New Scientist ignores its own story.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this reaction may be a bit excessive.

The "Darwin Was Wrong!" teaser here seems to be along the lines of an "Einstein Was Wrong!" type teaser.

All of the readers are expected to fully accept Darwin as a major figure in legitimate science, and that's what makes it a hook.

This doesn't justify a shabby article.

But the fact that creationists pounce on anything that can be interpreted in any way to say "Darwin was wrong" is commentary on creationists, not an author who uses this cliched and tacky, but not unusual, rhetorical trick.

Darwin was wrong on some things, and completely lacking in knowledge about the majority of modern evidence for evolution, due to the time he lived in.

Creationists project "Darwinism" as an inflexible authoritarian ideology subservient to a sacred text that can only be interpreted by a ruling elite. But that's because that's what creationism is.

If Graham Lawton is and ID-swallowing dope he should be fired as a science journalist, but Graham Lawton didn't run for the Texas School Board with the secret plan of violating the rights of students by teaching secular dogma and calling it science.

Perhaps when science journalists run article like that they should point out in the article (perhaps in a sidebar) that Darwin died over a hundred years ago, we've made vast progress since then using his ideas, and that of course he was wrong on many points, as were Newton and Galileo, but that doesn't mean apples will start falling away from the Earth or that the Earth is the centre of the Universe and the Sun revolves around the Earth or that creationism is right. A science journalist actually interested in educating her audience might note that science doesn't rely on the work of giants like Einstein, Darwin, Newton and Galileo as revelation handed down from another realm and never subject to revision but uses their work as a base to build on and modify as new evidence and theories come to light.

If a science journalist objected to doing this in a 'Giant of Science Was Wrong!' article on the grounds of space, I'd point out that it shouldn't take more than a paragraph as above. I'm sure a trained journalist could put more simply and succinctly what I've suggested above.

I prefer the way that National Geographic (I think it was NG) put it on their January cover "What Darwin Didn't Know".

The whole cover thing is a guess by a publisher about what readers will find interesting. But its not much more than an educated guess, and its based on the assumption that magazine readership is dumb.

Who knows, maybe they could have titled it "Exploring the Roots of the Tree of Life (Subtitle: Horizontal Gene Transfer") and gotten even more readers. But we'll never know, because they were unwilling to take the chance that people buying a magazine titled "New Scientist" might be interested in, you know, science.

I believe National Geo had a "Was Darwin Wrong" cover a few years ago. There's also a (very good) website using that rhetorical phrase as its title.

It was National Geographic that did "What Darwin Didn't Know" and it was an interesting article describing the development of evolutionary theory since Darwin's time. Especially talking about genetics and how that has expanded what we know of evolution. Not terribly in depth which is to be expected in a magazine article but world's better than the New Scientist article.

Just the latest example of how the majority of the scientific community, as well as the larger literate population, refuse to take the evolution denial campaign seriously. They might have a vague understanding of creationism, but refuse to pick up a single book. There is little to no understanding of why its important to pay attention: its impact on science education as a whole. Instead, most assume that the only issue of importance is constitutional law, and the ACLU will take care of it.

In case you don't know, Graham Lawton visited Jason Rosenhouse's Evolution Blog, was challenged by Rosenhouse, and decided to depart quickly. I suppose he's gone AWOL.

I tried sending a 'howler' to New Scientist when the publication came out with that title on the front cover!
I did mention that the actual article might be a valid and well crafted result of good research full of valid points...but that it will be totally dismissed and forgotten in the kafuffle over the title...which condemned the article to being a secondary aspect if that...
I also mentioned that it would undoubtedly be quote mined and conclusions twisted by the not so honest from the Creationist hive.
It is without doubt that the Editor in charge of New Scientist has allowed a title of one of their published articles to be used by the old enemy as proof of a godwotwentandgoneanddidit.

The 'Howler' was returned 4 times before I gave up...the reason for the return being "Recipients E-mail in-tray full"

What a very stupid and totally pointless act by a Science magazine...I hope they might learn something but I fear that they are so isolated from the ongoing war in the classrooms in America and so fixated on circulation figures that they have not a clue to what they have done...

I was simply somewhat annoyed over the matter until Mr. L@wt0n showed up on JR's blog and actually tried to defend
the matter in such a way that it was hard to think he honestly was trying to placate anyone -- it was more like he was saying "go hang".

I was shocked. I spent a couple of decades in the corporate environment, and when some silly flap like this goes over, the relevant management quickly goes into "damage control" mode -- and if they don't, their bosses are going to be VERY annoyed with them. But Mr. L@wt0n seemed determined to pour napalm on troubled waters.

Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

I believe National Geo had a “Was Darwin Wrong” cover a few years ago. There’s also a (very good) website using that rhetorical phrase as its title.

— midwifetoad

Authors seldom choose their titles. Professional headline writers do, they mean to catch a reader's eye for sales purposes. New Scientist commonly uses overly dramatic and sometimes misleading titles for sensible articles.
Graham's point is that early organisms exchanged genes across species.
How valid that is I don't know, but it was interesting and sounded plausible.
New Scientist has carried a great quantity of material regarding the creationists antics; all are entirely sympathetic to science and scientists.
If somebody has an issue with Graham's ideas, please explain, I'm curious.

Last week on the History Channel, there was a show about "the hobbit" discoveries on an Indonesian island. The narrator talked of animals deliberately evolving to be smaller or larger. That is pretty bad. With a little care they can get it right about evolution and still have the lay public understand.

I didn't get too much into the issue of how shabby the original article was, though people whose opinions I respect felt it was written with too much of an eye towards sensationalist, "gee-wizz, this changes everything" statements about ideas that have been floating around for decades. For example, Larry Moran thought that it should be re-titled "More evidence that Charles Darwin didn't know everything there is to be known about evolution when he published his book in 1859," to which I thought "Duh" should be appended at the end.

As to it being the creationists who abused the article rather than Lawton and New Scientists giving comfort to creationists, I would have bought that (though, like Colin Patterson later lamented, they might have been wiser to consider their words more carefully) until Lawton showed up in the blogosphere and basically admitted that selling magazines was more important than giving their readers a really accurate (but boring) picture of the state of the science. At that point you have to wonder if sales to creationists might not have crept into their calculations. But, still, that would just be a suspicion on the part of an old world-weary cynic like me.

But to report on the goings-on at the Texas SBOE and tut-tut over what Cargill did and not even mention their magazine's role, innocent or not, in what transpired, just shows that any claim New Scientist has to journalism is a sham.

I haven't yet seen any reference to the New Scientist's cover on 1 November 2008.
Guess what! "Why Einstein was wrong about relativity"!
It strikes me that science journalism has two and ultimately (perhaps) only two special routines for arousing their readership. One is -- as in the NS case -- to argue that a certain (usually dead) scientist or scholar was wrong (Occasionally the reverse is used: NS 3 November 2007: "Was Einstein right about quantum theory?" (my emphasis). The other strategy, usually employed when it comes to results of scientists who are still active, is to claim that those results leave the scientific world totally at a loss and that a fundamental paradigm shift is therefore imminent. New Scientist is exceptional in the frequency with which it indulges in both strategies.
The crux of the matter may be that science journalists, creationists, and large sections of the general public do not realize that relevant, inspirational professors will specifically train their students on the basis of the adagium "Prove Me Wrong!". Of course they will not always be immediately happy when the students succeed, but it is the way science proceeds to an open future.

John Pieret said: Larry Moran thought that it should be re-titled "More evidence that Charles Darwin didn't know everything there is to be known about evolution when he published his book in 1859," to which I thought "Duh" should be appended at the end.

I didn’t see Colin Patterson’s comment but that was spot on.

Well, it seems to have worked wonders...when is the last time anyone has had a discussion about "New Scientist"?

Dr. J said: Well, it seems to have worked wonders...when is the last time anyone has had a discussion about "New Scientist"?

Graham Lawton acknowledges that the title was a sales tactic - but refuses to admit that there's anything wrong with such pandering.

He's still posting arguments on my blog - doesn't seem as though anyone can get through to him.

http://ecographica.blogspot.com/2009/01/whys-graham-so-glum-lawton-critiqued.html

I believe National Geo had a “Was Darwin Wrong” cover a few years ago. There’s also a (very good) website using that rhetorical phrase as its title.

stevaroni said: At least the article got right to the point, and I realize that NG has to sell magazines, but I still felt the headline was too gimmicky.

veritas36 said: Authors seldom choose their titles. Professional headline writers do, they mean to catch a reader's eye for sales purposes. New Scientist commonly uses overly dramatic and sometimes misleading titles for sensible articles. Graham's point is that early organisms exchanged genes across species. How valid that is I don't know, but it was interesting and sounded plausible. New Scientist has carried a great quantity of material regarding the creationists antics; all are entirely sympathetic to science and scientists. If somebody has an issue with Graham's ideas, please explain, I'm curious.

Yeah, but anyone who has ever read new scientists knows that they are, bar none, one of the worst science magazines. all hype, very little substance. The only thing I liked about it was their artwork.

Which, btw, does anyone know a good science periodical that is very general, kind to laymen, and gives a detailed analysis of what's new in the world of science without adding all this extra hype and tripe?

JimmyJ said: Which, btw, does anyone know a good science periodical that is very general, kind to laymen, and gives a detailed analysis of what's new in the world of science without adding all this extra hype and tripe?

I can fully understand the problems New Scientist generated for those in the US, but to trash it as "...bar none, one of the worst science magazines" is surely going right over the top (hmm, "bar none....one of.....", does that actually even make sense?).

I don't have time to trawl through the dozens of journals for all the very latest in all the sciences, and it gives a decent summary of what's going on across the whole scientific spectrum. It has also, as expected, always been a staunch defender of Evolution (I still have the copy which exclaims "Evolution - What a Beautiful Theory" on the cover from not all that long ago).

This particular cover was a silly idea, period. However for scientifically minded and literate lay-people (well, whose profession is not directly related to the sciences) like me, it does a pretty good job.

Blithering morons do not generally read New Scientist. The blithering morons who are now using the cover story as a "weapon" will have walked past it on the news-stand, or will have stumbled across it through sensationalised news reports. And I'll lay money they didn't even read the whole article. Hence why I say the cover was a dumb idea.

Sheesh. Chill.

This particular cover was a silly idea, period. However for scientifically minded and literate lay-people (well, whose profession is not directly related to the sciences) like me, it does a pretty good job.

Mike of Oz said: I can fully understand the problems New Scientist generated for those in the US, but to trash it as "...bar none, one of the worst science magazines" is surely going right over the top (hmm, "bar none....one of.....", does that actually even make sense?).

Which, btw, does anyone know a good science periodical that is very general, kind to laymen, and gives a detailed analysis of what’s new in the world of science without adding all this extra hype and tripe?

RBH said: It wasn't just the cover. Again, read the critiques linked in the OP. The story itself was pretty problematic.

I'm just a science-interested layman, but I enjoy SciAm greatly. They can usually explain things clearly even for a person who didn't have any previous interest in the subject. I personally find them less prone to hype than Wired, New Scientist, or anything with "Popular" in the title.

The UK Telegraph made an even sillier rehash of the New Scientist tripe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

That already appeared in a blog discussion, cited by a creationist to support his case.

Selling more copies of New Scientist not only makes more money for its publishers, but also gets more people to read a magazine that deals with a whole range of science-related issues far more intelligently than nearly every newspaper here in the UK. To my mind, this is a good thing. I have no sympathy with creationists / IDists / whatever, but they can and do quote-mine anything, even The Origin of Species itself. I particularly disagree with the idea that scientists or science jouralists should engage in self-censorship because of this. Criticize the article for being badly written or inaccurate, if you like; criticize the title, criticize Graham's responses; but don't use "Think of what the creationists will do with this" as a reason. Stuff the creationists!

Graham Lawton is short sighted. Now we sit with another friggen misquote/misrepresentation scenario that the creos are going to milk for all they are worth. Wonder how many years this crap is going to haunt us.

NS often has very bad articles and this one beyond the bad cover design isn't even a good example of how bad they can be. We need a contest. Can anyone beat this one:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3895-solar-sailing-breaks-laws-of-physics.html

ndowrick said: Criticize the article for being badly written or inaccurate, if you like; criticize the title, criticize Graham's responses; but don't use "Think of what the creationists will do with this" as a reason. Stuff the creationists!

gerald said: The UK Telegraph made an even sillier rehash of the New Scientist tripe: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html That already appeared in a blog discussion, cited by a creationist to support his case.

Presumably you object to the last paragraph. The rest of the article just says life is very complex. Difficult to gainsay.

ndowrick said: I particularly disagree with the idea that scientists or science jouralists should engage in self-censorship because of this.

As was pointed out previously, Lawton did have input into the headline and cover. What I found worse than both was the editorial comment which tried to pre-notpologise for the fact that they were publishing fuel for the creo fire.

It's one thing to re-examine HGT every few years in an article, which is what NS seems to be doing in the text. It's another to willfully hand ammunition to the very people who would throw the magazine on the bonfire, if they were in power. Some short term greedy, "apres mois, c'est deluge" thinking around the editorial table at NS.

I have subscribed for a few years to NewScientist and they always do these kind of silly covers. They really are a put off.

What is worse is when the story is equally silly, e.g this one:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/covers/20061014.jpg

Earth without people? hmm well I really doubt there will be many baboons sitting in chairs and its obvious the sort of things that would happen, nature would continue recycling everything, evolution would continue (in ways/directions that can never be know), etc etc BORING.

Anyway Ive cancelled it now, but I hate to think how many people over in the US will be influenced by that cover image.
Most people will not be interested in reading the article but will just assume all the crap being spouted my the Discovery Intitute may have some truth to it!

But what really needs fixing IMHO is your school board system, I cant understand why you need it? Some national standards would soon sort it all out.

OK, some kind of chimp sitting in a chair

eric said:

ndowrick said: Criticize the article for being badly written or inaccurate, if you like; criticize the title, criticize Graham's responses; but don't use "Think of what the creationists will do with this" as a reason. Stuff the creationists!

The two different criticisms are not exclusive. Not to speak for Jason Rosenhouse, but I think his criticism was along the lines of: "think of what the creationists will do with this inaccurate, badly titled article."

A couple of months ago they had "Einstein was wrong - there's nothing special about the speed of light". Copernicus next?

Was Darwin Wrong in the First Place?

The crap published by the New Scientist makes another gross error in claiming that Darwin was wrong about the "root" of the tree of life.

Darwin's various editions of "The Origin of Species" made little mention of the origin of life- the root of the "tree of life." He makes some general observations in the concluding chapter. He writes in the Sixth Edition (1872),

"I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their cellular structure, their laws of growth, and their liability to injurious influences."

And,

"No doubt it is possible, as Mr. G.H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so, we may conclude that only a very few have left modified descendants."

Note that Darwin is far from adamant of a single originator, merely that by the time the "higher" plants and animals emerged, there were very few progenitors, and few that had surviving descendants.

So, ignoring the stupid "flash" of the cover- the title article was equally ignorant historically as it was scientifically.

Mr G: Thanks for the recommendations. Especially AAAS Science. Excellent.

Fountains in the desert.

Gary,

Great quotes. Yet another example of the value of checking primary sources, and who doesn't do it.

MRG -

Livescience is particularly infested with creationists of the brainwashed teenager variety. I've meant to argue with them from time to time when an article drew me there, but there were too many too fast. If there were more voices of reason it might be different.

harold said: MRG - Livescience is particularly infested with creationists of the brainwashed teenager variety. I've meant to argue with them from time to time when an article drew me there, but there were too many too fast. If there were more voices of reason it might be different.

The Edinburgh Creation group, my local group of misguided people, is proclaiming:
"New Scientist: Darwin Was Wrong!
The New Scientist has a stunning article called Darwin Was Wrong! It is well worth reading the whole article. Human programmers use modules of code that can be reused in unrelated projects. The observation that all creatures have large parts of DNA in common does not rule out a creator because code reuse is what intelligent human programmes strive for. A good piece of code can be reused in many situations with little change. However if DNA is a code written by a creator we would expect him to reuse code wherever it is needed and not according to a strict hierarchy as common descent would imply. However rather than admit that this common code shows creative genius the New Scientist thinks it is the work of unintelligent viruses:"

http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/blog/?p=116

Sigh, every time I read Darwin-basher stuff like this my brain seizes up momentarily and I have a PINKY & THE BRAIN moment: "YYYES! Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?!"

"Er, oi think so Brayne, but do you really think there's a market for chocolate-covered chopped liver on a stick?"

Huh? What? Oh never mind ...

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

When human programmers reuse code, it's either an exact copy, or only modified in specific places for a difference in requirements in the new application. If life was deliberately engineered, one would therefore expect the common sequences to be exact or nearly exact, not with an amount of random changes that roughly correlates to the amount of time since the species separated from their common ancestor.

Henry

Henry J said: If life was deliberately engineered, one would therefore expect the common sequences to be exact or nearly exact, not with an amount of random changes that roughly correlates to the amount of time since the species separated from their common ancestor.

mrg (iml8) said:

Henry J said: If life was deliberately engineered, one would therefore expect the common sequences to be exact or nearly exact, not with an amount of random changes that roughly correlates to the amount of time since the species separated from their common ancestor.

That's the answer to the "common design" routine used by the Darwin-bashers: "If this is a common design, then why are there these seemingly haphazard variations in the design from species to species? Why aren't they 100% identical? With these variations seeming to track assumed lines of descent as determined by other means?" If I had designed cytochrome C molecules, why arbitrarily tweak the design from species to species? The cytochrome C works pretty much the same in all of them. And then in the end the answer to: "What is the reason for this pattern of variations in specific features?" -- is merely the unsatisfying: "They were made that way." Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

Listen. Recently we've had the editor of "The Scientist" call for support of "teach the controversy" (critical analysis is good, isn't it?), the editors of "Discover" proclaim that a Discovery Institute "fellow", Forrest M. Mims III, is one of the 50 most brillant and influential people for advancing science and education, and "New Scientist" decide that playing on evolution denial themes is clever. And that's just the science journalism. The general media, on the whole, still believes that evolution denial and the assault on education is all about religion vs. atheism, and "balance" their reporting to focus on that.

The majority of both the scientific community and the general public clearly don't understand the current success the evolution denial campaign is enjoying at the local level, and how devastating this is for science education on the whole. You should be asking yourself why. Never mind what the evolution denial campaign is doing. Concluding that they're the ones at fault isn't much of a solution. What are you doing?

Mike at 10:08am-
We could raise money and launch a well funded publicity campaign using the wiles of modern advertising to sew confusion and distrust amongst the public, and fund cadres of liars to peddle their lies across the country.

Or, we could do what we can to improve science journalism by pointing out bad examples; improve school biology teaching so that children understand the science better; protest every creationist talking point whenever it appears in public; support moderate science accepting believers where necessary; and I'm sure there is something I have missed out.

However against us we have the well funded liars, as previously mentioned, we have the known drive to popularism and sensationalism which forces out stupid wrong headlines as we have seen, and the simple fact that there is a mile wide anti-scientific streak, which in turn deserves a proper sociological analysis which I don't know enough to do.

So, what are you doing?

Save us from debate! It makes us feel insecure!

novparl said: Save us from debate! It makes us feel insecure!

novparl said: Save us from debate! It makes us feel insecure!

RBH said:

novparl said: Save us from debate! It makes us feel insecure!

Bullshit. I'll do a written debate with any creationist, ID or otherwise, out there. I want the prevarications, distortions, and misrepresentations the creationists use to be available for analysis, not merely spouted in front of a lay audience.

Gary's post was great, and was what I was mulling and fretting in my mind over when I saw the New Scientist thing.

I think a debate is a poor structure though. They have many advantages, including no reputation to defend, ever, and the ability to lie like crazy. Oh, and the ability to contradict yourself. Etc.

Seriously, whenever scientists and denialists debate, it's usually bad news for the scientists.

I would propose that denialist would-be SCIENTISTS have to debate in writing with scientists.

Alternately, have people that specialize in advocacy do it.

Scientific language is very thin beer compared to debate language.

Mike Elzinga said: From now on ID/Creationism and pseudo-science are synonymous. They may try to scrape the crap off themselves, but they can never get the smell out. And we can make sure the public gets to sample the stench.

Aren't there people who hold other pseudo-scientific ideas without holding to Creationism? If so then the two aren't really synonymous.

Henry

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: From now on ID/Creationism and pseudo-science are synonymous. They may try to scrape the crap off themselves, but they can never get the smell out. And we can make sure the public gets to sample the stench.

What do you mean "(f)rom now on ID/Creationism and pseudo-sceince are synonymous"? They've been synonymous for decades and decades and decades.

Aren’t there people who hold other pseudo-scientific ideas without holding to Creationism? If so then the two aren’t really synonymous.

— Henry J

I would propose that denialist would-be SCIENTISTS have to debate in writing with scientists.

— Marion Delgado

Mike Elzinga said:

I would propose that denialist would-be SCIENTISTS have to debate in writing with scientists.

— Marion Delgado

Yes, that's the point RBH was making. The choreographed debate shtick was the ID/Creationists' favorite turf. It avoided all the problems of peer review and testimony under oath and cross examination, and evidence and all that dangerous stuff. When their arguments are in writing, they get their noses rubbed in it and it can be juxtaposed with reality.

Mike said: Listen. Recently we've had the editor of "The Scientist" call for support of "teach the controversy" (critical analysis is good, isn't it?), the editors of "Discover" proclaim that a Discovery Institute "fellow", Forrest M. Mims III, is one of the 50 most brillant and influential people for advancing science and education, and "New Scientist" decide that playing on evolution denial themes is clever. And that's just the science journalism.

I subscribe to New Scientist and was unhappy with the Darwin cover and story, but please! I think most critical readers will understand that the magazine is a POPULAR science magazine that needs to appeal to a broad audience, even if that means sensationalistic headlines. As an educator, I get more from my home subscription to New Scientist than I do from Scientific American, which I can read in the university library anytime I wish. I find it ironic that some of the same folks who decry the scientific ignorance we live with every day in Texas also turn up their noses at one of the few science magazines that someone without a PHD can read and understand. I read it to find out what's going on, not to get the final word on anything. That's what journals are for. If the mental midgets on the textbook committee want to trot out the offending article as evidence, great! (We should consider deliberate planting of such articles, really). I do think the author should show up in person to any such hearings, though.

Need a little help guys.

Read part of a article I think over a New Science written by a fellow nemed K. D. Kelinsky who was identified on as a scienties. The article was titled like evolution and design. He doesn't google, Anyone know anyone like that?

Silver Fox said: Need a little help guys. Read part of a article I think over a New Science written by a fellow nemed K. D. Kelinsky who was identified on as a scienties. The article was titled like evolution and design. He doesn't google, Anyone know anyone like that?

Renier said:Now we sit with another friggen misquote/misrepresentation scenario that the creos are going to milk for all they are worth.

Frumious Cath said:

Renier said:Now we sit with another friggen misquote/misrepresentation scenario that the creos are going to milk for all they are worth.

I don't think we should excoriate people like this. Honestly, the creos have no shortage of material at all.