Blowhard of the Month: David Warren

I recently had the misfortune to stumble on a really revolting corner of the web, the not-so-modestly-named DavidWarrenOnline. Warren appears to be a journalist, and for the Ottawa Citizen, no less -- a newspaper that, back when Peter Calamai worked there, was sometimes worth reading. Judging from their employment of Mr. Warren, however, the Citizen has sunk into a swamp from which it will not soon recover.

Explore that website and you will find the very worst sort of ignorant bigotry: screeds against gay marriage, the validity of human-caused global warming, and (big surprise) evolution, all served up with a really insufferable helping of religious smugness. And the writing! I was raised by newspaper reporters, who never missed an opportunity to tell me how my writing could be improved. But it appears Mr. Warren received no similar assistance. His columns frequently wander and maunder, heading this way and that, but never actually arriving anywhere. Who in their right mind would give this supercilious dolt a weekly column?

If you, too, want to suffer as much as I did, you can start with four of Mr. Warren's columns about evolution. In his December 29 2004 column about Homo floresiensis, he reveals his doubts that it is a new species of the genus Homo. Informed doubt would be welcome, but Mr. Warren's doubts aren't based on anything more scientific than the fact that he once saw a woman in Calcutta about the same weight "and only slightly taller" than H. floresiensis. He then reveals that he suspects all hominid species are just varieties of Homo sapiens, and quotes one of his readers as saying, "Evolution? Probably a pile of crap. It seems to spring from the same faulty thinking reservoir as Marxism and other failed ideological constructs of the early 20th century." Dee-lightful!

In his next column, Warren says that " 'evolution' is not a science but an ideology a quasi-religion a colossal scientistic put-on; that 'evolutionary science' is a cant expression a pretence unworthy of a scientific researcher." (For some reason, all of Warren's columns before April 23, 2005 are missing commas. Perhaps someone bought him a big box of commas last May.) Not a single example is proffered to support this bizarre claim. He also says that "science cannot even tell you how a species is defined". I guess Warren has never heard of the "biological species concept" -- an idea taught in every introduction to evolutionary biology course. And yes, I am aware that the BSC is not universally applicable, but that is because biology, dealing as it does with billions of interacting complex systems, is not always clean and simple. I bet Mr. Warren cannot give a definition of "newspaper" that is universally applicable, but that doesn't prevent him from writing for one.

Warren also repeats the creationist lie that speciation has not been observed. Even the most cursory of searches would have led him here and here, where enough speciation events are provided to convince any reasonable person. If Mr. Warren is not a creationist, as he claims, why does he behave exactly like one?

In his third column Warren treads the same familiar ground again, claiming that "If [evolution] didn't exist biological inquiry would not be slowed in any way. It might even be accelerated." That is like saying, "If 1 equalled 2, mathematical inquiry wouldn't be slowed; it might even be accelerated." Yes, indeed, if one starts with a counterfactual premise, one can certainly prove anything.

But let's be charitable for a moment, and assume that what Warren really meant to say is that evolution is not germane to biological inquiry. That will certainly be news to those researching AIDS, bird flu, or working on reconstructing evolutionary trees, or trying to understand invasive species, or studying antibiotic resistance.

In Warren's fourth column, he discusses the discovery of Repenomamus giganticus, a carnivorous Cretaceous mammal. Here is Warren is all his self-satisfied ignorance:


As anyone familiar with the existing evolutionary charts will know a powerful warm-blooded mammal has no business being found in the early Cretaceous strata of about 130 million years ago. Especially one with a clearly organized carnivorous set of teeth like R. gigantus -- or like his smaller cousin R. robustus with the trademark slightly-displaced mammalian stomach and a little dino he just ate ripped up inside. Mammals of that epoch are supposed to be tiny mole and shrew-like jobs subsisting on seeds and insects....

It wouldn't necessarily bother the "Darwinists" theoretically if the whole evolutionary sequence were turned upside down: for the "theory" doesn't predict anything. It only explains things after the fact.


Now, PZ Myers has already explained why Warren and the creationists he echoes are talking out of their hats. But some additional points are worth considering:

First, note that Warren gets the name wrong: he calls it Repenomamus gigantus, whereas the correct name as published in Nature, is Repenomamus giganticus. This is pretty good evidence that Warren is getting his account from secondary sources (which frequently got the name wrong), rather than reading the original account. But you know, those smug and busy journalists just don't have the time to check the primary source.

Second, the very first paragraph shows that Warren doesn't have any idea what he was talking about. As the article in Nature clearly states, the largest previously known Cretaceous mammal was the size of an opossum, not a "tiny mole and shrew-like job".

Third, Warren brings up the old falsehood about evoution not making any predictions. Even the most cursory examination will show this is wrong. Consider, for example, Alexander's prediction of what a eusocial mammal would look like. Many other examples are known.

All this ignorance coupled with arrogance means that Warren is my nominee for Blowhard of the Month. (Readers, feel free to nominate additional names deserving of this accolade.) Now, after four columns of this tripe, do you think readers of the Citizen kept quiet? Of course not. According to Warren's own account in the Idler, readers sent in objections in droves. What was Warren's reaction? Did he back down, admitting that perhaps his knowledge of evolution has a few gaps and holes?

Of course not -- blowhards never concede anything. Instead, he crowed that "I took care not to write anything that would be scientifically naïve". Yeah, right. And, of course, he repeated the tired old "Evolution has grown into a rival religion" line.

A couple of weeks ago, Warren reflected for a second time on his experience of critiquing something he knows very little about. He labeled the criticism he received as "hatemail" [sic]. (Blowhards have trouble distinguishing the two.) He then implied that evolution "is a more dangerous enemy than twisted Islam over the longer run." What a public service Mr. Warren offers: Run, quick! Here comes the local evolutionary biologist!

Finally, Mr. Warren leaves us with this thought:


The popularity of "Intelligent Design" is growing because it offers a way for science to get out of the face of religion. This is also why the Darwinoids hate and fear it: because the whole point of their Darwinism is to get in the face, of Christianity in particular. “ID" uses exactly the same fact-sets as all the biological disciplines; it merely leaves God to open minds, rather than consciously trying to “eliminate that hypothesis”. In time it will prevail, for the truth always does.


Arguing with pompous blowhards like Mr. Warren is a waste of time. He can't be convinced of any error, because he already knows the Truth. Facts aren't important.

As an ironic postcript, I recently learned that the Ottawa Citizen was founded by Elkanah Billings, one of the originators of Canadian paleontology. I wonder what Billings would have thought of the Citizen pushing the smug ignorance of Mr. Warren.