The Sixth Estate

Maybe it’s just a typo, but it’s a little depressing to see the state broadcaster’s science reporters — people whose salaries I pay — utter statements like the following:

if you went back thousands of years and “replayed the tape of life,” would you end up with humans and the species we know today, or would small differences caused by chance result in completely different plants and animals?

Doebeli was surprised to discover that in his study, all three bacterial populations evolved in almost exactly the same way, suggesting that chance or randomness doesn’t play a big role, at least over a short period of time, such as 1,000 generations, and in laboratory conditions.

I can answer that question, for the good reporter Emily Chung: yes, if we turned the clock back several thousand years and replayed it, there would still be humans. And basically all other species we know today, too. I’m not sure this is actually the pressing question amongst biologists that she claims it is.

It’s worth noting that a thousand generations — what she calls “a short period of time” — is actually several tens of thousands of years, in human terms. That short period of time encapsulates the entirety of the history of civilization, with plenty of room to spare. The entire history of post-Copernican science spans maybe a couple of dozen generations.

It’s also worth noting that if a single anonymous medieval peasant woman had conceived in May of 904 A.D. instead of April, probably none of us would be alive today. Food for thought, for those who say you can’t change the world.

Unlike the Globe & Mail, which claims that science is legitimate but that it has no really significant implications (regarding climate change, for instance), the National Post claims that science isn’t really legitimate at all. They even have an annual Junk Science Week devoted to the promotion of fringe scientific hypotheses, like radiation hormesis and anti-global warming nonsense.

This week, though, they deepened their commitment to superstitious nonsense. They’ve given space to someone from a group called Real Clear Science, which from the looks of the article is anything but clear. Atheists are in the wrong, the article asserts, because you can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist. And therefore it’s very likely he does, and scientists should take that into account. It’s unreasonable for atheists to expect science to cast doubt on the existence of God.

Kind of beside the point, really, and the argument, as usual, is nonsense. It’s true that God’s existence can’t be disproven scientifically. There are lots of things that can’t be conclusively disproven scientifically. That doesn’t mean we should pay them much attention. Science can’t disprove the existence of fairies or unicorns, either. But I think you’d agree with me that we would look somewhat suspiciously at any scientist whose work was predicated on the assumption that such things probably existed, or even that there was a good chance they might exist.

Next thing I know, the Post will be telling me not to be so quick to rule out the existence of Bigfoot, or the Yeti.

Actually, I kid. That’s not the next thing the Post will tell me. That’s the last thing they told me, earlier this week, when they gave a rather undue amount of space to a geneticist who not only claims to have found conclusive genetic proof of Bigfoot’s existence but also says that it’s time to pass a law affirming that Bigfoot be given the full protection of human rights law and the full privileges of Native Americans.

Occasionally anonymous bloggers get criticized by Real Journalists™ who say that a story doesn’t have credibility unless there’s a recognizable name on the byline. I can’t help but notice that the Bigfoot Story was published anonymously, too, by “National Post Staff.” Whoever that is.