New Scientist Sheds its Last Ounce of Credibility

Many of us were upset last month when New Scientists published some old news about the early tree of life and sensationalized it on their cover [Darwin Was Wrong?]. They claimed that "Darwin Was Wrong" when, in fact, Charles Darwin didn't even know about molecular evolution or the relationships of bacterial species.

The New Scientist editors admitted that the cover was designed to sell magazines and they seemed to be aware of the problem [Explaining the New Scientist Cover].

They even published a critical letter from Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers [Blunt Talk from Four Evolutionists].

New Scientists has now begun an ad campaign to attract new subscribers and guess which cover they choose? Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers are advocating a scientific (Coyne) or personal (PZ) boycott of New Scientist. I'm conflicted about that. In spite of its recent errors, New Scientist is far superior to SEED and Discover as a science magazine. If we really want to punish the worst of the popular science magazines then SEED is a much better target.¹

---

1. The monthly column by PZ Myers in SEED is the exception, not the rule.