A very staunch pro-evolution magazine did the unthinkable for some scientists and special interest alike, it cut down one of most revered concepts in evolution. PZ Meyers who is a professor at a college in Minnesota, I would say is fits a description of a militant atheist wrote not one but two rants in his blog about New Scientist…
“We’re already seeing that cover abused by creationists who see it as a tool — a reputable popular science journal has declared Darwin to be wrong, therefore, once again, science must be in retreat! — and I expect we’re going to have to face the headache of many school board meetings where that cover is flaunted as evidence that students ought to be taught about how weak Darwinism is.”
Make no mistake about it, scientific theories from the past have been updated, or replaced, because of weakness or an obvious error. Since New Scientist is pro-evolution it was just a “mistake” to come to a conclusion that Darwin’s proposal of the tree is not realistic because of the new discoveries found since then. While on the other hand, creationists (and ID proponents) are portrayed as “abusive” for using such a reference. Yea right, PZ it was just a mistake on New Scientist’s part, and totally abusive on the creationists or ID part…Nothing could be further from the truth.
Militant Darwinists generally don’t find any glory with the term “weaknesses” in evolution and it’s public discussion (more like behind close doors or published with a high subscription fee) not even the hint of weakness because they fear it brings not only joy to the opposition of their position on science but could seed doubt in someone’s mind about evolutionary theory.
It’s the only theory in science that supposedly has no weaknesses (just mysteries of the unknown which is believed to be filled in later, another concept of “soft science”) even though we see theories explaining other theories in evolution.
Generally what image they tried so very hard to portray about evolution is for how they want the public to conceptualize what they consider a scientific theory. As far as fundamental evolutionists, Darwin’s proposals can only be added into, not dissolved. So no matter what sort of problems they have trying to chart life in a form of a tree, or how long it’s been, it cannot be eliminated. I call this nothing more than a massive complex metaphysical research program.
I find it interesting the content of the New Scientist article, “Uprooting Darwin’s Tree” wasn’t even discussed in PZ Meyers blog, rather he was so concerned about commenting on just the cover…In a rebuttal, he mocks the following…
“The cover is going to cause us some headaches, but just be prepared with that bit of text — I think even just the paragraph I’ve highlighted will be sufficient — and when a creationists sticks those 3 words in your face, just ask them to stretch their reading abilities a little bit further and read those 72 words.”
The implication directed at creationists is somehow going to start claiming many secular scientists are abandoning evolution now as a whole, because of the article in New Scientist not one aspect of the hypothes is known as Darwin’s Tree of Life.
Come on, PZ Meyers. Are you serious? Since the article has been published, I haven’t seen not even one mainstream creationist make such a statement which was directed at evolutionary biologists giving up on evolution because the tree was cut down!