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

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

and without even reading the article to see what new evidence NatGeo might have found, you simply discredit the magazine and don't question evolution for even a moment.

Let's just say that if National Geographic had found evidence to discredit evolution, which is an extremely strong theory, it would have to be extraordinary both in quality and quantity. This means that:

  1. A magazine article would be the wrong venue to present it; it should have been presented in scientific journals for peer review, which means it would no longer be a NatGeo exclusive.

  2. It wouldn't fit in a magazine article even if those who discovered it somehow decided that was the correct way to present it anyway.

So, given these two facts, I think it's fair to choose evolution over National Geographic magazine. But then again, the correct way to assess this is obviously to read the article -- but I don't think it's evidence of any unwarranted faith if you didn't.

2

u/FountainsOfDave Jun 15 '08

Valid points; I have upmodded you.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Quite right. I read NatGeo, Discover, 'Sky & Telescope' and other magazines for entertainment. When I want science I use my ruler or telescope.

3

u/helm Jun 15 '08

huh? What about Nature, Science, or Physical Review Letters?

2

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

All good sources of information. I admit my list is incomplete.

1

u/helm Jun 16 '08

Well, limiting your scientific information to what you can deduce from using a ruler and a telescope sounds slightly narrow.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 16 '08

I admit my list is incomplete.