by Peribolos on February 19, 2009 at 6:06 pm

To be honest if you read the text of the Nat Geographic one it could just as well be an article written by Myers, Dawkins etc. The fact that the headline probably drew in a few people who think there is some kind of controversy is surely a good thing?

Other Comments by Peribolos

45. Comment #343622 by j.mills on February 19, 2009 at 6:11 pm

JohnC said:

So let’s turn strength into weakness and teach the controversies, the real controversies, as a way of inducing a real interest in science.

There. Isn't. Time.

School science has a lot of ground to cover, and whilst students should certainly be aware that much remains to be discovered or refuted or confirmed, they don't have the background or the time or the need to appreciate the details of all the disputes that form the bleeding edge of scientific progress. Even at degree level there's a huge amount of established material to be taken in. Time enough for to seriously engage with the unknown when you hit the real world of research, where it matters.

Do we "teach the controversy" in maths, expecting 15-year-olds to digest different interpretations of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, or assess the validity of the computational proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? In physics, is it necessary for high school kids to take a view on the legitimacy of the cosmological constant?

It's not that these questions are embarrassments, far from it. It's simply that students need to learn what is learnable, in finite time. And incidentally, how confident can we be that teachers are sufficiently well equipped to present such controversies accurately, fairly and confidently - given that it seems like many struggle to communicate even the uncontroversial facts of evolution?

Other Comments by j.mills

46. Comment #343629 by JohnC on February 19, 2009 at 6:23 pm

Comment #343622 by j.mills

There. Isn't. Time.

Absolute nonsense (sorry). One of the problems with science teaching is its failure to engage students who do not have a pre-existing interest in the subject. Introducing a topic with a current piece of lively controversy is one way of starting that engagement.

Just droning on through the formal curriculum is ultimately a much bigger waste of time, losing far more students.

There is nothing revolutionary in this approach, and quite frankly US science pedagogy is clearly such a spectacular failure at the moment it has little to lose from updating its methods from the 1950s.

[edit] Have a look at RD's Growing up in the Universe Christmas presentation for kids. If you get their interest, kids will do the learning. It is one of the great, false egoisms of pedagogues that teaching and learning are the same thing. They're not.

Other Comments by JohnC

47. Comment #343672 by Hellene on February 19, 2009 at 7:13 pm

48. Comment #343629 by JohnC

Well yes and no. "Teaching the controversy" is a buzz phrase created as a "wedge" from Discovery Institute. So is "strengths and weaknesses". This is not about fair discussion. This is about legislating the "right" of teachers, who are creationists, to peddle distortions about the theory of evolution. Unchallenged.

Other Comments by Hellene

48. Comment #343682 by Riley on February 19, 2009 at 7:30 pm

As an analogy.
Would it be more correct to say that Isaac Newton was wrong? Or that his theories were similarly incompletPr

Other Comments by Riley

49. Comment #343686 by JohnC on February 19, 2009 at 7:36 pm

I'm not for a moment suggesting anything but total opposition to the "strengths and weaknesses" sham. But I am suggesting that the "teach controversy" wedge both can, and should, be turned against IDers by saying upfront: yes, there are controversies in all areas of science; yes, they provide useful ways of exciting student attention; but no, ID/creationism doesn't qualify since its very premises are uncontroversially rejected as unscientific.

Other Comments by JohnC

50. Comment #343689 by HappyPrimate on February 19, 2009 at 7:49 pm

I have a National Geographic magazine that is a few years old with a cover that says Was Darwin Wrong? The article inside has a great big NO and a really good article. You can be provocative without being as misleading as NS was. I do think we will be seeing more of that cover in religious literature.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last