23 May 2009

Scientists Don't Even Believe In Evolution!

Gosh. CNN used be to pretty good. So was TIME magazine. What the fuck happened? Below is a shocking headline from CNN!

Yeah and TIME magazine totally failed with the article below.

Yes, if you read the article is all about how Ida is not our earliest ancestor because in the grand scope of things our ancestry goes far further back. The article is mainly about how scientists didn't need to see Ida to have proof of evolution.

But here's the problem. First of all, this article was on CNN which you click on and sends you to TIME magazine's website. But just think how the average person (who just can't accept evolution) will react to this. They'll look at the headline from TIME and say to themselves, "Oh, so apparently scientists don't believe this thing is real." Like a game of telephone it'll translate to, "Scientists don't even believe in evolution. I guess they have accepted that the book of Genesis is the true account."

Originally the title to the article was "Scientists Roll Their Eyes at Ida" but I guess somebody felt that was inappropriate.

Jesus fucking Christ!


Mandar Malum said...

They really should have worded the Ida headline better. perhaps that was the point though...

Anonymous said...

Ida isn't what I'm rolling my eyes over; it's the media circus that surrounds it. They are reporting on something because it is "controversial" and yet fail to mention what exactly is controversial about it. No mention of the shoddy research; no mention of the insufficient evidence for the author's claims in the press release, etc. THAT is what is upsetting. The fossil is truly spectacular, the research itself done with it thus far, not so much.

Asylum Seeker said...

Heh. Second article reminds me a little of the New Scientist cover a few months ago titled "Darwin was wrong!", which actually was only about the portions of evolutionary theory that were improved upon or corrected over time as more evidence became available than anything undermining the theory itself (which is popularly seen as so connected to Darwin). However, the title itself was clearly design attract attention entirely on the basis of sounding like it was in support of creationism, which raised the ire of many scientists (PZ Myers among them) that it was not only a cheap move but that it would be used by ignorant creationists as "proof" to crowds who did not happen to know the content of the article that the title was a reference to (Heaven forbid, right). And, sure enough, creationists did do just that. They go beyond self-parody sometimes..

Asylum Seeker said...

Yo, you've been "tagged" with a "meme" that compels you to find the best cover of a song, and the worst cover of a song that you can find, and subsequently tag 4 more people to do the same. So, basically it's like a chore that is spread as an internet equivalent of a venereal disease. You're welcome. More details possibly on the relevant post over at my blog.