Dozing beside my wireless this evening, I was astonished to hear science mentioned on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions?
Of course, in the week when the Large Hadron Collider was successfully switched on and the British Association was holding its annual gathering in Liverpool, there was no scientist on the panel. Perish the thought that such events of moment might merit the public’s exposure to a scientific mind, BBC!
A member of the public asked whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons. This followed on from an intervention at the British Association when a Rev Professor Michael Reiss suggested that creationism should be disscused alongside the evolutionary theory in science lessons.
The panelists’ replies were mostly as informed as one would expect non-scientists’ to be, although lukewarm. I get the impression that the public still does not like the implications of evolution, although they grudgingly (and with what equivocation!) accept its validity.
However, I have to raise a glass of sherry – enthusiastically so – in the direction of panellist Ms. Rachel Johnson, journalist, novelist and sister of the Mayor of London who gave the most rousing and robust defence of the theory. Indeed, she observed that evolution ‘rocks’.
However the questioner, when pressed, doubted evolution. How, he asked could evolution occur when it takes two identical mutations adding a chromosome in a male and a female at the same time and the same place?
There was a small but noisy burst of approbation from the audience. The programme is repeated on Radio 4 on Saturday at 1.05 pm, and is followed by a telephone in, in which – should they be so inclined – scientists may address Rev Prof Reiss’ concerns and explain to the questioner how evolution in ‘higher’ species occurs.
Who will be my Huxley this Saturday?
Listening now, sharpening fangs.
Did my 199 year old ears betray me, or werethe panellists – except the redoubtable Ms Johnson – equivocal?
Sir, might I humbly suggest that someone with your scientific stature and celebrity would be an excellent front man for a campaign to rename the programme under discussion here ‘Any Stupid Questions?’.
I do not know which was more appalling, the question itself,
“the more I look into [evolution], the more I find the thing riddled with flaws; and the fact is, it has not been scientifically proven; and even common sense will show – will make you see that – how could we have evolved – how can one species evolve from another if that needs the addition of an additional chromosome into a cell in order for a new species to come; you’re looking in the higher species for that to happen – that random chance effect to happen geographically close in the same space of time for both a male and a female in order for that species to develop, which is an absurdity”
…the fact that the questioner was confident enough in this sputum as to be willing to say it, out loud, to a room full of people and at least one microphone, or the fact that a number of audience members actually clapped.
I attempted to phone in several times to the ‘Any Answers’ section of the programme, ready to explain about chromosomes vs. mutations, natural selection, and that ‘common sense’ is not now nor has it ever been a good way to seek for explanations of the natural world (which is why we need the scientific method in the first place), but unfortunately the line was always engaged and in the end the producers thought it was more interesting to focus on Gordon Brown (never a good idea).
I’m saddened that your eminent ears had to hear such hard evidence of the steady decline of scientific education in the last century.
Prof Reiss, incidentally and unsurprisingly, was quoted out of context. Why are the media so ghastly? The correct story, including what he actually said, is here.
“Why are the media so ghastly?”
For the same reason as dogs micturate on lamp-posts. It is what they do.
I suppose it was a bit of a rhetorical question, come to think of it.
I should think so too – unless the popular magazine “Nature” is not a branch (or twig, or inflorescence) of the media.