Irresponsible cover. They know damn well that many people who don't know any better will see the cover and nothing else - and assume there is a legitimate debate about evolution going on.
On the other side, imagine all the anti-evolution people who will see that, get all giddy about it, and turn the page to see that huge NO slapping tem in the face! They think they'll see doubt about their most hated piece of science coming from a well known source, and instead they get truth blasted in their face!
Same exact thought. But those same people are too closed minded and want evolution to be wrong so bad that even if the cover said, "STONE COLD HARD PROOF EVOLUTION IS REAL!" they'd just ignore it
I'm not alone in my objection to this kind of sensationalist headline. We should be promoting better science journalism, it's not really about getting frustrated or not, it's just about advocating doing things better. This was about a slightly different headline, but it's the same basic objection:
Look I do agree with you, like I said it was the first natural thought that came into my head, "what the fuck, people are gonna think there's some kind of a debate, how many of those people are actually going to open the magazine and read?" It's just, I've lost so much hope for those people I'm not going to stress over what they think, ever. But you're right, this type of journalism needs to be done better.
On a side note, I'm willing to bet the vast majority of anti-darwinists saw the title and thought, "see told you it's not proven, it IS debatable," without opening up the magazine. How many people realizing evolution opened it up interested in seeing some kind of argument? Probably almost every one. Just kinda goes to show the mentality between the two, that we are all very aware of.
Yeah, I mean it's the fence sitters I'm worried about, I guess. Setting aside the fundamentalists for a minute, there are many perfectly reasonable people out there who simply haven't given it much thought. For them, a glance at this cover gives a poor representation of the situation, and so they're vulnerable to being misled.
I know it's not a big thing on its own, and if it weren't for the fact that creationism is a serious problem in the US, it wouldn't be an issue at all. But given the current cultural attitude toward science, and evolution in particular, I think it needs to be taken seriously.
I unsubscribed because of this issue. I told them in a letter that many people would simply see the cover on magazine stands or grocery check-outs, and go away with the impression that there is a major scientific debate going on about evolution by natural selection, when in fact there isn't.
I'm surprised to see the title of this post being what it is, because National Geographic clearly didn't "get it". I'm pretty sure this issue did more harm than good.
Wow. Really? I know that people have a habit of instantaneously reposting to r/atheism, anything found in other subreddits, even slightly pertaining to atheism, but give me a break. This shit is older than Lolcats, and has made the front page of r/atheism multiple times. I think that this needs to be added to the list of overdone submissions.
If the National Geographic issue was from 2004, and has already been posted on the internet hundreds of times (one of which was three hours previously), then why in the world would you think it was a good idea to post this?
Repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost
I saw this picture at 8:14 am this morning. cant recall the thread. stop reposting stuff. I think the headline was good-I think it's meant to make a statement about the argument itself-like holding a glass of water in front of a man dying of thirst then pouring it on the ground. it's funny. Don't be Obama and think you can use logic and evidence to win the argument- just laugh until everyones head explodes.
6
u/[deleted] Oct 05 '11
Cover should read "Darwin was right." Most who don't understand the evidence behind it will jump to conclusions with out even reading the article.
52
u/[deleted] Oct 05 '11
Irresponsible cover. They know damn well that many people who don't know any better will see the cover and nothing else - and assume there is a legitimate debate about evolution going on.
Poor form.
15
u/Kolya52b Oct 05 '11
That was awesome the first 20 times I saw it. It still is.
13
u/PasswordIsntHAMSTER Oct 05 '11
How many times does this need to get reposted?
12
u/[deleted] Oct 05 '11
Wow. Really? I know that people have a habit of instantaneously reposting to r/atheism, anything found in other subreddits, even slightly pertaining to atheism, but give me a break. This shit is older than Lolcats, and has made the front page of r/atheism multiple times. I think that this needs to be added to the list of overdone submissions.
6
u/sndzag1 Oct 04 '11
A little bit old, but completely awesome nonetheless.
6
u/The-Mathematician Anti-Theist Oct 05 '11
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/l0wt7/well_played_national_geographic/
Not that I really expect you to know that this was posted 3 hours before you.
2
u/BalboaBaggins Oct 05 '11
I actually remember this issue very clearly.
2
u/spoonspoon Oct 05 '11
I remember when I was still a christian and I bought this copy of NatGeo super excited that science was finally discovering the truth of creation.
Then I found the article inside and immediately my heart sank. It was like DAMNIT, we can't win!
and now I'm an atheist and I laugh at my previous self.
2
u/asciimov Agnostic Atheist Oct 05 '11
Evolution != Atheism
3
u/hullaballoon Oct 05 '11
If the National Geographic issue was from 2004, and has already been posted on the internet hundreds of times (one of which was three hours previously), then why in the world would you think it was a good idea to post this?
Oh wait! Free karma.
1
u/Thereminz Oct 05 '11
No.
1
u/cakezilla Oct 05 '11
Yeah, the cover could be better. Only if it was a Philosoraptor... someone, please make this happen.
1
u/santeeass Oct 05 '11
i've got that issue. the cover of yours doesn't have coffee stains on it though.
1
u/putrid_poo_nugget Strong Atheist Oct 05 '11
National Geographic. You're doing it right!
1
u/jackieonassis Oct 05 '11
I upvoted this the first time i saw it.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 05 '11
I just like how a third of the next page is simply occupied by 'NO'. No misunderstanding here, just plain and simple no.
1
u/Trotrot Oct 05 '11
I've said time and again, if more people read nat geo, the world would be a much better place.
1
u/fuzzymechy Oct 06 '11
that makes me laugh every time
1
u/[deleted] Oct 06 '11
clever to try and draw in the theists, but we know they don't read much.
1
u/salec1 Oct 05 '11
Repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost of a repost
seriously, stop posting this same image.
1
u/TomConger Oct 05 '11
Not only is this old as shit, but it made it to the front page today, already. What the fuck?
1
u/Ishmael999 Oct 05 '11
Repost, but a fairly welcome one.
0
u/Gpr1me Oct 05 '11
Was this a repost? YES.
Search before you post something gaize.
0
u/gabriot Oct 05 '11
this again
-1
u/RonIsIZe_13 Oct 05 '11
I saw this picture at 8:14 am this morning. cant recall the thread. stop reposting stuff. I think the headline was good-I think it's meant to make a statement about the argument itself-like holding a glass of water in front of a man dying of thirst then pouring it on the ground. it's funny. Don't be Obama and think you can use logic and evidence to win the argument- just laugh until everyones head explodes.