New Scientist magazine is on a reaching for controversy kick lately. When trying to portray some unusual noise detected by a gravity sensor as possible evidence that we're all holographic projection of the universe didn't get enough people excited, their editors tried to reach for a the good old polemic generation engine: religion and science debates.

First came their cover which announced that Darwin Was Wrong and a feature article titled Uprooting Darwin's Tree of Life. The actual article of course was nothing like what creationists hoped it would be. Instead it was an editorial attempt to start a storm in a teacup by expounding in detail on a revision of Darwin's tree of life concept. The note accompanying the article admits just as much:

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126923.000-editorial-uprooting-darwins-tre...

There are a whole lot of things Darwin didn't know. When I write about evolution on my popular science blog, I'm using terms and ideas that would've been totally alien to him. And I'm just a writer who took a few more science classes than were required. To say that he was wrong about something isn't saying much. As long as his core idea -- that organisms change and diversify over long periods of time due to natural selection -- is still held as correct, evolution hasn't been proven wrong.

Now, having generated some friction and debate, New Scientist is out for more publicity, this time with a cover article about whether religion is inborn or indoctrinated using very basic and unconvincing evidence. Rather than focusing on history and trends, the entire case for inborn religion focuses on asking children and adults vague questions.

worldofweirdthings.com/2009/02/10/the-god-gene-redux/

I understand that New Scientist has issues to sell and hits to drive to its website. But what it's doing right now is a tactic more befitting talk shows and political punditry. If you're going to write a popular science magazine, you have to stick to the science, not just generate a lot of controversy and hubbub as you skewer sacred cows or irritate already irate audiences even more.

Reply