# As Gould was biased about Samuel Morton, so too scientists are biased about evolution? Sigh.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-gould-was-biased-about-samuel-morton-so-too-scientists-are-biased-about-evolution-sigh/587891>\
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\
**Created:** [July 5, 2011, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-gould-was-biased-about-samuel-morton-so-too-scientists-are-biased-about-evolution-sigh/587891 "2011-07-05T12:43:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bpelta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Bpelta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bpelta)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-gould-was-biased-about-samuel-morton-so-too-scientists-are-biased-about-evolution-sigh/587891/1 "2011-07-05T12:43:57Z")

</div>

I just read [this article](http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/05/science-blinded/) by Rabbi Avi Shafran, sometimes-spokesman for Agudath Israel of America and editor at large for Ami Magazine. I [interviewed](http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2010/10/interview-with-rabbi-avi-shafran-about.html) Rabbi Shafran once and he was very nice, so I’m not trying to be mean or anything. But he doesn’t allow online comments to his articles, so I just had to share my frustration with this article’s naive attack on evolution somewhere, mundane and pointless though it may be.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-gould-was-biased-about-samuel-morton-so-too-scientists-are-biased-about-evolution-sigh/587891/2 "2011-07-05T13:00:11Z")

</div>

So far as I can tell, it doesn’t appear to attack evolution so much as attack Gould.

Is the article correct about Gould’s error? I have no idea.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-gould-was-biased-about-samuel-morton-so-too-scientists-are-biased-about-evolution-sigh/587891/3 "2011-07-05T13:11:58Z")

</div>

The article does two things:  
(1) Attack Gould for an error, perhaps caused by bias, in Gould’s attack on Morton.  
(2) Generalise from that to an attack on evolution: the link is in this paragraph:

> [@](#):
>
> Nowhere in science, perhaps, does bias so blind as with regard to evolution.

So, yes, it does contain an attack on evolution, saying that it is impossible for new species to occur.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2011, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-gould-was-biased-about-samuel-morton-so-too-scientists-are-biased-about-evolution-sigh/587891/4 "2011-07-05T13:35:27Z")

</div>

> [@Giles](#):
>
> The article does two things:  
> (1) Attack Gould for an error, perhaps caused by bias, in Gould’s attack on Morton.  
> (2) Generalise from that to an attack on evolution: the link is in this paragraph:
> 
> So, yes, it does contain an attack on evolution, saying that it is impossible for new species to occur.

So it does. That’ll teach me to skim.