Evolution and the environment, not just gluttony, has led to a global obesity pandemic, with an estimated 1.5 billion people overweight -- more than the number of undernourished people -- an obesity conference was told on Monday.(Anna Venger citing journalists, uncritically)
"The mounting epidemic of obesity in children would see many die before their parents," said Kate Steinbeck..."This is the first generation in history where children may die before their parents," Steinbeck told the conference.
Journalists never seem to question experts or report knowledge as such, apparently they're usually too flabby intellectually to do anything other than repeat what they're told. (Except when it comes to Republicans, then there is usually a comment, contrast, or the ubiquitous "critics say" interwoven in every other bit of text.)
In this instance why not report some relevant facts? Perhaps reporting: "She said that this is the first generation in history where children may die before their parents. Critics note that children often died before their parents throughout history thanks to malnutrition and infant mortality. I also found this one critic who argues that scientists often engage in fearmongering for funding."
Or: "Evolution and the environment, not just gluttony, are now said to be leading to a global pandemic of obesity. Critics expect a new 'War on Obesity' and argue that a state of fear keeps some types of journalists and many scientists that work for the State in business. Some critics note that Darwinian and Malthusian versions of evolution were always said to predict vast famine and starvation, yet now evolution predicts obesity. This has led some critics to question what falsifiable predictions the so-called 'theory of evolution' makes."
You would never read that because journalists never find "some critics" to quote when it comes to a modern bugaboo like evolution, so no matter how contradictory and moronic Darwinian hypothesizing becomes there is almost no criticism of it to be found in the Old Press. Ironically, if there is, then it is combined with plenty of "critics say" or "scientists say" and so on.
Evolution = the Platonic ether
Evolution = phlogiston
And so on. Evolution is the modern form that hypothetical goo has taken. Like all forms of hypothetical goo it "explains" one set of empirical facts as well as their exact opposite equally well, easily overwhelming mental midgets with the illusion of vast explanatory powers. There are always a few scientists (Those who are aquainted with basic logic.) who know that when your hypothesis is capable of explaining all sets of possible facts then there is no way of testing it against the facts and given the history of science explaining all things is most likely an indication that your hypothesizing is pseudo-science.
In colloquial use the vast explanatory powers of "evolution" is an ethereal illusion that has no logical basis in empirical facts, so moderns saying: "Evolution does such and such..." is the equivalent of an ancient Greek saying: "Platonic ether causes this and that." Neither is actually scientia or systematic forms of knowledge encoded in the language of mathematics that is verified or tested against empirical facts, instead people are murmuring some pseudo-scientific terms to pretend that they are not ignorant.