Evolution article critique and analysis

¶ … evolution vs. creation. One can imagine how Charles Darwin stirred things up when he developed his theory, considering that the controversy is still so hot today. Recently, Carl Zimmer wrote "A Fin is a Limb is a Wing" for National Geographic, which included an up-to-date look at life's complexity. Biologists are starting to understand how complex structures developed step-by-step from the simplest beginnings. That is, how a gene for a limb in a bat's mole-like predecessor turned a hand into a wing and finally a mammal into the air. Zimmer's article was barely out to readers when Casey Luskin who supports Intelligent Design had written his rebuttal. Intelligent Design believes that nature is too creative to be a natural occurrence, it had to be designed by a more intelligent begin.

It is no wonder that Luskin wrote his comments so quickly. Most of Zimmer's article is a thorough, well-researched and written piece for National Geographic readers -- those individuals who are interested in the sciences and environment, but do not want a highly academic piece with a great deal of jargon and scientific formula. The question, then, is why did Zimmer start out his article with a jab at the Creationists? It could have clearly stood as a well-rounded piece without waving the red flag in front of the bull.

There are several types of articles written for magazines and newspapers -- the news item, the feature article and the editorial to name the major ones. The best journalism is when one does form not fall into the other. News mixed with innuendo cannot be seen as credible -- for who knows what is actually factual and what is assumption? On the other hand, a feature story is a detailed presentation of facts that appears in an interesting form for the purpose of entertaining or informing the average person. Rather than give the opinion of the writer, it weaves together the comments of those who are interviewed. It aims to supplement the bare facts of the news report by giving more detailed information regarding the persons, places, and circumstances that appear in the news column. Once the author's opinion is expressed, then it starts to become an editorial or personal essay. Obviously, the reader can often determine the bias of the publication (and the writer) by who is interviewed and these individuals' comments. However, it is the interviewees' comments, not the writer's that are expressed.

It is not that Zimmer actually writes, "These inane Creationists. What are they thinking?" It is rather that he starts the article off with the debate of evolution vs. creationism and then proceeds on the next 24 pages to show all the reasons that evolution is a working process.

Analyzing the article, there is the introductory two paragraphs that aptly provide the interest and reason for the piece: Readers know now that they will be reading how scientists are learning increasingly more about the complexity of animals. These two paragraphs then lead into three slamming paragraphs against Creationism. Then, the article goes right back to the central theme until very near to the end when Zimmer states, "Doubters of evolution are fond of pointing out that the flagellum, as this tail is called, needs every one of its parts to function. They argue that it could not have evolved bit by bit; it must have been created in its present form." Then, the facts continue until the conclusion of the article, which give a few leftover tastes of the controversy.

Everyone knows what side Zimmer is on in the evolution vs. Creationism debate. So, it is a no brainer that he would see the latest scientific finds on complexity as supporting evolution rather than Intelligent Design. Thus, just an article strictly on the newest thoughts regarding complex design by Zimmer would be seen as support of his beliefs.

Why, then, the added zing against Intelligent Design? Is because the continued dispute between the scientists and Creationists has disturbed Zimmer so much that he had to add these comments? Or, was it a National Geographic editor who read Zimmer's piece and said, "Let's make this article juicier by setting the Intelligent Design people against the scientists."

No one will ever know for sure if either of these scenarios or another one is the truth. However, it does seem odd that the three paragraphs noted above after the introduction can easily be removed without any changes needed to the flow of the article. The first two paragraph introduction moves very smoothly into "Some have emerged..." There is nothing lost by removing these middle three paragraphs than some heat.

How much more credible the article is without these added paragraphs. Now, the article is not on who is right or wrong, but rather how much is being learned through the study of these complex marvels. The story is not whether one animal evolved into another and into another or instead that God or some other intelligent being created these creatures. The story is instead on how marvelous and wonderful such creatures are. Who would think that a fly larva could be this complex? Or a wormlike body could have such a gene structure? Just look at the complexity of a feather! However it was evolved or created, it is something to behold!

Putting aside the issue of "he said, she said," Zimmer's science feature article is very interesting and informative. Within a very few number of pages, he provides a wealth of information on what has been taking place in this area of study. He spices up the facts with comments from scientists in the field (a few more quotes would have worked even better) and covers a very detailed and complex (no pun intended) subject matter in an easy-to-understand way. This shows how well he knows his material and his audience.

The photographs add to the article, as well. It is easier to see and understand the complexity about which Zimmer is writing. That is another plus about feature articles in comparison to the usual news article: Editors will find the space to include visuals to add interest.