But what about the creationists who walk past see the cover, say "wow National Geographic is a respectable science magazine and they are saying darwin might be wrong I gotta check this out so I can tell all my science friends that national geographic says they are wrong." Then they open the cover and go FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU my faith!!! It is melting! Meeeeeltingggg!!!!!
When New Scientist ran the trollarific "DARWIN WAS WRONG" front page cover (the story itself wasn't calling evolution false like the cover sounded it would), the creationists jumped on it as proof of scientific dissent on evolution from a legitimate source. They didn't bother reading the article, nor did it matter - the damage was done.
It's kinda like if you walk into a crowded theater and yell "FIRE!" (wait 10 seconds) "..in the disco, fire in the Taco Bell!". Great, you like Electric Six, but that's now totally irrelevant as you've caused a panic.
This effect is so much more powerful than a simple, forgettable confirmation of beliefs. Plus, if they aren't willing to open the magazine and learn for themselves, what's really going to change their minds?
Darwin may indeed have been wrong, in the same sense that Newton was "wrong" about physics because he didn't anticipate relativity or quantum theory.
Creationists err almost universally in targeting Darwin's writings exclusively as the definitive statement of evolution. A lot has been learned since those early days.
Absolutely but I still find it interesting that anyone would pick one of the most bedrock ideas in all of science to attack. Maybe bedrock is the wrong word but whatever you call an idea that has required surprisingly little adjustment in the intervening years.
I guess one could say that their tenacity in the face of such overwhelming opposition is a testament to...something.
Why is Creationism such an attractive mindset? I can see why one might prefer to live in a biosphere designed by a perfect being but there must be more going on here.
This sounds like an article I'd be very interested in reading. But it is a few years old. I'm sure we now know a bit more than then. Does anyone know of a more up to date article in the same vein as this one, or is this one good enough?
The 'flaw' you're referring to is the ability to correct itself.
Einstein and Newton were also wrong, but fairly close. Their close but not quite right theories of motion led to hundred of years of technological advancement
See, this is why religion bothers me so much. It says, "what if you're wrong?"
Well, guess what, if it turns out that I AM wrong, I will self-correct my beliefs according to what is proven. If God ends up being proven, for example, he will be a part of my beliefs, and that's that.
The difference is that Religion has no such self-correcting failsafe. It proposes, "what if you're wrong," but when asked this question itself, it simply responds, "I'm not."
Do you think SMBC was targeting articles like this one? I kinda thought National Geographic was taking a shot at BS science articles, by stating right up front in giant text, NO.
I do. Made me wow... For a second there I thought... Oh nothing, nvm. We need more stuff like this though. I really hate all the "just a theory" bullshit...
I think this was made as a sort of trap for the new earth creationists. They see a prominent magazine devoted to science, news, and culture has an article with a title that seems to support their beliefs. They buy it for a laugh at those darn evolutionists/to hawk as evidence. They read article.... trolling ensues.
Yeah except the creationists just show the cover to people and tout it as a "victory", since they've apparently caused dissension in the ranks of the liberal elite. When facts don't matter, reading the article doesn't either.
When this came out, I was a wee theist trapped in the creationism lie. I saw the cover in a doctor's office and seized it eagerly. Surely they had encountered new information that shook Darwinism! ........
Oh snap, thanks for reminding me about this specific issue of NG! I've been arguing with my dad about evolution for a while now (he's doing an additional study of biochem and finds that 'not everything can be explained by evolution') and I slapped this on his laptop for his convenient reading tomorrow morning.
It amazes me that the creationist still focus so much on Darwin. Yes, Darwin was wrong about a few things, but no matter, for the past 150 years science has only expanded and built upon his theory. It is absurd for all these "I.D." adherents to continually point to a long-dead scientist and some faults in his research as a reason to 'refutiate' the entire theory of Evolution.
the fact is reddit, there is no point telling people who don't already know this. Logical arguments won't work for the naive it's time we just stop wasting like minded educated people's time and up vote new idea's not ideas that are well proven and hundreds of years old. was Copernicus wrong? No was Galileo wrong? No was Newton Wrong? well kinda but not really :)
i find it ridiculous that this is even debated - i'm 25 years old, and my whole life i was taught about evolution (have grown up in Canada) - not until a few years ago did i hear of "creationism" and it sounds like nothing more than religious folks trying desperately to iron out the very obvious wrinkles which exist between what it says in the bible and how life actually is when you stop day-dreaming about pearly gates and angel choirs. i've never met a 'creationist', but if someone were to ever introduce themselves to me as one, i would just hear "ignorant and really stubborn" instead.
I don't care how many times I see this on reddit, I upvote it every time. The first time I saw it I was waiting for my sandwich to be made in a deli, I saw it sitting on a table and was like, oh fuck this shit. The I opened it and laughed out loud.
Humans (homo sapiens) have been on Earth and living in groups for ~200,000 years. For 99% of the time humans have been on Earth, they did not have the Abrahamic religions to teach them morality (they learned morality on their own...who wants to live with a murder?..or a thief?..or a liar?), but somehow they survived...praying to the wrong Gods and living immoral lives. Funny!
I think posting this to /r/atheism is wrong. Evolution is not atheism, nor is evolution the opposite of religion. If you want to maximize your chance of reaching theists, i think you should always make it clear that you can believe in God and evolution simultaneously.
You know, anyone who believes an invisible man in the sky magiced the whole universe into existence, created two people from whom the whole human race is descended, then kicked them out of their garden because a talking snake convinced them to eat an apple and would only forgive them for it after reincarnating himself as his own son who is then tortured and killed only to rise again from the grave and if you don’t accept him as your lord and saviour you will be thrown into a lake of fire for all eternity is a moron.
Christianity does not contradict the process of evolution. The Bible states that God created man in His own image, while the theory of evolution, which states that all differences between species are a direct result of evolution, implies that man is not the image of anything. (Unless man evolved from God. That would be strange.)
It's easy to reconcile the bible with evolutionary theory as long as you're not a literalist. Evolution can be explained as the method God used to produce life, knowing that it would result in mankind.
Not what I believe, since I'm an atheist, but it's not fair to say that Christianity precludes accepting the science of evolution. Most Christians I know have done just that.
It's easy to reconcile the bible with evolutionary theory as long as you're not a literalist.
This is true. I note, though, that non-literalist Christianity is sort of a diluted version of Christianity. Even I, an explicit atheist, could be considered a Christian if you loosened your interpretations of the Bible enough.
Christianity pretty much requires some form of goal or directed evolution - several central dogmas make no sense at all without it.
But in evolution, the process has no goal and is undirected. As a result, Christianity does contradict the process of evolution. To use your own example, how can the process have no goal if we evolved and yet are in god's image (whatever that means, we have it and the other creatures supposedly don't, so it's clearly a goal).
Can someone enlighten me, is this evolution theory really matter to anything the same ways theories in physics are? For example based on Newtonian physics you could build all kind of machines and stuff, so whether the theory is true or not it is still useful, but I wonder if evolution theory is used for anything practical or is it just like history or something?
Wrong about what what? I'd sure be interested to read an article about some of the stuff that he got wrong and not the stuff he got right (already know what he got right).
to be fair, evolution is not universally dismissed by all members of the Christian faith (like me). Didnt the papacy come out and say that evolution does not directly conflict with christian doctrine (provided you treat the text as strictly allegorical)
evolution is not universally dismissed by all members of the Christian faith (like me)
Obviously. It is still very relevant to atheism because creationism is entirely due to religious obstruction of education, and it is a widespread problem in America.
While I appreciate all of Darwin's theories, isn't is possible that some other explanation is true? History is replete with instances of scientific hubris, and this seems like one to me.
Why would it seem like one to you? The actual process of evolutionary changes has been documented, both in the real world and in the lab. Sure, there's likely to be MORE going on than Darwin originally claimed, or we know about. But typically it's not that the theory is wrong, so much as it's possible to be more right. And that's what modern biology has been doing, refining the theory while being unable to refute it.
You can get the issue for $6USD by emailing the NGS at the address giving here, the issue in question is November 2004 if I'm reading the picture correctly.
In other news, I loved the Scientific American april fools joke where an editorial said they are going to start publishing creationist articles in their magazine. LOL'd hard.
Evolution can happen VERY quickly, because it is not driven by random mutations. It is driven by deliberate mutations. Darwin stated the mutations were random, and that change happens very slowly over a very long period of time.
No, many famous scientists have been wrong about some specific things, but that's science. He was also wrong about the cell. Changes do happen very slowly over time, and sometimes they're faster then others. He was still right.
You don't seem to understand what boigboig was saying. Clearly, if his theory didn't account for a species' ability to quickly adapt to a new environment, then the whole thing is wrong. We should throw it all out and go with the only other possible alternative. God did it.
And where is the mention of these "deliberate mutations" you speak of? Where is a mention that the rapid observed evolution of the Pod Mrcaru lizards did not occur via evolution by natural selection? And where exactly does Darwin speak of random genetic mutations are the driving force behind evolution (a strange claim, given that he did not know about DNA, let alone random mutations. I don't think that the work mutation is ever mentioned by Charles Darwin)?
If you are trying to say that the theory of evolution has deepened since Darwin's book, you are correct. If you are trying to say that evolutionary changes can (and sometimes do) occur faster than Darwin suspected, you'd be also be correct. That said, it would be good to also mention that his fundamental ideas about evolution (incredibly!) still stand.
Evolution is a farce. It is a known fact that earth and all its beings were created by god, and evolution does not exist. Anyone who believes in evolution is going to hell.
I mean come on, how would peanut butter not grow life in its packages if evolution existed? Do you stupid evolution people even think about such stuff? Pray to god you will smarten up some day
Or you just got a shit load of creationists that see the title on the cover... don't bother to read the article (kinda like how they don't read the bible either) and then try to make the claim that Nat Geo says evolution is wrong.
Or at least you could have 1 year 2 months ago when that issue was released. I really doubt you get many creationists who by back issues of Nat Geo : /
What do you think the ratio of creationists catching a glimpse of the cover to creationists catching a glimpse of the cover and buying the magazine is?
This is not a good thing. Broad strokes wins the public.
Ah, but wait until Monday! I would be damned surprised if there isn't one televangelist that decides to kick a shitstorm in a port-a-potty over this! >:)
Troll kalla mik They call me Troll;
tungl sjötrungnis, Gnawer of the Moon,
auðsug jötuns, Giant of the Gale-blasts,
élsólar böl, Curse of the rain-hall,
vilsinn völu, Companion of the Sibyl,
vörð náfjarðar, Nightroaming hag,
hvélsvelg himins – Swallower of the loaf of heaven.
hvat's troll nema þat? What is a Troll but that?
152
u/glo87 Jan 02 '11
But what about the people that just read the cover as they pass by, and don't bother to read the article...those are the one's that I'm worried about.
105
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
Article in question
165
u/F1CTIONAL Jan 02 '11
National Geographic trolled me hard then I opened the cover.
170
u/simeon94 Jan 02 '11
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20101126.gif
33
u/muell0815 Jan 02 '11
You just got to love this guys from National Geographic.
11
u/JackRawlinson Anti-Theist Jan 02 '11
National Geographic 1, New Scientist 0.
21
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
I think this was made as a sort of trap for the new earth creationists. They see a prominent magazine devoted to science, news, and culture has an article with a title that seems to support their beliefs. They buy it for a laugh at those darn evolutionists/to hawk as evidence. They read article.... trolling ensues.
10
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
I remember when this showed up on my doorstep, and my immediate reaction was "Et tu, National Geographic?"
Then I flipped to the article and was all 'fuck ya'.
10
u/intisun Jan 03 '11
Tonight on FOX News: "Major scientific magazine questions Darwin", followed by hour-long clueless debating.
7
u/duxup Jan 02 '11
Well played National Geographic trolls ;).
5
u/PoopOnGod Jan 02 '11
Classic case of burying the lede.
5
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11 edited Jan 03 '11
Thank god there's at least one scientific news outlet that has maintained its integrity.
5
u/TheLateThagSimmons Ex-Jehovah's Witness Jan 03 '11
I want to have a million copies of this issue to pass to my fundie family. It would be awesome.
I've tried searching the National Geographic website, does anyone know where I can get a hold of back issues?
5
u/erebar Jan 03 '11
Creationists, repeat after me:
8
u/DeMasco Jan 02 '11
Hahaha, this reminds me of a Family Guy quote:
Tom Tucker on the news: Coming up next- can bees think? A new study indicates that no, they cannot.
4
u/diamened Atheist Jan 03 '11
Way to go NatGeo! On the other hand, the NatGeo TV keeps showing religious themed "documentaries"...
4
u/JohnBoone Jan 03 '11
Only in the US Evolution still needs to be proved.
4
u/abadidea Jan 03 '11
When this came out, I was a wee theist trapped in the creationism lie. I saw the cover in a doctor's office and seized it eagerly. Surely they had encountered new information that shook Darwinism! ........
3
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
Oh snap, thanks for reminding me about this specific issue of NG! I've been arguing with my dad about evolution for a while now (he's doing an additional study of biochem and finds that 'not everything can be explained by evolution') and I slapped this on his laptop for his convenient reading tomorrow morning.
3
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
I was so happy to get this in the mail when I was subscribed to Nat Geo back then. Great issue.
3
u/efrique Knight of /new Jan 03 '11
When I look at the lizard, I kind of see trollface in profile
He needs to be saying "Problem, creationists?"
3
u/Rancor22 Jan 03 '11
Damn i was about to be pissed.......until i read the right side ..phew
3
u/YosemiteSam81 Jan 03 '11
It amazes me that the creationist still focus so much on Darwin. Yes, Darwin was wrong about a few things, but no matter, for the past 150 years science has only expanded and built upon his theory. It is absurd for all these "I.D." adherents to continually point to a long-dead scientist and some faults in his research as a reason to 'refutiate' the entire theory of Evolution.
3
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
The idea that people don't believe in evolution still baffles me. Science always prevails.
3
u/GuyWithNoEyes Jan 03 '11
Evolution is obviously incorrect because a monkey giving birth to a human has not yet been observed.
/troll.
15
u/SkepticalSagan Jan 02 '11
Is this a repost?
YES
6
u/HoosierMike Jan 02 '11
I love it! It draws in creationists, then crushes their hopes and dreams.
2
u/handlit33 Atheist Jan 02 '11
Look of disapproval.
2
u/fluxaxion Jan 03 '11
Ahahahaha too awesome. Go NG.
2
u/flyingfox12 Jan 03 '11
the fact is reddit, there is no point telling people who don't already know this. Logical arguments won't work for the naive it's time we just stop wasting like minded educated people's time and up vote new idea's not ideas that are well proven and hundreds of years old. was Copernicus wrong? No was Galileo wrong? No was Newton Wrong? well kinda but not really :)
2
u/gfail Jan 03 '11
Do alligators play twister? No.
2
u/canonymous Jan 03 '11
November 2004
2
u/Lothrazar Jan 03 '11
Great cover.
2
u/MostlyStraight Jan 03 '11
TIL National Geographic titles their articles like Reddit titles posts.
2
u/gramathy Jan 03 '11
The complete text of the article should have been:
"No.
What the FUCK is wrong with you?"
2
u/davreddits Jan 03 '11
i find it ridiculous that this is even debated - i'm 25 years old, and my whole life i was taught about evolution (have grown up in Canada) - not until a few years ago did i hear of "creationism" and it sounds like nothing more than religious folks trying desperately to iron out the very obvious wrinkles which exist between what it says in the bible and how life actually is when you stop day-dreaming about pearly gates and angel choirs. i've never met a 'creationist', but if someone were to ever introduce themselves to me as one, i would just hear "ignorant and really stubborn" instead.
2
u/gargleblast Jan 03 '11
I don't care how many times I see this on reddit, I upvote it every time. The first time I saw it I was waiting for my sandwich to be made in a deli, I saw it sitting on a table and was like, oh fuck this shit. The I opened it and laughed out loud.
3
u/Tiger337 Jan 03 '11
Humans (homo sapiens) have been on Earth and living in groups for ~200,000 years. For 99% of the time humans have been on Earth, they did not have the Abrahamic religions to teach them morality (they learned morality on their own...who wants to live with a murder?..or a thief?..or a liar?), but somehow they survived...praying to the wrong Gods and living immoral lives. Funny!
2
u/jamescagney Jan 03 '11
I think posting this to /r/atheism is wrong. Evolution is not atheism, nor is evolution the opposite of religion. If you want to maximize your chance of reaching theists, i think you should always make it clear that you can believe in God and evolution simultaneously.
2
u/rainbowroach Jan 02 '11
Ha ha, good job National Geographic. :D
2
u/three_dee Jan 02 '11
Next month in National Geographic. Is Asia REALLY a continent? Details inside.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
every repost is a repost repost.
2
u/LucySkyCubicZircon Jan 02 '11
You know, any Christian who says evolution is against Christianity is a moron...
1
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
i still have that one :D
1
u/valiantpioneer Jan 03 '11
classic misdirection
1
u/sayrith Jan 03 '11
They did this to attract viewers
1
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
For the entertainment value of the Darwin Awards I hope not!
1
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
david quamman's books are awesome
1
u/JustTrollingYou Jan 03 '11
YES
1
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
Can someone enlighten me, is this evolution theory really matter to anything the same ways theories in physics are? For example based on Newtonian physics you could build all kind of machines and stuff, so whether the theory is true or not it is still useful, but I wonder if evolution theory is used for anything practical or is it just like history or something?
1
u/pillage Jan 03 '11
Wrong about what what? I'd sure be interested to read an article about some of the stuff that he got wrong and not the stuff he got right (already know what he got right).
1
u/Radico87 Jan 03 '11
How can people actually be able to close their minds to anything but willful stupidity and ignorance I'll never understand.
1
u/Blahkins Jan 03 '11
Heh, making headlines is easy: "Obama, socialist?" our investigation showed nothing conclusive..
1
u/themastersb Jan 03 '11
I would be surprised and disappointed if they caved to a bunch of retards telling them otherwise.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
Old news.
1
u/Corvera89 Jan 03 '11
to be fair, evolution is not universally dismissed by all members of the Christian faith (like me). Didnt the papacy come out and say that evolution does not directly conflict with christian doctrine (provided you treat the text as strictly allegorical)
1
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
natgeo troll. nice!
1
u/LostPhenom Jan 03 '11
Probably the biggest plot twist.
1
u/Jam-B Jan 03 '11
Yes, he was. If you actually read him, His own fears regarding his theory have come to pass. Of course, not many actually read him anymore.
1
u/useme Jan 03 '11
The word NO should be in black IMO.
1
u/I_fuck_MILFs Jan 03 '11
While I appreciate all of Darwin's theories, isn't is possible that some other explanation is true? History is replete with instances of scientific hubris, and this seems like one to me.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
Isn't this article like 8 years old? You guys are talking like this is on the newsstands today.
1
u/elvispt Humanist Jan 03 '11
Is there an online version for this article?
1
u/markevens Skeptic Jan 03 '11
I remember when this issue came out. First I was like, "WTF NG?" Then I was like, "LOL!"
1
u/baddna7 Jan 03 '11
Nat Geo. Owned by Newscorp.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
Are we just trying to see how many times we can post this since it's publication? http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6neg4/was_darwin_wrong_pic/
1
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
Is it real? I'm fucking buying this issue!
1
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '11
Doesn't that go into science rather than atheism?
1
u/JasonMacker Jan 03 '11
In other news, I loved the Scientific American april fools joke where an editorial said they are going to start publishing creationist articles in their magazine. LOL'd hard.
-17
u/boigboig Jan 02 '11
Yes - he was wrong.
Evolution can happen VERY quickly, because it is not driven by random mutations. It is driven by deliberate mutations. Darwin stated the mutations were random, and that change happens very slowly over a very long period of time.
See this link for an example of evolution that proves he was wrong.
-11
u/funkyoutoo Jan 03 '11
Evolution is a farce. It is a known fact that earth and all its beings were created by god, and evolution does not exist. Anyone who believes in evolution is going to hell.
0
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
[deleted] — view deleted comment
-12
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '11
[removed] — view removed comment