ADVERTISEMENTS

New Scientist really wants to trash whatever reputation it may have once had.

First it was the "Darwin Was Wrong" cover that did not match the contents of the (over-hyped) story of long known issues about the "tree of life." The author, responding to numerous criticisms, defended the sensationalism all over the blogoshere on the basis of selling magazines. It worked, of course, at least in one corner of Texas, where people trying to gut science education in the state and, by extension, all across America, were quick to exploit it at the state Board of Education hearings. Others have followed suit.

Afterwards, in the way of a small compensation, New Scientist published an article by Amanda Gefter, a book reviews editor at the magazine, on "How to spot a hidden religious agenda" in "so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives."

However, as the Examiner's Dylan Otto Krider is reporting, if you click on the link to Gefter's story, you get this message (as of 1:45 p.m., EDT):

My, my. Numerous legitimate complaints were made about the "Darwin Was Wrong" cover and there was no yanking it off the web, as far as I know. I'm sure that the complaint about Geftner's story must be much more serious. The editors will doubtless let us know the details as soon as they are finished "investigating."

Riiight!
.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.