Monday, January 26, 2009
Oh, look! New Scientist is reporting on the last minute insertion of creationist nonsense into the Texas science standards:
The previous text invited students to: "evaluate a variety of fossil types, transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness and rate and diversity of evolution".
The altered text, introduced by creationist member Barbara Cargill, slipped the phrase "proposed transitional fossils" into the text, implying unwarranted doubt about whether transitional fossils are genuinely evolutionary staging posts as species changed. ...
Secondly, Cargill scrapped the final clause altogether, replacing it with an invitation for students to "assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in the light of this fossil evidence".
In other words, she sought to stimulate unwarranted debate about common descent, the idea that all life arose through evolution.
"This change is by far the most unscientific revision, and is completely unacceptable," says Schafersman. "There are no good arguments in modern science 'against universal common descent', which has been accepted by biologists for over 130 years, so the phrase is asking for something that authors and publishers cannot honestly supply."
In essence, says Schafersman, "the added phrase supports an anti-evolution intent which is not scientific."
Graham Lawton Was Wrong
Darwin Was Wrong?
Why's Graham so Glum: Lawton Critiqued
Was Darwin Wrong?
Darwin was wrong...ish
Explaining New Scientist cover
New Scientist takes the hype road
Darwin: The Genius of evolution
The Trouble With Science Journalism
Speaking of media mangling...
New Scientist take the hype road
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever
Ironically, a sidebar to the New Scientist article ends:
"We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?"
Bloglist "borrowed" from Adrian Thysse at Evolving Complexity.
Update: Richard B. Hoppe has picked up on this at The Pand'a Thumb.
I wonder who becomes responsible when science advocates have to deal with creationist quoting sensationalist articles that misrepresent science in order to further misrepresent science?
Much more sensational than that! Keppler was wrong to think that planetary orbit were circular so we have to rethink the entire Solar System!
I wonder who becomes responsible ...
We all do, when all the best jobs move to China and we have to figure out to keep 150 million people fully employed flipping hamburgers.