NATURE|Vol 444|7 December 2006 CORRESPONDENCE

A timely wake-up call as lived together. Even creationists no longer such as Catholic lecturers in the philosophy claim that these supposed ‘human prints’ are of nature. The publication of unsubstantiated anti-evolutionists publicize genuine (see Nature 323, 390; 1986). Zillmer’s claims and incorrect statements in renowned their views books state that biologists, geologists and the scientific journals gives undeserved support editors of most scientific journals are either to the creationist movement. SIR — Your Special Report “Anti- misled or fools. Joanna Rutkowska evolutionists raise their profile in Europe” Finally, Guy Berthault told the audience Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian (Nature 444, 406–407; 2006) mentions a about his research on the rates of sediment University, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland seminar held in Brussels at the European depositions, which “did not form slowly Parliament on 11 October 2006, as part of over millions of years”, but “have been laid a new strategy by supporters of intelligent down within very short time periods”. Hence, design (ID) to disseminate anti-evolutionism according to Berthault, most geological data Claim of bias against critics among the general public of Europe. Two on the age of fossils must be wrong. Giertych’s is refuted by publication days later, the Catholic Kolbe Center for the controversial letter is a brief summary of Study of Creation and the creationist group these anti-evolution, pro-ID-lectures. SIR — Maciej Giertych states in Truth in Science published summaries on the U. Kutschera Correspondence (Nature 444, 265; 2006): “I Internet. A moderator of the seminar, Maciej Institute of Biology, University of Kassel, believe that, as a result of media bias, there Giertych, then published a Correspondence Heinrich-Plett-Strasse 40, seems to be total ignorance of new scientific (“Creationism, evolution: nothing has been D-34109 Kassel, Germany evidence against the theory of evolution.” proved” Nature 444, 265; 2006) claiming However, he does not refer to one publication that his arguments are entirely scientific and in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to support denying any religious component to them. I the existence of any such “new scientific believe, therefore, that it was a good decision Creationist views have no evidence”; nor has he himself published any. by Nature to publish this Correspondence, as basis in science Until any such publication, the existence of a wake-up call to scientists. scientific evidence against evolution remains The anti-evolution seminar was a series SIR — Maciej Giertych signed his unsubstantiated. Further, where is the bias of of three public lectures, introduced and Correspondence letter (Nature 444, 265; which Giertych speaks? The very fact that his moderated by Giertych, who is the retired 2006) as an employee of the Institute of letter was published shows that Nature has no head of the genetics department of the Polish Dendrology, the Polish Academy of Sciences. bias against critics of evolution. Academy of Sciences and an honorary As the director of the institute, I would like to Gerdien de Jong*, Gert Korthof† member of the Daylight Origins Society, a point out that, although I respect Professor *Evolutionary Population Biology, Utrecht University, Catholic creationist organization based in Giertych’s rights to express his views, they are Padualaan 8, NL-3584 CH Utrecht, the Netherlands Britain. The seminar was co-organized by not endorsed by our institute. In my opinion, †Bilthoven, the Netherlands Dominique Tassot, director of the Centre creationism has no basis in science and d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science, an should not be regarded as scientific. association of 700 Catholic intellectuals who Gabriela Lorenc-Plucin´ska do not accept macroevolution because it is in Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Pseudoscience should not conflict with their interpretation of the Bible Sciences, Kórnik, Poland be published in Nature (see Nature 439, 534; 2006). At the meeting, Giertych pointed out that SIR — Although we acknowledge the need macroevolution (the gradual appearance of to allow publication of diverse opinions novel body plans as documented in the fossil Creationists weaken in the name of free speech, Nature has record) is a “falsified hypothesis” and that society’s trust in scientists a responsibility, as a leading and widely there is, from genetics research, no evidence read science journal, to uphold scientific but “only disproof ” for Darwin’s principle SIR — As a scientist I was surprised, and as a standards and values. Unfortunately, in of common descent of all life on Earth. Polish scientist I felt ashamed, to read Maciej Maciej Giertych’s Correspondence letter These claims were supplemented by Joseph Giertych’s view published in Nature (Nature (“Creationism, evolution: nothing has been Mastropaolo, a US aerospace physiologist, 444, 265; 2006). I would like to assure you proved” Nature 444, 265; 2006), Nature who argued that the theory of evolution, that biologists in Poland do follow current fell short in this duty, allowing creationist after more than 150 years, “still lacked any scientific findings and would strongly disagree pseudoscientific arguments to be presented empirical proof ”. with several statements made in that letter. as fact, without any supporting evidence. The German civil engineer Hans- There is no accepted scientific evidence The arguments used by Giertych are Joachim Zillmer told the audience that the for his most ridiculous claims: exclusively widely used by creationists, and, in their fossil record does not provide evidence harmful mutations, reduction of genetic pseudoscientific tradition, evidence that for gradual macroevolution. Zillmer was information or the coexistence of dinosaurs discredits them is constantly ignored. For announced as an expert in palaeontology and humans. The only statements I would example, his suggestion that dinosaurs and evolution, but he has not, according to agree with are that scientists have to search coexisted with humans, presumably based the Web of Science, published any paper for explanations of what they see in the world on supposed human footprints found in the peer-reviewed literature. He is the around them, and that they should be critical alongside those of dinosaurs in the Glen author of popular books with titles such as about both new and well established findings. Rose Formation of Texas (as expounded by Darwin’s Mistake (Adventures Unlimited Polish politicians’ recent denial of the Henry M. Morris in Scientific Creationism Press, 2003) or Die Evolutionslüge (The theory of evolution is very dangerous, not CLP Publishers, 1974) has been refuted: Evolution Lie Langen Müller, 2005). In only because it goes against the scientific the ‘human’ footprints are now recognized Darwin’s Mistake, Zillmer asserts that he paradigm, but also because it weakens as dinosaurian (R. Hastings J. Geol. Educ. has found human and dinosaur footprints society’s trust in scientists and in research. 35, 4–15; 1987). A comprehensive source in fossil-bearing sediments in a riverbed in Our protests have gained support even from that scientifically discredits such ‘evidence’ Texas and concludes that these organisms Polish academics with religious connections, can be found at http://scienceblogs.com/

679 ©2006 Nature PublishingGroup CORRESPONDENCE NATURE|Vol 444|7 December 2006 pharyngula/2006/11/nature_publishes_a_ Walking with dinosaurs? (The Encyclopedia of ‘missing pages’ volumes crank_lette.php#more. 4 and 6, PWE, 2000, 2001). These articles, We worry that Giertych’s Correspondence Not in the real world “Darwin, Charles Robert”, “Darwinism”, will lend credibility to pseudoscientific SIR — It is to be hoped that Maciej Giertych’s “Evolution”, and “Evolutionism”, provide a efforts to undermine evolutionary theory. Its comments in Correspondence (Nature more extensive version of the arguments publication is damaging to Nature’s reput ation 444, 265; 2006) will generate a flood of presented in his Correspondence, and and to science itself. We as scientists may be refutations. Staying within my archaeological explicitly refer to religion and ID views. able to see whether a claim is scientifically profession, Giertych’s claims that there are Reasonable criticism is as fundamental thorough, but many other people cannot. We data suggesting that “dinosaurs coexisted to science as natural selection is to adaptive urge the editors to insist on the same scientific with humans” or that there was a “major evolution. But what Giertych calls “new rigour in Correspondence as in any other worldwide catastrophe in historical times” scientific evidence against the theory of section of Nature. are simply false. These are claims regularly evolution” could not be published in any Uwe Balthasar, Susannah Maidment made by religious fundamentalists in support serious peer-reviewed journal. In fact, Department of Earth Sciences, University of of creationism, exposing Giertych’s assertion publishing scientific papers is not a significant Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge that his objections are scientific. goal for creationists in Poland or anywhere CB2 3EQ, UK In support of these claims, some else — on the contrary, the goal is to replace creationists promote known frauds such evolution with some pseudoscience in as the Paluxy River ‘human footprints’ and school curricula, as reported in the News the ‘dinosaur figurines’ from Acambaro, story “Polish scientists fight creationism” There is no new evidence Mexico, which they misrepresent as modelled (Nature 443, 890–891; 2006). The creationists’ that undermines evolution from living observations. There are many movement is dangerous to the general public creationist interpretations of prehistoric rock on political, not scientific, grounds. SIR — We are astonished that Nature would art that owe more to Hermann Rorschach Jerzy Banbura publish a Correspondence as full of errors than to Richard Owen. Department of Experimental Zoology and as that by Maciej Giertych (Nature 444, 265; Creationists also distort actual science. Evolutionary Biology, University of Lodz, Banacha 2006). For someone with degrees from the Mary H. Schweitzer’s research on dinosaur 12/16, 90-237 Lodz, Poland universities of Oxford and Toronto, Giertych tissue preservation has been used for years as displays a breathtaking ignorance. ‘proof ’ that Earth is a few thousand years old, There is no “new scientific evidence as I document in “Dino-blood and the Young against the theory of evolution” as he asserts, Earth” and “Dino Blood Redux” (see www. How the word ‘hominid’ but fails to document. This can be verified talkorigins.org). Giertych’s Correspondence evolved to include hominin by consulting any of the recent standard shows us the irrational basis of creationism textbooks on the subject. The claim that in the twenty-first century and warns the SIR — Human evolution has long been “microevolution…is a step towards a international scientific community that a subject that can claim a love of tongue- reduction of genetic information” is nonsense. this delusion is not restricted to American twisting terminology, which if not properly On the contrary, there is ample evidence for hillbillies. explained can lead to much confusion. The the frequent use of duplications of genes in Gary S. Hurd latest example is the reassessment of the evolution, many of which have acquired new 33902 Silver Lantern, Dana Point, linnaean description of the relationship functions. By any criterion, this represents an California 92629, USA between Homo sapiens and the other great increase in the amount of genetic information. apes. To better describe the close evolutionary Contrary to Giertych’s statements, relationship between them, a new sub-family the temporal ordering of rock layers by level has been created. The family group stratigraphy, and the extinction of dinosaurs Creationists pose political, ‘hominid’ now contains all of the African some 65 million years before the existence not scientific, threat apes, not just the species of the human of humans, are overwhelmingly established lineage; and the newly created sub-family facts of geology and palaeontology. His claim SIR — I was disappointed to see Maciej name ‘hominin’ (with associated sub-families that “No positive mutations have ever been Giertych’s letter “Creationism, evolution: for Pan and Gorilla) contains all the species demonstrated” is simply false. Disregarding nothing has been proved” (Nature 444, 265; of the human evolutionary lineage. The the fact that it is illogical to rule out resistance 2006) published without any disclaimer term hominin is now used where hominid to antibiotics and herbicides as examples of or comment by the editors. Even though was previously, causing much confusion, adaptations, as was done by Giertych, there I am aware that Nature asked Giertych especially among students and nonspecialists. are literally thousands of cases in which to comment on the News story “Polish Publications have a key role in ensuring natural selection has been demonstrated in scientists fight creationism” (Nature 443, that this change and the reasons for it wild populations of animals and plants. 890–891; 2006), I can find no justification for are as clear as possible. Yet journals, Further, the contemporary literature on publishing pseudoscientific arguments in this including Nature, continue to publish molecular evolution is filled with studies that first-rate scientific magazine. papers and features that use the terms provide evidence for a positive role of natural The level of scientific illiteracy in those hominin and hominid interchangeably. selection. Physicists do not spend their time arguments is self-evident and, as such, does If all in our discipline could agree to the debating the correctness of the atomic theory not need any further discussion. What needs new terminology, journals could ensure of matter; it is intolerable that biologists some comment is Giertych’s claim about that it is used correctly, bringing a small should constantly be forced to defend their the scientific inspiration for his criticism amount of clarity to a subject that so often unifying theory against ill-informed attacks. of evolutionary science. Contemporary presents problems of interpretation for the Brian Charlesworth and 34 others (names creationists espousing ‘intelligent design’ nonspecialist but fascinated public audience. available on request from B.C.) (ID) are careful to avoid mentioning religion Simon Underdown Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of — as was Giertych in his recent public Department of Anthropology and Geography, Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, statements. Yet Polish readers can refer to his Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK four articles in Encyklopedia “Białych Plam” Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK

680 ©2006 Nature PublishingGroup