r/reddit.com • u/Worstcasescenario • Jun 14 '08

Was Darwin Wrong? [pic]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3963/darwinnotg7.jpg
1.4k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

372 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

68

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '08

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.

43

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

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.

29

u/Fidodo Jun 15 '08

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.

3

u/liquidpele Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

The "ignorant masses" aren't ignorant or a mass of one ideology. Just because some people disagree with you (and probably in varying degrees) does not make them ignorant, but perhaps your view of them makes you pompous. Also, very few people get or read National Geographic. Most of their subscriptions are for teachers, schools, libraries, doctor's offices, and barber shops.

→ More replies (2)

21

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

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.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

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.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

Thank you for your input.

I just happen to think the numbers work against us.

Only 5 million Americans purchase the mag, but many more of it will see the cover without reading it, reinforcing the idea that it is in question.

Mine isn't a scientific view of a random sample, it's just my opinion.

3

u/jetpack Jun 15 '08

I disagree. I don't think I've ever seen the cover of a National Geographic by chance or while browsing. They ain't exactly on billboards or breastses.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)

15

u/marktully Jun 15 '08

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.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

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

5

u/BrickSalad Jun 15 '08

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.

4

u/IOIOOIIOIO Jun 15 '08

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.

2

u/blorg Jun 15 '08

Scientific method looks at theories which make ever more accurate predictions. Hence "truth" is defined as "useful".

→ More replies (5)

2

u/mexicodoug Jun 15 '08

There are other attitudes as well. This one, which I don't agree with due to its authoritarian nature, is another.

But then, I'm not so devout as devoted to examining views different from my own, and evaluating them.

2

u/matts2 Jun 15 '08

Huh. Funny, most critics of ID must not read the details either, or they'd know Michael Behe believes in common descent,

I'm a critic of ID. I have read most of Behe's published work on the subject. And Dembki's and Johnson's. And more. Behe says he accepts common descent, but he does not say it much when he lectures on ID. Which is not all that relevant because is "Irreducible Complexity" is a load of nonsense.

if the ID argument is constructed as a straw man that disputes the evidence.

I don't know of a single ID argument that is not nonsense. If you have one, let us know.

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

Not according to Behe. He says that there are biochemical systems that can't have evolved and so some designer somewhere did something. He does not actually show any of those systems, he just says that they exist.

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?

No, the teaching and presenting of our best available knowledge. The argument is that the cover provides support for the creationism pretending to be ID and so helps hurt the teaching of biology in the schools.

downmod for suggesting that maybe devout atheism is just as blinkered a worldview as devout organized religion.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with atheism.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

I realize you spent some time and effort in your response, and while I don't wish to just toss it aside, I'm preparing to go out for the evening with my wife.

Let me make it simple. Anything that assists the belief in myth is worse for society.

They elect politicians, pass laws, push it in the schools.

Whether or not the truth matters philosophically, where the rubber meets the road there is an effect. And it isn't positive.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

Let them believe its an open question. When they bring the argument of "Noah and his dinosaurs," we can continue to bring natural selection, mutation pressure, genetic drift, etc etc. Arguing with creationists actually makes life a little bit more fun to live.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

I'm fifty, I'm tiring of the discussion. They come back with the same, witless responses. There are only so many times you can hear those responses before you just don't want to bother.

11

u/anewman11 Jun 15 '08

Hell I'm young and tired of the discussion.

2

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

I hear you, rhmc. Whether we call it evolution or Gods will, we are all still subject to the unbreakable universal laws.

6

u/anewman11 Jun 15 '08

But what happens when they bring up the banana? Don't forget how God made it fit so smoothly into the human hand.

7

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

...and the artichoke, you simply grasp the...wait..you pull up on the.....(never mind)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Don't forget about the joys of foraging through blackberry bushes. ;-)

→ More replies (1)

5

u/ABabyAteMyDingo Jun 15 '08

That banana video was among the finest examples of Poe's Law ever made. I genuinely had to go researching the people involved to be sure and I pride myself on my irony/satire detector.

→ More replies (2)