Some Days You Feel So Proud To Be Part of the Fourth Estate

By Carl Zimmer | February 6, 2009 4:24 pm

In honor of Darwin’s birthday, Forbes publishes a piece by Young-Earth creationist Ken Ham. US News and World Report publishes another piece by another Young-Earth creationist, Henry Morris III.

Sorry guys, but I just can’t find the strength to link to your stunts.

Thanks to Pharyngula and Knight Science Journalism Tracker for spoiling my afternoon. (Huh, that’s funny–I was able to link to them.)

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Evolution

Comments (13)

  1. James Hathaway

    Yes, unfortunately the mission to quest to obfuscate a century and a half of scientific learning is still going strong, with the support of major media outlets. I guess their reasoning is that the public wants to be mis-informed.

  2. Ross

    The Forbes people don’t seem to realise that in publicising the “young earth” view they are in fact rubbishing almost the entire body of Science – the physics that gives us the ages of the planet and the universe, the chemical analyses of DNA etc…

  3. Wes

    This might be due to the journalists’ misguided notion of “fairness”, in which being “fair” means providing a platform for anyone to say anything at all, even if that person is lying through his or her teeth.

    Of course, if one proposed we be “fair” by providing a platform for Holocaust deniers on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, or we be “fair” to geocentric hypotheses on the anniversary of the condemnation of Galileo, these same journalists would immediately see the fallacy of such reasoning. Let the cranks say whatever they want, but nobody is obliged to provide them with a platform for saying it.

  4. Sergio

    Not to worry!
    the piece by Ham at Forbes is so funny and superficial that even business folk would see his lack of basis.
    I disagree with Ross here, and I rather have Ham disclose himself and his movement in a silly business mag, than on the classrooms of any public school.

  5. In this same issue, Forbes has an article explaining how the financial crisis can be “explained” in darwinist words. “Social darwinism”, hello?

  6. I also found this to be incoherent… but it’s late and maybe I’m missing something.

  7. It’s “edgy!” Generating needless controversy and offending readers is always “edgy!” If you don’t like it that means you’re uncool.

  8. In fairness, Safina isn’t a member of the fourth estate, AFAIK.

  9. johnk

    I think Jim Hu is right. The Safina article seemed silly. Lots of straw men and misconceptions. The final conclusion, getting rid of the term “Darwinism”, is an exceptionally bad idea.

  10. So let me get this straight: the same magazine allegedly read by the captains of industry is publishing the psuedoscientific ramblings of a group of charlatans on equal footing with sound science, and we have to wonder why the banking system has run itself off the rails?

  11. MrG

    The US NEWS material was part of a debate with pros and cons, not to worry. NATURAL HISTORY magazine, absolutely no friend of Darwin-bashers, did pretty much the same thing a few years back. Cheers — MrG

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

The Loom

A blog about life, past and future. Written by DISCOVER contributing editor and columnist Carl Zimmer.

About Carl Zimmer

Carl Zimmer writes about science regularly for The New York Times and magazines such as DISCOVER, which also hosts his blog, The LoomHe is the author of 12 books, the most recent of which is Science Ink: Tattoos of the Science Obsessed.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »