" . . . sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism."
Smithsonian critiques National Geographic Society's claims about
dinosaur to bird evolution in an open letter
Disclaimer: CMI is publishing this article for your information only. Creation Ministries
International is not affiliated with and does not necessarily endorse the
views of any individual or organization mentioned in this letter.
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560
1 November 1999
OPEN LETTER TO:
Dr. Peter Raven, Secretary
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Committee for Research and Exploration
National Geographic Society
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Peter,
I thought that I should address to you the concerns expressed below because your
committee is at least partly involved and because you are certainly now the most
prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society.
With the publication of “Feathers for T. rex?” by Christopher
P. Sloan in its November issue, National Geographic has reached an all-time
low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. But at
the same time the magazine may now claim to have taken its place in formal taxonomic
literature.
Although it is possible that Mr. Czerkas “will later name” the specimen
identified on page 100 as Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, there is no longer
any need for him to do so.
Because this Latinized binomial has apparently not been published previously and
has now appeared with a full-spread photograph of the specimen “accompanied
by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported
to differentiate the taxon,” the name Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan
is now available for purposes of zoological nomenclature as of its appearance in
National Geographic (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Article
13a, i). This is the worst nightmare of many zoologists---that their chance to name
a new organism will be inadvertently scooped by some witless journalist. Clearly,
National Geographic is not receiving competent consultation in certain
scientific matters.
Sloan's article explicitly states that the specimen in question is known to have
been illegally exported and that "the Czerkases now plan to return it to China."
In Washington, in June of 1996, more than forty participants at the 4th International
Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, held at the Smithsonian
Institution, were signatories to a letter to the Director of the Chinese Academy
of Sciences that deplored the illegal trade in fossils from China and encouraged
the Chinese government to take further action to curb this exploitation.
There were a few fossil dealers at that meeting and they certainly got the message.
Thus, at least since mid-1996 it can hardly have been a secret to anyone in the
scientific community or the commercial fossil business that fossils from Liaoning
offered for sale outside of China are contraband.
Most, if not all, major natural history museums in the United States have policies
in effect that prohibit their staff from accepting any specimens that were not legally
collected and exported from the country of origin. The National Geographic Society
has not only supported research on such material, but has sensationalized, and is
now exhibiting, an admittedly illicit specimen that would have been morally, administratively,
and perhaps legally, off-limits to researchers in reputable scientific institutions.
Prior to the publication of the article “Dinosaurs Take Wing” in the
July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan's
article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs
of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that
time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints
existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually
became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything
other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
Sloan's article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large
part of unverifiable or undocumented information that “makes” the news
rather than reporting it. His bald statement that “we can now say that birds
are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals” is not
even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists,
so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic
assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative
morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.
More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan's article
that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying
that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact.
The statement on page 103 that “hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers”
is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct,
so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.
The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National
Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong
evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the
undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs
are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside
of science fiction.
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively
promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors
at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken
and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now
fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological
equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia,
it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain
that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic
will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes
the whole sorry episode.
Sincerely,
Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
Ph. 202-357-33212
FAX 1-202-633-8084
email:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Related article
| They say the Bible has been proven wrong by science. Whoever said that hasn’t been to creation.com. Please give so we can give … information that leads people to Christ our Savior.  | | |
|
