Q. I noticed that when the Times reported on the recent discovery of the transitional fossil between fish and amphibians (the "fishapod"), they asked a creationist for comment. As an evolutionary biologist, I was dismayed by this. Creationism is simply a discredited enterprise, and asking a creationist to comment on a new fossil is like asking a faith healer to comment on a medical advance, or an astrologer to comment on a new discovery about human behavior. I respect the newspaper's desire to be objective and give opposing viewpoints, but don't see the need to do that when the "opposing viewpoint" is simply a form of quackery.Excellent analogy. But, Science Editor Laura Chang did an great job defending the choice to print a creationist's response:
— Jerry Coyne, Professor, Department of Ecology & Evolution, The University of Chicago
Generally, I don't believe it's a good thing to suppress ideas that we might strongly disagree with. I would like to think that a false premise is its own worst enemy, and if readers are exposed to the positions and statements of those who champion mainstream science and those with a different agenda, they will make their own intelligent choices.