New York Times Evolution Cheering Misleads Readers About the Real Issues in the Debate
The New York Times recently ran an article that highlighted microevolution, without ever defining it as such, "Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story." Basically, the article explains how over time humans have adapted to their surroundings, "evolved" into the human species we recognize today, and may still be "adapting".
"Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny. "There is nothing very newsworthy here, since this is not something we didn't already know, nor is it anything that most scientists disagree with.
Chuck Colson's Breakpoint today is right on point on the New York Times crusade to prop up neo-Darwinism and attack Darwinian critics and tear down intelligent design theory.
What this does not mean is that one species ever evolved into another. As Dr. Jay Richards of the Acton Institute explains, "All we're talking about here is the action of natural selection on an already existing population. . . . There's nothing in this story about the emergence of new genes via a mutation merely under selection pressure. . . . At most," says Richards, "it would refer to a tweaking of an already existing gene under selection pressure, which isn't inherently problematic."Read the whole article here.
To sum up, there's nothing here that is new or exciting.