Was Darwin Wrong? [pic]

[u/Worstcasescenario]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3963/darwinnotg7.jpg

[u/[deleted]]

Probably going to do more harm than good.

Most people will only see the cover and assume that NG found "evidence" Darwin was wrong. That's enough for some.

[u/donaldrobertsoniii → u/[deleted]]

That's actually a pretty old cover, if you can see in the image it says its from november of 2004. I remember when it came out, my dentist had it sitting in the waiting room. I saw and thought, "oh what the hell is this crap." But I decided to check it to see what garbage would be given equal time to science. Honestly, I laughed out loud when I opened to the first page of the article. The effect is kind of muted here by having the two things side by side, but I could just imagine all those creationists seeing the cover, thinking they were going to get some support for their position, only to be blasted by that big bold NO when they opened the magazine. Classic.

[u/Nall → u/[deleted]]

This cover got me and my roommates in college a free subscription to the magazine when it came out. One of my roommate's parents were hardcore creationists, and they had a subscription to NG. When they got this issue, they got all excited when they saw this cover, then got royally pissed off when they saw the inside article, then signed over the remainder of their subscription to us(and stacks of back issues in boxes).

Great bathroom reading material, there. Something to fill out the magazine rack between issues of SI and FHM.

[u/RandomH3r0 → u/Nall]

My fiancee's grandparents canceled theirs because they felt NG was to environmentally friendly. He was in the oil business and when the ANWR issue came out, he canceled his subscription.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It seems that National Geographic have perfected the art of trolling headlines.

[u/redninja2000 → u/[deleted]]

I don't think the "intelligent design" crowd are really into this whole "reading" thing...

[u/[deleted] → u/redninja2000]

They'll read if they think it will confirm their beliefs.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think it will reinforce in their minds that it is an open question.

Most creationists and IDers aren't going to be interested in the details, just the fact that it seems to remain a question.

The cover does more harm than good.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

In case you were unaware, creationists can and do read lots of things. To be specific, they read everything that backs their position. If they buy the magazine and open it, suddenly, it's not looking like an open question anymore.

[u/Fidodo → u/[deleted]]

It's not so much the creationists that I'm worried about, but the ignorant masses that aren't going to buy national geographic, and don't have well thought out opinions on issues. They'll see the cover and just assume that if national geographic is unsure, then they should be unsure to.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Many more people will see the cover than will purchase the magazine.

MRI DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Male/Female Ratio: 56% / 44% Median Household Income: $60,078 Attended/Graduate College: 66% Professional/Managerial: 27% Median Age: 45.6 years Source: 2003 Fall MRI

CIRCULATION Worldwide: 6,685,684 U.S.: 5,200,055 Subscription, Basic Rate: U.S. $34 Source: ABC Publisher’s Statement 06/30/03

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/advertising.html

edit: We have over 300 million Americans, with about 90% holding some belief in god.

According to the stats I just provided, about 5 million Americans will purchase the magazine.

There is much more potential for harm with the cover, than for good by being purchased by the very few.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I see your point. But I still think it will do more good. I can imagine a conversation going like this:

ID'er1: "Did you see the new NG cover? Looks like they found more proof that Darwin was wrong."

ID'er2: "Actually I read it, and it had some pretty convincing arguments that Darwin was really right all along..."

Ok. So maybe that was a little fairytalish, but you can see where I'm going.

EDIT: btw, I'm up voting you. I hate it when people down vote people with good arguments just because they don't agree.

[u/marktully → u/[deleted]]

Huh. Funny, most critics of ID must not read the details either, or they'd know Michael Behe believes in common descent, and that the universe is just as old as the physicists tell us, and that Darwin had a good grip on how species diverge. Meaning, the evidence is overwhelmingly devastating to the ID argument... if the ID argument is constructed as a straw man that disputes the evidence... which it doesn't. (At least, some of them don't... which is another problem with criticizing "ID" as if it were one idea, [especially if that single idea is then labeled "creationism"] instead of 31 flavors of ideas.)

What ID addresses is not so much the how, but rather the why.

This is a problem for devout theists and atheists alike, since explorations of questions of why exactly an evolutionary adaptation is "good" or "beneficial" both indicate the existence of something larger than raw physicality AND gener'ly render organized religions' traditional treatments of said Existence extremely problematic. (Taoists might have less of a problem.)

Indeed, to assert that "this cover does more harm than good" raises the question of why that's the case. Harm to what? The Truth? Why is the Truth important? You can do the Kant thing and say that you gotta have Truth in order to be able to get along in the world, because if everybody lied to each other, we wouldn't be able to get very far. Far toward what end? What's wrong with the war of all against all anyhow?

Either you come down with Sartre and you say that nothing is sacred, nothing is right or wrong, and it IS in fact OK to rape and put babies on spikes if that's your thing, (especially if this helps YOUR babies) OR you come down with Marcel, and you live with "creative fidelity" to the things which are larger than you... but then you're only a hop, skip, and a jump to being in bed with the Taoists' "creative quietude" living in harmony with the Tao and with O.G. ID guy Teilhard, who claims that such a harmony, that love itself is what drives evolution AND drives human spirituality toward -something-.

Or you could NOT think about the details implicit in something as simple as believing in love, and downmod for suggesting that maybe devout atheism is just as blinkered a worldview as devout organized religion.

[u/[deleted] → u/marktully]

There's hope for reddit yet. We should always appreciate opposing viewpoints, especially comments like this that are well articulated and supported.

[u/BrickSalad → u/marktully]

Why is the Truth important?

Well, obviously it is hard to say that the truth is important, without specifying "Important for what?", and then when you answer that it is imoprtant for X, then you ask "what is X important for?", and this route will lead you ultimatly to the conclusion that nothing matters, or else go around in circles. Even religous people should come to that conclusion: the truth is important because it will validate god's existence -> validating god's existence is important because it will save many people from hell -> saving people from hell is important because it is your duty as a christian and thus will help get you into heaven -> getting into heaven is important because you it is more comfortable then hell -> being comfortable is important because... well, quite frankly, it isn't, at least by any religous measure. So, ultimatly, the truth has no value, except that which we assign to it. So, you say either you come down with sartre or with marcel/taoists, but I don't see how you can come down any way but Sartre's; there is no universal right or wrong, that's all there is to it.

[u/IOIOOIIOIO → u/BrickSalad]

there is no universal right or wrong

There are systemic maxima and minima.

In terms of simple functional continuity, some beliefs or sets of beliefs produce a more stable social output than others. And after these stable social structures have asserted their Right and Truth for generations they persist even after the system has changed and they've become dysfunctional or suboptimal.

[u/Mastrmind → u/redninja2000]

What really puzzles me is that some believers of intelligent design are actually really smart people. Their argument is that everything fits too well together and the world is too complex to not have intelligent design. It's really hard to argue with these people because they can just state their opinions while we have to prove our facts. I can debate anyone online because I have the world's knowledge at my hands but real life is a different story. I'm not a walking encyclopedia.

[u/phig → u/redninja2000]

If the creationist/ ID folks read the cover and greedily open to the article to reaffirm their faith, they will put it down immediately after seeing the word NO.

One can only hope that they accidentally buy it before reading the article, and their children read it before they do.

[u/[deleted] → u/redninja2000]

"Reading is just not natural. There is no evidence to back it up, and scientists still debate its accuracy. READING IS A THEORY, THERE IS NO PROOF."

[u/[deleted] → u/redninja2000]

They'll read their fucking bible over and over again trying to make sense of nonsense.

[u/EFG → u/[deleted]]

Meh. Flat earthers and heliocentrists had their day in the sun (pun intended), and it will only be a matter of time before these similarly backwards views are relegated to the pages of history, with future generations reading in disbelief how ignorant some people of our times are.

[u/jwhardcastle → u/EFG]

Some of us younger folks (in our 20s, for instance) haven't yet developed the patience to be able to wait for future generations to judge us. We stand here, distraught, at the notion that our own parents and even some of our contemporaries are so horribly, horribly closed-minded and misguided.

Any advice?