National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

Discovery Institute News ^ | 11/8/04 | Jonathan Wells

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Ping

[ClearCase_guy]

I saw this issue on a newstand and took a look.

The Question: Was Darwin wrong?

National Geographic's answer: Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not! Of course not!

[escapefromboston]

I have a theory: this discussion is going to get really annoying really fast.

Though I look forward to the use the term "straw man argument" and childish name calling

[Blzbba]

Ping

[Prost1]

"Was Darwin wrong? "

Yes! Yes! and Yes!

If Darwin had met my cousins, he would have come up with Devolution of the Species!

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

*rimshot*

[michaelbfree]

After taking the NG since 1958, I cancelled my subscription about 4 years ago when it became abundantly clear they had been totally hijacked by the Greens

[Shryke]

In before PH got here. Snore.

[Paradox]

This is just one of those subjects about which good Freepers can choose to disagree.

[Migraine]

I found the cover story of that issue of Geographic to be nothing more than an editorial, intended as a salvo in the evolution/creation foment. I agree with the premise of this post: the failure of the mag to acknowledge evolution's evidentiary difficulties, in effect, turned the mag into a rag. After 30 years, no more for me. Too shortsighted and polemical.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Science is a matter of developing explanations of natural phenomena that are consistent with objectively observable evidence.

Religion is a matter of faith.

I see no intersection between the two, which leads me to believe that any conflicts that arise between them are artificial.

I think the real problem is that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution has been perverted from "Freedom of Religion" to "Freedom from Religion."

When attempting to solve a problem, it is essential that you address the correct problem.

[StJacques]

There are two things that must be separated when dealing with Darwin's Theory of Evolution; evolutionary change as the origin of species and natural selection as the engine of evolutionary change. There is almost no serious debate within the scientific community about whether evolutionary change is responsible for the origin of new species. But there is a very serious debate about whether natural selection is the means by which that change is effected.

Though I must confess I read the above article at a much more rapid speed than I should have to give a proper commentary, it seems to me that by raising real problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as the means of evolutionary change it attempts to challenge the Theory of Evolution itself as the origin of species, though it does not say so outright. This is problematic, because any challenge to the Theory of Evolution must present an alternative, which I do not see proposed in the above article.

[Codeflier]

Why does evolution have to be attacked so much? It makes perfect sense that God would set the process of evolution in motion. The creation story of Genesis is a great analogy for evolution.

Evolution is real and can be proven in the laboratory with bacterial species.

The theory of evolution is not inherently anti-God.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

inanimate things somehow come to life ping

[firebrand]

Yet there is a right answer. Both sides can't be right.

[Carling]

If evolution is such a lock, why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?

Not once has that happened. Color variations within the same species has been documented, but genetic alteration to the point of declaring a new species. NEVER.

My personal thoughts on this aside, how can anyone lend credence to calling evolution fact when the theory cannot be proved even in a controlled lab environment?

[bmorrishome]

Ping!!

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

check it out ping

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

A Review of The Design Revolution by William Dembski