When New Scientist published its “Darwin was WRONG” cover a few months ago, several of us wrote in to complain about the distortion of Darwin’s 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 doesn’t seem to have sufficed — perhaps it’s time to boycott New Scientist (n.b., by “boycott,” I mean to refuse, as scientists, to write for them or have anything to do with them).
(Thanks to Richard Dawkins for forwarding this.)
Note that Graham Lawton, who writes for New Scientist, admitted in a post on Pharyngula that this was deliberate sensationalism:
. . . .
As for public understanding. Well, the cover is designed to sell the magazine. If we run very straight, sober covers, we sell fewer mags, we get fewer clicks and nobody blogs about us, so fewer people read what we produce. Now, I’d argue that this week’s cover has got us a lot of attention, and as a result lots of people will read my story. Many will learn something about evolution. Public understanding will increase. So which way do you want it?
Or look at it this way. Nature is a very educational read. Many people could learn a lot from it. It’s widely available and really quite entertaining and accessible. But very few members of the public read it. Why? They don’t sell themselves.
And yes, the ToL [Tree of Life] is still quite useful in places. I say as much in the article.
Boycott, seems a bit harsh. Still this is shameless commercializing on a baseless yet popular controversy…dunno it still feels childish.
People should have been boycotting NS anyway. It’s absolute trash.
===Childish===
This sort of sentiment is why the rational community isn’t taken seriously. It’s too willing to let things slide because it’s undignified to jump into the fray and fight for what’s right.
I would up the ante and advocate Roger Highfield’s ouster. He obviously cannot be trusted.
A boycott? Over a headline?
Criticize them harshly, yes. Point out their folly, for sure. But do you realkly want to pressure them economically so that they’ll shut up and publish only the things you agree with?
How different is that from what the Oklahoma state legislature is doing over Dawkins’ speech?
Jim,
“Boycott” here means simply that, as scientists, we won’t aid and abet this kind of wrongheaded sensationalism. Obviously we don’t have the power to hurt them economically –at least I don’t think so!
PZ Myers is picking up the boycott thread, too. This thing is developing legs.
Nevertheless, even if economic boycott is not what is implied, consider for a moment what the creationist crowd will do with this. They will say: “When faced with even a headline that they don’t like, scientists like Jerry Coyne show their true colours and trample free speech.”
I say castigate New Scientist and expose their headline as the shrill and money grubbing ploy it is, but make no attempt to boycott them. The principle of unfettered speech is too important. The blowback could be worse than the effects of headline itself.
“I say castigate New Scientist and expose their headline as the shrill and money grubbing ploy it is…”
Done and done. They haven’t learned. But they recently retracted an article because they got a complaint from a creationist. Something’s up at NS.
People shouldn’t have been buying it anyway–it’s a rag and it always has been. Now’s the time to encourage others to stop reading it as well.
I don’t think this is an issue of “free speech”. Nobody is saying that New Scientist can’t publish what they want. Even with an economic boycott, it is simply the decision that we won’t SUBSIDIZE what they publish. That’s not suppression. It’s similar in style (though obviously not in importance) to what the blacks did in the south by not riding buses that were segregated. Choosing not to patronize someone with whom you disagree can hardly be called suppression of free speech.
Censorship is the suppression of information. A boycott is a statement of disapproval about information that has already been shared. It’s a good practice to let others know what you disagree with and why.
I’m with Jerry.
This seems like an overreaction. Certainly, a lot of things that New Scientist has been reporting lately has little scientific value and tends to rush to big conclusions. But the fact that creationists can’t be bothered to read the actual cover story and the editorial that goes along with it reflects worse on them than it does on New Scientist’s attempt to start a storm in a teacup.
Censorship is what governments and other powerful organizations do to end all discussion of an abominable subject.
Boycotting is what happens at the grass-roots, when an “out group” wants to bring attention to problem.
Actually, while reading the calls for boycotts from various science blogs, including this one, I’m thinking that creationists using the New Scientist cover as proof of their ideology could be a great way to illustrate their mindset and this faux controversy is actually a valuable tool for science bloggers.
Shameless blog plug in 3… 2… 1…
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/03/21/missing-an-opportunity-in-anger/
There was a letter to the editor in NS, 18 March 2009, responding to the letter by Jerry, Dawkins et al:
‘I didn’t notice hordes of physicists in a frothing rage when the line “Why Einstein was wrong about relativity” appeared on your cover (1 November, 2008), promoting the feature on page 28 of that issue. Suggest, however, that “Darwin was wrong” about something (24 January, p 34) and cries of “Shame!” and “Irresponsible!” are heard from the Dawkins/Dennett camp (21 February, p 24).
‘Militant atheists might fume that the creationists are in a feeding frenzy over New Scientist’s provocative cover, but this is unlikely to change anybody’s mind one way or the other. When paranoia about the creationist crowd becomes an excuse to avoid controversy about the great man’s ideas then it seems suspiciously like surrendering ground to them.
‘Science should be interesting and controversial. New Scientist has nothing to be ashamed of in helping to make it so.’–Paddy Shannon
I sent a response a couple of days ago. No idea if they’ll publish it, but here is it:
‘Paddy Shannon (14 March, p 24) seems to have a romantic view of science when he asserts that it “should be interesting and controversial”. Most scientific research involves the incremental addition of knowledge to the whole. While it’s usually interesting to the researchers and to others involved in the specific field, it’s only rarely that it reaches the level at which it becomes fodder for the media. Similarly most science is not “controversial”, although you might well garner that impression when journals like New Scientist screech “Darwin was wrong!” on their front page, despite the subsequent editorial and article effectively hosing down the implications of that hyperbole.
There really is nothing controversial about Darwinian evolution–at least among biologists. The controversy exists only because creationists invent it. They are renown for cherry-picking and misquoting scientific writings to bolster their theological position, and using these techniques to sway the undecided and undereducated. This is not a trivial issue, because it leads directly to poisoning of scientific education, as too often seen in high school science curricula in some parts of the world.
In its editorial (21 January), New Scientist correctly predicted that creationists would be “buzzing with the news that ‘New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong’.” In their propaganda war, creationists happily ignored both the editorial and article. All they needed is the headline, and New Scientist kindly obliged. This does science no service at all.
Yours sincerely,
Margaret Morgan’
I’ve been getting New Scientist on a weekly basis for a while, but I’m getting sick of the sensationalism on the covers. What happened to “science is interesting, and if you don’t like it you can fuck off!”? I can understand the need to get the general public’s attention, but covers like this aren’t going to help. To expect a creationist to read beyond the cover is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Thank you, capitalism?
Boycotting it is the best approach to this problem. Cut their sales and make it clear that they’ve managed to alienate scientists.
Perhaps an intellectual boycott may ameliorate Highman’s behaviour, but it seems unlikely. Indeed, such action is more likely to result in media sensationalism going unchallenged and a perception within society that when scientists don’t like what they read, they simply withdraw from debate in a fit of pique.
There is a larger issue here: science is advancing at a greater pace than society’s scientific literacy.
[sweeping generalisation] Most non-scientists are interested only in the outputs of science (the benefits) but have little or no understanding of the effort and knowledge required to produce these benefits. More worryingly, relatively few people seem to have the urge to maintain what little understanding they have! [/sweeping generalisation]
Scientists have a dual responsibility to advance knowledge and foster understanding: sadly, the blissful ignorance of the general population (and the majority of our politicians) means that all avenues of communication are essential to satisfying this duty even if these channels occasionally (and sometimes wilfully) misrepresent the evidence.
The reason pointing out Einstein’s errors does not draw criticism, but pointing out Darwin’s errors does is simple. The myth of evolution is the best excuse to deny the existence of God. There is no close second place. Those who grasp at their Atheism by sheer willpower do so by ignoring the flaws of the theory and attacking all who question it.
The number of attacks to my comment will reflect the truth of what I am saying – except that it may not happen now that I’ve given that as a measure.
The tree of life metaphor was a profound insight into the mechanics of evolution, and a testament to the creative imagination of the man who thought very seriously about his work. It still serves as an extremely useful, if somewhat over-simplified way of helping students understand the principles of evolutionary biology. Perhaps the strangler fig of life (Google-image it!) would be a closer representation of reality.
The only advice I have to give the evolutionists here is to just keep on believing what you believe. And, I say that as one who thinks your beliefs are erroneous. I don’t, nor will I ever subscribe to the idea that life occurred spontaneously from absolutely nothing without some form of consciousness spawning and guiding it. Even atheists agree that there could be other life forms comparable to ours in the universe… yet, the idea of one of those entities possessing greater powers and understanding than us seems to be the boundary for acceptable thinking. Why, I don’t know.
Anyway, I’m coming to the conclusion after much time and seemingly endless debate on the issue that atheists need their religion as much as creationists need theirs, and who am I to try and change their minds. If you are a professed disciple of Darwin or Dawkins, great! All the best! If their ideas make you go weak at the knees, then that’s where you should be. I know where I should be, and that’s where I am, though it be in opposition to your way of thinking. Nothing you could offer would ever entice me back to the way that I once thought… which was the way that you do, now, and with a lot less evidence to support it. I simply trusted my teachers and elders to know what was best for me. Would that constitute faith? Eventually, I changed my mind, and here we are.
Steve, I’m here simply to support you in your convictions. Human nature being what it is, someone will challenge you, and, of course, you know that. To come onto an atheist’s blog, though, and expect them to change their minds through some word of yours is setting yourself up for disappointment. Reverse the scenario – would YOU change your belief?
It’s been my long and fruitful experience that people change when they reach some point in life where they’re forced to concede to some circumstance outside of intellectual debate… usually when confronted with some horrific upset in their life’s routine. We are, after all, creatures of repetition and routine, and it takes a lot to get our attention, these days. I know my wisdom wouldn’t constitute any significant enough upset to sway anyone over to my view on reality… indeed, why should it?
No, whatever works for you, is my counsel. My faith says that there doesn’t need to be an permanent cessation of awareness at ‘death’, and Atheism teaches that there is, and many folk are quite happy with that. What Christianity has to offer, ultimately, is the hope that life goes on indefinitely. There is no assurance of wealth and prosperity this side of that reality. I prefer that reality to the alternative, but, that’s just me. I know some that are so sick of life, the concept of having to live forever, galls them. I don’t know if they equate what goes down here with what is possible later as justification for their preference not to live, but, they seem to have made up their minds. Others say it’s not a matter of choice at all, it’s just reality we’re stuck with. I’m content with that. They don’t try and change my mind, anymore, either. They’ve learned, as well, it’s as futile as when I tried to change their minds.
Nope, all I have to say is howdy to all my atheist friends, just dropping by to check on the latest banter – don’t mind me. Just giving moral support to a fellow believer, and to keep on truckin’, because I believe he’s headed the right way.
Oh… and don’t let the handle “Highwayman” worry you, it’s just my profession, for over thirty-some years now. Professional transport driver.
Keep the dirty side down, now, hear me?
😉
Re Steve Moody
The myth of evolution is the best excuse to deny the existence of God.
Yessir, just like advocacy for the theory of evolution has turned Ken Miller into an atheist. Not.
“The number of attacks to my comment will reflect the truth of what I am saying – except that it may not happen now that I’ve given that as a measure.”
So in other words, the more people disagree with you, the more correct you are? Hmm, so does this mean that if I say that humanity was designed by the Elder Things who came to Earth many millions of years ago, when Antarctica was still in warmer latitudes, and get rightfully ostracized for taking a horror story by H.P. Lovecraft as fact, I would actually be really correct and fiction would become fact?
“The only advice I have to give the evolutionists here is to just keep on believing what you believe.”
Well thank you for allowing us to actually study and ascribe to scientific fact rather than a book of religious punditry assembled when people thought that lightning was a sign of an angry god named Jupiter displeased with his latest offering.
Also, the whole “something from nothing” quote is old, tiresome and very much incorrect scientifically speaking. It also comes from priests and creationists, not atheists. Basically, this is a strawman argument and I suggest you find better talking points that actually take organic chemistry and cosmology into account. I’m sure there’s a site from which you can just copy/paste them…
NewScientist’s priorities are simple, they put magazine sales ahead of presentation of good science. I mean, you can’t get through one of their issues without being bombarded by the irritating *subscribe now!* advertisements, and their covers are almost always misleading or misrepresentative of the content. I found this out, and stopped buying long ago.
The notion that widely held views among scientists imply correctness is absurd. In my search for the “genesis molecule” of the bible, I use science and the Bible to prove my hypotheses. My goal is to find truth, not acceptance by a bias science community. I do not accept the theory that species can transition from one to the other through evolution. My research has shown that a small tissue derived carbohydrate molecule can self-associate into life supporting matrices even in the absence of DNA. My “biomatrixgenesis conjecture” is more plausible than Darwinism. Evolution is not the only way to explain progressive species similarities. The scaffolding of animal tissue matrices by a self-assembling and hierarchical shape-shifter, such as my “genesis molecule” is a more likely explanation.
The idea that a Creator could have designed the universe means even our human initiated designs (HIDs) are not original. This is troubling to those would rather control their own destinies and celebrate themselves, while hoping there is no God.
I not only claim to be a good scientist, but I am also a good Christian. Unlike some, I am not afraid to tell the world how I feel and I do not intend to back down until Jesus returns.
“…and I suggest you find better talking points that actually take organic chemistry and cosmology into account.”
There… I copied and pasted that!
LOL! gfish… you probably didn’t hear me… I don’t need to find ANY talking points, my friend. Again… I don’t actually CARE what you believe, alright? Just like you don’t care what I believe… okay? And, I’ve heard many tiresome lines from unbelievers citing reasons for their belief in evolution, but I don’t let it annoy me.
I know you’re concerned about my not understanding the more intricate points of science as expounded by those great humanist theologians, such as Dawkins, et al, but, don’t worry… I’ll try to find something with lot’s of pictures in it, okay?
You have yourself a great day, now!
😉
“And, I’ve heard many tiresome lines from unbelievers citing reasons for their belief in evolution, but I don’t let it annoy me.”
If they’re unbelievers, how can they believe something? I mean, I understand that you’re saying that you don’t pesky little things like facts get in the way of your ideology and pride yourself on your denialism but still, you could choose your words with a little more semantic care.
Oh and I don’t need pictures. I’m just asking for something with at least a little bit of fact to it. Just a smidgen.
“My goal is to find truth, not acceptance by a bias science community.”
Translation: I don’t want to go through peer review like an actual scientist because I know I’m right and little things like actual experts taking a second look at my experiments to make sure they’re verifiable don’t matter. Especially if they find that I’m wrong.
Not to feed the troll too much, but I always find this bit of reasoning funny:
The Highwayman sez:
“nor will I ever subscribe to the idea that life occurred spontaneously from absolutely nothing without some form of consciousness spawning and guiding it”
Of course, it is trivial to turn this statement around on them and ask: “Do you subscribe to the idea that god occurred spontaneously without the intervention of some form of consciousness?”
To which the reply is one or more of the following:
1) god is outside of anything we can imagine, so the question cannot be asked of god (This is the intellectually dishonest “get out of jail free” card. This is tantamount to admitting that the questioned person will never admit other explanations under any circumstances, period.);
2) god has always existed, so “no” (Well, then why not cut out the middle man and posit the same for the universe and/or multiverse?);
3) “Yes”. (Again, why not cut out the middle man and posit the same for the universe and/or multiverse?);
4) silence or stammering.
Again, these folks have been preconditioned to either avoid the question, or terminate the regress at their particular vision of god, not a step earlier and not a step later. It works like clockwork, and if this rule is ever relaxed, they lose their faith.
– J.J.
gFish:
I never said I was just a scientist so why do I need peer review. I have already proven that I am a good scientist (with honors). but that does not mean I have to stay one or that I can’t also be an artist and theologian at the same time. To do all of these things require a higher IQ. Need my help?
“Not to feed the troll too much, but I always find this bit of reasoning funny:”
Troll? What did I do… present an opinion that you don’t agree with? That makes me a troll? I see…
Well, seeing as diverse opinions aren’t welcome here, I’ll just say, Mr. JJ, that I don’t know the mind of God or His most inner thoughts and purposes. See, I’m not a genius like you, that knows all. At least I’ll admit my ignorance in some matters.
I’ll tell you this, though… I’ve seen people’s lives changed for the good by the Gospel, and that was when medical science had given it’s all to try and help, and failed miserably. Now, what’s your learned opinion on that?
Now, I’ll just take my troll-ass outta here, and let you intellectuals solve all the world’s problems.
🙂
Oh… one other thing…
I’ll give you evidence of God’s presence and power, right here… in that, I didn’t give you what I think you richly deserve, but tempered my response. If you knew what I was before I became what you, now, so vehemently despise, you’d know there was a God in Heaven, my friend.
Just sayin’… and have a good day.
@The Highwayman
The topic of the post and subsequent discussion thread was about science, a controversial cover by the New Scientist, boycotts, and what does and doesn’t constitute “censorship”. Then you waltz in here and start talking about what “you atheists” believe. That is a classic troll if I ever saw one. Here’s Wiki’s definition:
“An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”
Your message fits that to a T.
Highwayman sez:
“If you knew what I was before I became what you, now, so vehemently despise, you’d know there was a God in Heaven, my friend.”
“Despise”? What? You seem to be projecting.
“An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”
Your message fits that to a T.
Well, gee… I’m flattered to have impacted this thread, so!
But, you’re wrong, of course. I’m not a troll. I think you like to pick fights, though. You don’t know how much I’m tempted… but, this isn’t my turf. And, I’m supposed to be a Christian, aren’t I? That, I suppose, puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage, here.
Anyway, as I originally stated, I was encouraging a fellow believer, not talking to you. Who, after all, would want to talk with you? (Oops! I’m going there, again!) But, don’t worry… I’m leaving, now.
You can have your podium back, JJ… I’m finished with it.
When I was younger (less mature) I often found myself in heated conversations with Christians. Several of them got frustrated with me and would admonish “lucky for you, I’m not the OLD ME before I got saved”.
I had two reactions. If your getting saved was a great as you’d like me to think, you probably would have the contentment and peace of mind not to make comments like that and, I don’t have to rely on faith to keep you safe from my wrath.
The New Scientist has no shame–again! « great article thankyou
I think this is a misrepresentation and an unfair assessment of Roger Highfield.
Of course Darwin had no inkling of what genes/Mendelian Genetics, DNA or phylogenetic trees were in his day, but this is not the point. The real question is one of homology which is the model by which these comparisons are made and Darwin understood the concept of homology very well. Evolution is not a religion people, don’t treat it like one.
Of course it’s not a religion. There are still valid sociological reasons, in the environment we find ourselves, for not dealing with these things that Darwin couldn’t possibly have known in his day, by producing an article that blurts out “Darwin was WRONG”.
Can you not understand this? Perhaps Highfield, upon hearing the criticisms, did. Maybe that’s why he “appeared chastened”, in which case the characterization of him would be just fine.
Darwin was wrong about a lot of things and many modern evolutionary biologist admit this reality. Pangenesis was his most famous error, as was his belief that future generations would find the universe of transitional fossils he said had to be there in order for his theory to be correct.
Shall we boycott every magazine or journal that published J. Goulds criticism of the Darwinian synthesis? How about the Altenberg meeting where 16 scholars and evo devos got together and tried to propose a new extended synthesis based on epigenetic models. Many of these men have questioned the limitations of natural selection. Should we also boycott Stewart Newman and Massimo Pigliucci?
Biology Letters just published a study by Sarda Sahney1,*, Michael J. Benton1 and Paul A. Ferry.
Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land.
This study questions whether Darwin was right about competition being a factor in evolution, and according to study it indicates he was wrong and has been posted as such. Should we boycott Biology Letters also? This boycott proposition sounds more like an emotional argument that is more hung up on what creationist think more than anything that has to do with empirical science.
Of course we all know it’s not just the Bible thumpers anymore. More and more mainstream scientist are starting to question the same modern synthesis that has been taught as a dogmatic fact for the last eight years.
The Dissent list is almost a thousand strong and constantly growing and is proof of this growing dissatisfaction of the theory not having the explanatory powers based on our current understanding of biology and genetics, especially in this post ENCODE world where even evolutionary biologist seem to be confused as to which rule of thumb to follow. I’m glad people are making waves and stirring up the waters. Maybe it will force some to get on their bicycles and ride.