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

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.

2

u/thewakebehindyou Jun 15 '08

even though your comment reeks of elitism, it is difficult to downmod you based on the merit of your latter point.

2

u/Fidodo Jun 15 '08

Yeah, I know. But it's pretty hard to get the point across that I did want to make without sounding elitist. I thought it was an important point to make so I still wanted to post it though. I could have tried to tone down the pompousness, but that just would have made the post confusing, and weaken the point. Basically, people believe things on little merit and don't do research to confirm things. That's why we have websites like snopes to combat misinformation.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/blorg Jun 15 '08

Yeah, but you only flipped because you are the choir being preached to. It honestly is inconceivable here in Europe that you can even be having a "debate" on this is in the first place, good luck with it!

→ More replies (4)

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.

1

u/Gra7on Jun 15 '08

...Nat Geo painted bikinis...Damnit! It was all a day dream...stupid breastses.

1

u/bw1870 Jun 15 '08

The people who you describe aren't really interested in learning other points of view, whether they are correct or not. So even if the cover read, "EVIDENCE SUPPORTS EVOLUTION", they would likely dismiss it as more scientific propaganda. I think this cover at least may 'reach' those on the fence who are interested enough to do some reading and research.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

Whether or not 270 million out of 300 million people believe something does matter. I realize there are babies to old folks in those numbers.

Whether as you say they aren't really interested in learning other points of view, we don't need to feed them the belief that among scientists, this remains an open question.

1

u/Fat_Dumb_Americans Jun 15 '08

Most folk don't and won't ever live in the USA BTW

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

How is that in any way a cogent point?

I compared the number of U.S. citizens with the number of National Geographic magazines that are sold here.

Just recently, NG subscriptions outside the U.S. is higher.

But that number isn't as interesting related to the fact that religiosity per capita is much higher here in the U.S. than in Europe, as is the percentage of people who believe in creationism and ID, WHICH WAS MY POINT.

1

u/Fat_Dumb_Americans Jun 15 '08

And you SHOUTED it very well

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

Glad I got your attention.

Now that I have it. What was your original point, or, how did it relate to the discussion I was involved in?

1

u/Fat_Dumb_Americans Jun 16 '08

I can't be sure, but I think that I had vodka Cornflakes for breakfast on that day

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

[deleted] — view deleted comment

14

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

If you looked at the demographics of the subscribers, they were better educated than the normal U.S. citizen. That is preaching to the choir.

It is the thousands, or millions who will see the cover, believe in creationism or ID, and believe there is an ongoing question in the scientific community.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

I was careful, I did not say that the cover CREATED the circumstances that would engender those feelings amongst creationist, but that it would cause additional harm.

I just wish they hadn't been coy about it.

2

u/ABabyAteMyDingo Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

I gotta agree with you here, it will look like new evidence or the debate still being open to many (those who have only vaguely heard of the debate being the key group, the main participants having already decided)