Sloppy reporting in the NYT

I’ve become an addict of the new Ideas blog at the New York Times — a collection of brief “what we’re reading” posts by Tom Kuntz and other editors of the Week in Review. I’m a big fan. I love the blog.

But one post today was atrocious in its inaccuracy, and jumped on a bandwagon that caused a good man to lose his job.

The post reads:

United Kingdom Come

Religion | News from the land where Darwin appears on the 10-pound note: creationism is making a comeback in Britain, say its believers and critics. Witness the creationism museum in Portsmouth. More significant, the Royal Society — Darwin’s old crowd — now says creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view. [London Times, BBC]

The “controversy” is a fake one. Professor Michael Reiss of the Royal Society had said this:

“Creationism has no scientific basis.

“However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.

“I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a ‘worldview’; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility.”

This is perfectly clear: some children will bring creationist arguments to class, and when they do those views should be challenged. That is to say, creationism should — in that circumstance — be addressed in class. But that is so far from the Times’ claim that Reiss has said “creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view” that it’s tragic.

Because of this tendency of the media to distort (in order to make stories more sensational?) Reiss has had to resign his position. This presumably is distressing for him, but it’s also damaging for our institutions. Roland Jackson of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, said Prof Reiss’s departure was a “real loss.” Reiss’s statements have been 100% in line with the official position of the Royal Society.

Who is going to be brave enough to step into his shoes and continue advocating that policy. With his successor be subject to a similar witchhunt? Or will he or she be forced into a ludicrous pseudo hard-line stance that advocates that creationism should be ignored entirely? If so, this simply makes the situation of creeping creationism worse. Those who believe in evidence-based explanations of the universe simply look weak because they’re afraid even to address false views, and creationism ideas will continue to fester unimpeded because they’re not being challenged in an open way.

I really expect more from the Times. I’ve posted a comment asking them why they distorted Reiss’s views. I’m not confident either that they’ll publish the comment or give an explanation, but I’d really like to know how they managed to screw this story up so badly.

Comments are closed.