Evolutionary antics

It isn't often or even at all that I enter the blogosphere with my Nature hat on, but it happened today. Here is a post on the science blog Pharyngula entitled "Nature publishes a crank letter". (Clue, it is about evolution.) There are 54 comments to P. Z. Myers' typically upfront post so far, many of them splenetic, vitriolic or dismissive -- but among them some thoughtful and sensible ones. I was brave and contributed my own, which is here.

The story: Nature published a Correspondence letter (an informal letter to the Editor) by a Polish MEP (member of the European parliament) who is scientifically qualified (Oxford degree, U of Toronto PhD) but who does not believe in evolution. Not for religious reasons, but because he doesn't think there is any evidence for it. We published the letter -- do voters have the right to know that their elected representatives have anti-science views? (Which affect the education system, for example.) Or by publishing this letter, does Nature provide spurious credibility for these unsupported beliefs?

Comments

[Susan]

Whoa! This is as exciting as the recent brouhaha on Frank Wilson's blog. I think you made a brilliant decision in publishing the letter and your comment at Pharyngula explains it perfectly, Maxine.

[Phil W]

I'm shocked, Maxine. Plain shocked! Jolted from my seat. Stunned, as it were. I now see that Nature has a subtle anti-evolution agenda. Not believing evolutionary theory either, I don't see a problem with that--heh, heh.

"Anti-science views," eh? Hmmm.

To the point of your publishing the letter, I don't understand why anyone would complain. I enjoy seeing complaints in some of the news magazine I read, reasoning that's similar to the comments on that blog. I recall one person saying a somewhat graphic article should have had a warning label on it (the cover or in the TOC, I suppose). "Warning: Only the strong of stomach should read p.26." That reader cancelled his subscription and gave me a laugh at the same time.

[Sian]

i'd publish it :) as a letter i don't think it gives credos to the 'crank'-- but it does show people what he thinks and you're spot on when you say people have a right to know that their MEP doesn't believe in evolution.

[Maxine]

Thanks, Sian -- as Nature's Correspondence editor Emerita, your opinion carries true weight!

Phil, let's just agree to disagree on the "anti-science" as I doubt we will convince each other. However, should you or anyone wish to be convinced, the Pharyngula post links to every assertion made by the Mad MEP and shows how it is wrong. (Pharyngula/Myers may have a rather off-putting tone to his posts, but his science is spot-on.)

[Clare]

I think it is good for everyone to have this sort of letter published. I think it makes both sides think and establish ideas and arguments for themselves. This is open and honest. What worries me more is when a topic like creationism is taught in schools alongside evolution or even instead of evolution. Children have little intellectual ammunition to resist and ideas are in danger of being assumed without question.

[Phil W]

Yes, I want to look at the TalkOrigins site linked from Pharyngula. I saw the link trying to refute a universal flood. It seems to miss the point, but I will read over that site and may comment on it on my blog.

Thank you for your thoughts.

[Maxine]

Yes, I agree, Clare == that is my main problem with the "literal interpretation of the bible" people -- OK to teach as religion but it should not be confused with science when taught to very young minds who lack the critical faculty to realise they are being sold a pup. (Sorry, Phil. Dr Myers would be only to pleased to elucidate on any of the erroneous points made by the MEP in his letter, I am sure, should you care to ask him via his comments.)