Naledi stuck between rock and a hard place

WHY do some people have a problem with Homo naledi ... and with evolution?

Evolution seems to get up people’s noses far more than any other type of science.

It is therefore not completely surprising that an array of critics have displayed their displeasure over the recent announcement about the discovery of Homo naledi.

Pundits waving the race card received the most attention for the  uninformed and somewhat bizarre allegation that evolution was a Eurocentric plot to denigrate black people.

Most famously, two high-profile politicians echoed across  the airwaves with their cries of “racism” and “I am not descended from a baboon”.

Their absurd protests might have seemed comical had it not been for the thought that these individuals are influential members of our society.

They have the power to convince others that, somehow, the pursuit of knowledge about our past is racist.

It is even more disturbing to think  their lack of understanding of evolution is a direct consequence of a strategic gap in our education system.

While the theory of evolution is part of the national school syllabus, many schools either gloss over it, or avoid it completely.

This failure is exacerbated by the fact that most high school teachers never learnt about evolution when they were at school because, previously, it was just not included in the curriculum.

In other words, few teachers feel confident enough to teach evolution. They perceive it as being too difficult or controversial, whereas it is neither.

The theory of evolution is not that complicated and a broad overview of the descent of man is well within the grasp of an average Grade  10 pupil.

It is not at all controversial either from a scientific perspective, as the vast body of evidence to support evolution is so overwhelming that no serious scientist would question it.

For these reasons, evolution should be taught at all schools as part of the science curriculum.

Evolution is, however, controversial in some, but not all, religious circles.

Theological misconceptions of evolution could therefore be disseminated wherever religious instruction takes place – whether it be in the madrasa, church or temple.

It is worth pointing out that not all religions have a problem with evolution. For example, the Catholics, from Pope Francis downward, fully accept Darwin’s gift to humanity.

Discounting the furious misunderstandings of the uninformed, and the religious denialists, there are a number of revered scientists who have expressed reservations about the discovery of Homo naledi.

They asked questions about why there had been no attempt to date the find.

Surely one of the most critical details of any palaeontological discovery is to ascertain when the newly uncovered bones were integral to a living creature?

Secondly, the odd mix of ancient australopithecine features together with other parts that look surprisingly modern make some palaeontologists feel slightly queasy.

They no doubt remember the Piltdown Man hoax when their esteemed predecessors accepted a part human, part orangutan skull  as belonging to the human lineage.

There are also some members of the scientific community who feel uncomfortable with the way Professor Lee Berger stage-managed the announcement of Homo naledi. It was too much like a media jamboree, lacking the gravitas of a formal scientific statement.

In addition, they claim it was no coincidence that the new species of Homo was named after Science and Technology Minister Naledi Pandor.

The denialists who reject the notion that the new species might be one of our ancestors, might have perhaps noticed that the name given to the new species is in fact an anagram of the word “denial”.

Steven Lang is a freelance journalist