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’