Yesterday I wrote a bit about the BBC’s new seven-question “Test your knowledge of evolution quiz” (quiz here, my posts here and here), which was (and is) larded with ambiguous questions and wrong answers. They’ve now changed the irrelevant religion question (#7), which originally said, “Evolution and religion are incompatible. True or false?” (the answer was “false,” of course). It now reads “Evolution and religion are not necessarily incompatible. True or false?”. Now that’s a confusing double-negative question, but the answer still touts compatibilism:
Well, we all know that the Beeb is soft on faith (note their “daily affirmation,” or whatever they call the prayer they broadcast each morning), so it’s no surprise. But the question itself palpably does not test one’s knowledge of evolution. It tests whether one is soft on faith. Depending on your definition of “incompatible,” either answer could be right.
Further, they now say that “evolution is not about the origins of life”. First, that’s not necessarily true, since life emerged from nonlife through an evolutionary process, probably involving something like natural selection on combinations of chemicals. But the statement itself implies that if one does consider the origin of life as part of evolution, then evolution is incompatible with religion. Now why is that? Presumably because evolution is incompatible with the origin story told in Genesis I and II. If so, then evolution does become incompatible with religion, since Genesis also tells the story of how animals and plants came to be. This is a real confusion on the part of the BBC. At the very least, they have to admit that the story of life—and methodological naturalism—are incompatible with religion.
Further, the Beeb changed the question without any indication that it did so. It was my impression that when a journalist changes an article, the change from the original piece must be indicated on the piece, as an addendum. That’s not done here: more irresponsible (and sneaky) journalism.
At any rate, the question below is still alive, as shown by the tweet below it:
Matthew, Greg and I all think the Beeb got it wrong here. If you’re a strict cladist, you might say that, no, humans did not descend from monkeys; but under the common usage of “monkeys”, yes, our common ancestor would have been recognizable as a monkey.
But the BBC wasn’t thinking of cladism here; it was trying to refute the old creationist trope: “If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
Here’s a refutation of the BBC’s answer as tweeted by a paleontologist:
Just like to point this out to @BBCScienceNews. According to your quiz, we didn't evolve from monkeys. But… pic.twitter.com/zKW8o990zH
— Joseph Keating (@evopalaeo) September 25, 2018
I’ve enlarged the phylogeny so you can see it.
Finally, one more plaint. The answer to the question, below, even as given by the BBC, is ambiguous. For the answer notes that, if you define progress as “improved abilities to survive and reproduce” under exigent conditions, then yes, evolution does result in progress. It’s only not progressive when you define progress as “getting more complex”, “getting more like humans”, or moving toward some specified goal. The whole question and answer is deeply ambiguous and, like most of the other questions, the BBC should have deep-sixed it.
They missed a good chance to educate people about what evolution is and what the theory says.
