In the last few years, the evolution-deniers (aka Creationists) have been facing a curious problem. It is hard to justify the denial of something for which there is mounting and irrefutable evidence. The faith conquers all argument doesn’t work as well any more. So in these difficult times, these folks have turned to a brilliant strategy which is to try and use science against itself. Its actually pretty simple – you simply need to hunt for scientific literature which may show disagreement among scientists, blow it out of proportion and present it as a proof that science doesn’t work and scientists do not have all the answers. It is hard for the scientists to counter this propaganda for the simple reason that disagreement is a part of science. Disagreement results from critical thinking, reasoning and/or new evidence. This can not and will not change, so the evolution-deniers will probably be able to demonize science indefinitely.
Recently an article titled “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” was published in the journal Nature which, for those who don’t know, is the top journal for Natural Sciences discipline (IF 2013 = 42.351). This article is basically a debate over which processes should be considered fundamental to evolution. Prof. Kevin Laland (University of St. Andrews, UK) and colleagues argue that the standard evolutionary theory (SET) is too gene-centric and should be expanded to extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) in order to include the phenomena such as phenotypic plasticity, inclusive inheritance, niche construction, extragenetic inheritance and developmental bias which, in their view, can be the causes of evolution rather than the outcomes (as advocated by SET). On the other hand, Prof. Gregory A. Wray (Duke University, Durham, NC, USA) and colleagues argue in favour of SET, but believe that the ideas of EES are ‘genuinely interesting’ and need to be further strengthened with evidence.
The article is rather interesting and presents a balanced debate over the existing norms in the evolutionary sciences. Do note, that by no stretch of imagination either of the two viewpoints are disregarding evolution, instead they talk about fine-tuning the details. But unfortunately this is exactly the kind of ammunition Creationists are looking for. A Christian news outlet, World Magazine, picked this article up and published a story titled “Scientific fight over Darwinian evolution goes public” . If you read this story, it seems to be quite balanced and reports the bullet points from the article. But towards the end, it says
But the Nature article did ask the question, and as more questions are asked, it may open an opportunity for those with a different explanation for the origin of life and how living organisms change over time.
This is the part that is bothersome. This is the creationist mindset conveniently camouflaged in a seemingly innocent article reporting a scientific debate. A person who has no idea of the World Magazine’s agenda may happen to stumble upon this article, and may recognise it as a scientific fact that the so-called theories can be alternatives to evolution. This is not what Nature article says at all. That being said, it should come as no surprise that the author of this news story, Mr. Dick Peterson has previously published several articles on the same theme, and he appears to be the evolution expert for the World Magazine.
You have been warned.
Scientific Confessions 