![\"\"](\"https:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/pharyngula\/upload\/2009\/01\/ns_cover.jpeg\")
<\/a> Having had a chance to reflect somewhat on the (obviously sensationalist) headline from the cover of a recent issue of New Scientist<\/a><\/em>, I think that it does more good than harm. Let me explain why.<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
First, this cover helpfully (if potentially misleadingly<\/a>) illustrates that Darwin\u2019s theory is not being shielded from criticism by an atheistic scientific conspiracy. One can criticize the details of the theory. All one has to do is provide evidence via scientific research.<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
This leads nicely to the second helpful point about this issue. What Darwin was \u201cwrong\u201d about was the tree of life, which does for the most part accurately reflect the evolutionary paths of large organisms, which was what Darwin was interested in. But it turns out that single-celled organisms (the majority of living things both historically and at present) are related more like a tangled thicket<\/a>, with viruses copying genetic material horizontally between organisms. ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/data\/images\/ns\/cms\/mg20126921.600\/mg20126921.600-1_300.jpg\")
<\/a>And so Darwin wasn\u2019t wrong about evolution in general<\/a>, but about the general applicability of one particular diagram (which he labelled in his notebook with the humble words \u201cI think\u201d) to an area (genetics) that was not yet known in Darwin\u2019s time, and which on the whole fit well with his theory and its predictions.<\/div>\n
<\/a>And so Darwin wasn\u2019t wrong about evolution in general<\/a>, but about the general applicability of one particular diagram (which he labelled in his notebook with the humble words \u201cI think\u201d) to an area (genetics) that was not yet known in Darwin\u2019s time, and which on the whole fit well with his theory and its predictions.<\/div>\n<\/p>\n