Observe the New Scientist cover above.

This is the final straw for me. I used to subscribe to New Scientist, but after reading a series of very poor articles I let the subscription lapse. Since then, I have bought a few issues from the newsstand and I see the occasional story referred on by email, and I am saddened by its descent from a truly grand science magazine into a venue for anti-scientific tripe. (See also this open letter written by Greg Egan criticising a cover article full of pseudo-physics.) At this point, I have gone beyond being disappointed in New Scientist. Dismayed and mistrustful would be better words now.

So what is wrong with this story? Well, in a nutshell, it is not the topic per se — the article by Graham Lawton explores several views on a concept that is well worth writing about: that is, one of the metaphors Darwin used to explain evolution is deficient as a total theory of biology. There are, however, a number of flaws in the article, not the least of which being that Darwin never intended the Tree of Life to be a total theory of biology and always presented it as a metaphor to aid understanding.

But the New Scientist editorial team has elevated the feature to utter irresponsibility by promoting it to the cover with a graphic that looks like it was designed to win the admiration of ID theorists and creationists. Indeed, in less than the two days since the issue came out, the cover has already been seized upon as a propaganda coup by the Discovery Institute and by anti-evolution Catholics.

There is no crime in being misrepresented by creationists. All the best scientists have been — but let’s be very clear, (i) the cover implies that Darwin was wrong fundamentally, and so is evolution — that’s exactly what readers would expect in stories similarly titled “Freud was wrong!” (and so is his psychoanalytic theory) or “Copernicus was wrong!” (and so is heliocentrism), and (ii) there is no way known that New Scientist ran that cover without knowing that it would give succour to creationists.

Even in the UK, around a third of people are either skeptical or outright hostile towards evolution, and even more appalling, a recent survey showed 29% of UK science teachers think it is a good idea to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes. While New Scientist may not be aware of these particular poll results, it is certainly aware of the underlying trend because it has reported on it many times before. And so, in this environment, any story by New Scientist that appears to add weight to the anti-evolution argument will be seized upon by active creationist organisations, but even more critically, people who have simply drifted into creationism because of their parents’ beliefs or because they were exposed to anti-evolution propaganda in the more retrogressive faith schools, or simply because they keep reading news reports about overthrowing Darwin — after all, this story has already been picked up from New Scientist and repackaged by the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian. It’s not just the lay public who respond to these stories, it is also journalists under pressure to provide new stories, and if New Scientist runs it on its cover, then the majority of journalists (most of whom have no science training) will assume the story is sound and feel safe in repeating it uncritically.

But worst of all is the fact that the general public does not get many ideas from articles and fine-tuned argumentation. Life is too short to develop deep knowledge about everything. Instead, most people absorb the cultural messages around them. The only message most people will take in is from seeing the front cover of New Scientist as they walk past the newsstand; millions of people will brush past and take on board the message that one of the most respected science magazines has announced that Darwin was wrong. Very few will buy the magazine to read the article, which is the only way they will learn that the story is only about a metaphor that Darwin used and not a critique of the theory of evolution.

There is no defence for New Scientist on this one.

Next: A guide to the errors in the New Scientist article.
Next+1: Why Darwin made mistakes but the Tree of Life wasn’t one of them

Tags: charles darwin, darwin was wrong, graham lawton, new scientist, tree of life