The Economist’s reviewer seems to have lost the plot:

Secularised versions of religious ideas? This is the cart before the evolutionary horse, surely. Humanity strived to make sense of the world, and made religion to stake its claim on the parts unknown… Simple survival of the fittest makes tolerance and justice simply good ideas. Anything else is just lace frills on the dresses (sorry, robes) of Catholic Cardinals.  

 

Ophelia has the same doubts.

Following on from yesterday’s fine example of woo from a journalist (I use the term somewhat loosely) called Julia Stephenson, someone has discovered that Julia appears to have a web page. If indeed this is Ms. Stephenson, then reading it explains a lot. As someone mentioned over at Bad Science, “The real problem is that genetic mutations that normally would have died out are now being allowed their own newspaper columns.” Somewhat cruel, but it has a smattering of truth.  

Well, that may be what Julia Stephenson thinks she’s doing, according to this article in The Independent. But to Ben Goldacre, over at Bad Science, it looks more like muddying the waters. I have to say that I agree with him. Her article is a wonderful example of woo and complete lack of understanding of natural science.