New Scientist flips the bird at scientists, again
By PZ MYERS, JERRY COYNE
Added: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:00:00 UTC
New Scientist continues to mislead the public by using their "Darwin was wrong" cover in promotions. 
Jerry Coyne's blog:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/the-new-scientist-has-no-shame-again/
When New Scientist published its âDarwin was WRONGâ cover a few months ago, several of us wrote in to complain about the distortion of Darwinâs work. (The cover referred to how gene transfer might blur the branches of phylogenetic trees, something that Darwin had no inkling of.) The editor, Roger Highfield, appeared to be chastened. Since then, the cover has been waved about by creationists in the US to show that evolution really is on the skids.
Well, apparently Roger Highfield is not repentant: he has used that cover AGAIN in advertising his rag (see below). The man has no shame; this is obviously a deliberate decision, and one he approved. Letter writing doesnât seem to have sufficed — perhaps itâs time to boycott New Scientist.
PZ Myers' Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/new_scientist_flips_the_bird_a.php
We've been through this before. When New Scientist ran their misleading "Darwin was wrong" cover, we hammered at them and pointed out that they were doing us no favors — they were giving ammunition to creationists who would never read the contents, but would wave that cover at school board meetings. And they did. We chastised the editor, Roger Highfield, and we had the impression that he was penitent, but it turns out we were completely wrong.
New Scientist is now using that same cover again in their promotional material to flog magazines. Yes, that is their business, to sell magazines…but this represents a declaration that they think their market is the ignorant creationist segment of wanna-be pretend scientists. That's a real shame.
Jerry Coyne calls for a boycott. I have to agree. If they don't want fans of real science to read their magazine, then we won't. I also won't hesitate to tell young people interested in science that they shouldn't waste their time with New Scientist — pick up Seed instead, or even Discover, if you're a bit déclassé. But sorry, NS is joining the Weekly World News as yet another rag pandering to the gullible.
Tweet
RELATED CONTENT
Improbable evolution: how life beats...
John Rennie - SmartPlanet 13 Comments
Time and again, organisms have shown themselves to be adept at evolving around seemingly insurmountable obstacles to their spread and survival.
Elephants Took 24 Million Generations...
Ker Than - National Geographic News 15 Comments

Large mammals such as the black rhino (pictured) take longer to evolve than do small mammals.
Christopher Hitchens - Free Inquiry 49 Comments
Why should he sit still and see a valued and precious discipline being insulted, even threatened with not being taught?
Baby steps versus long jumps: The...
Jeremy Yoder - Denim and Tweed 13 Comments

Baby steps versus long jumps: The "size"
f evolutionary change, and why it matters
Parent-Child Conflict: It's in the Genes
David P. Barash - The Chronicle of... 21 Comments

Parent-Child Conflict: It's in the Genes



















Comments
Comment RSS Feed
Please sign in or register to comment
View Comments Page