National Geographic Shoots Itself in the Foot—Again!

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=5&itemid=2644 ^

[truthfinder9]

“November” does not appear to be a very good month for National Geographic magazine. As we write this, it is November 2004. Five years earlier, in November 1999, the editor of National Geographic, Bill Allen, published an article that proved to be one of the worst debacles in the long and storied history of the magazine. It also proved to be one of the worst fiascos in the long and storied history of evolutionary theory.

[Dataman]

Thanks for the generous QED, I guess.

It's ok. In this debate, flight usually means concession.

[Alacarte]

You all realize that the scientific community, overwhelmingly supports evolution... right? Go search the leading science journals for publications on evolution, see how many there are, then count how many question its validity. Try 'Science' journal, then 'Nature' journal, then the 'National Institiute of Science.' Maybe the majority of people who at the most, have an arts degree, think evolution is a lie. The vast majority of people in the science field know evolution is true.

No matter how many knuckle draggers say evolution is a lie, doesn't change reality.

[Tamar1973]

AIG did a better job of ripping NG a new one, IMHO.

National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin

[BibChr]

Thanks; I appreciate their work. Did Dataman get pinged on that?

Dan

[snarks_when_bored]

I appreciate the ping, but I'm afraid I have trouble with the article you linked to. To take just a single example, I find this passage therein:

Creationists believe, based on the clear teaching of Genesis, that God supernaturally made different “kinds” of plants and animals during the first six literal days of history and that He endowed those creatures with the genetic information to produce enormous varieties within the original kinds but not the ability to change into a different kind.

Only a believer could take such a passage seriously. Since I'm not one, I can't.

But I'll ask a question:  how does the creationist deal with the transmutation of one chemical element into another. Such transmutations are taking place pretty much all of the time around the cosmos (and humans can produce them at will). Presumably, God made the elements, too. How does the creationist account for, say, the cascade of radioactive decay that turns uranium ultimately into lead? Weren't the chemical elements 'kinds' just as clearly marked out as were the living species 'kinds' (perhaps even more so)?

[D Edmund Joaquin]

No matter how many knuckle draggers say evolution is a lie, doesn't change reality.

Um, it appears the knuckle draggers evolved in Darwin's fanciful story from the Simiadae

He said: We have seen that man appears to have diverged from the Catarhine or Old World division of the Simiadae, after these had diverged from the New World division (p. 521, emp. and bracketed items added).

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Even funnier. In this weeks Newsweek,on the inside of the cover, there's a four page ad telling us that a crack in a skull could shake our faith. Apparently someone has concocted a story about Rameses for the Discovery channel and that a skull found somewhere, could be his his firstborn son. I guess, since the skull is cracked, we are thus to conclude that God didn't kill him as the bible says. I did have a perplexed chuckle out of the whole contention.

[betty boop]

Oooooooppppsss! How embarassing for National Geographic...the editors should be hanging their heads in shame.

Great article, truthfinder9.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! That's a hoot. How frantically and pointlessly they try to shake our faith.

[Mr. Lucky]

I let my subscription lapse a couple of years ago too as a result of their downward slide. I still have my grandparents collection from the 30's and 40's. The difference in editorial quality is astounding. (plus the old Pullman and Santa Fe Railroad advertisements are neat)

[RightWingAtheist]

I still say National Geographic remain one of the best magazines out there, no matter what the nattering nabobs say. They seem to have overlooked that the same issue features an article on global terrorism written by neoconservative Walter Lacquer.

[Dataman]

I saw that a couple of weeks ago. A friend brougt a copy of the NG and asked me for a review. I found the AIG article which did a better job than I could have.

Thanks for the ping.

[truthfinder9]

Snarks has a point, AIG doesn't have any credibilty and is one of the reasons why naturalists believe what they do.

As Snarks quoted AIG: "Creationists believe, based on the clear teaching of Genesis, that God supernaturally made different “kinds” of plants and animals during the first six literal days of history and that He endowed those creatures with the genetic information to produce enormous varieties within the original kinds but not the ability to change into a different kind."

Let me edit what AIG really means: "[Young-earth] Creationists believe, based on [a superfical reading] of Genesis, that God supernaturally made different “kinds” of plants and animals during the first six [24 hour] days of history and that He endowed those creatures with the genetic information to produce enormous varieties [more so than even evolution requires].

Young-earthism is an embarssement to Christians and is NOT the literal interpretation of Genesis. See Why YECism is NOT Biblical.

[Tamar1973]

But I'll ask a question: how does the creationist deal with the transmutation of one chemical element into another. Such transmutations are taking place pretty much all of the time around the cosmos (and humans can produce them at will). Presumably, God made the elements, too. How does the creationist account for, say, the cascade of radioactive decay that turns uranium ultimately into lead? Weren't the chemical elements 'kinds' just as clearly marked out as were the living species 'kinds' (perhaps even more so)?

I am sorry I have taken so long to reply. Quite frankly, your mixing of terms nearly made my hair go gray prematurely.

Your attempt to interpret chemical elements as relating to the created "kinds" of Genesis has no basis in Scripture (or even logic for that matter). Christians, even Young Earth Creationists, readily accept radio-active decay. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches "fixity of the elements" anymore than Scriptures supports the "fixity of species". When Young Earth Creationists talk about "kinds" they are more general, like a Family or a Genus in modern classification.

This "strawman" version of Christianity is what sent Darwin down the path of materialism and naturalism. He could readily observe speciation yet he felt that the Bible taught a "fixity of the species" which his own eyes could not accept, hence he threw out his strawman version Christianity and the Bible itself in his pursuit of greater knowledge, not realising that the Bible never taught anything of the sort. Sad really.

[snarks_when_bored]

Thanks for replying.

I was not interpreting the Bible (something I'm obviously not qualified to do). I was wondering what creationists would make of the transition between one chemical element and another via radioactive decay. So you're saying that since the Bible doesn't mention it, there's no problem with it.

Okay. But then why doesn't the Bible mention radioactive decay, and the chemical elements in general? If the Bible is to be our guide to understanding the cosmos, one would think it wouldn't leave out essential information, such as a simple listing of the fundamental constituents out of which everything in the cosmos is made. Is it possible to understand why the periodic table of the elements is not in the Bible?

[Tamar1973]

If the Bible is to be our guide to understanding the cosmos, one would think it wouldn't leave out essential information, such as a simple listing of the fundamental constituents out of which everything in the cosmos is made. Is it possible to understand why the periodic table of the elements is not in the Bible?

Just because YOU consider that ESSENTIAL information, doesn't mean the rest of us do. Besides, if G-d answered ALL of our questions about everything in the Bible, what kind of fun would that be? And even if He did put His own version of the periodic table in the Bible, fallible men would still dispute it and come up with one of their own.

[snarks_when_bored]

If the periodic table of the elements isn't essential information about the cosmos, I'm not sure what is. The table underlies our understanding of what all things are made of. Surely that's important, don't you think? The Bible speaks about the origins of the universe and has lots of detailed accounts of things. But no mention of what everything is made of? It would have fit on one page.

As for disputing the table, there is no dispute about it. It's one of our firmest scientific possessions.

I forgot to add in my previous reply:  I have zero desire to give you any gray hairs!! Please forgive me if I did so! Thanks ...

[Tamar1973]

The table underlies our understanding of what all things are made of....As for disputing the table, there is no dispute about it. It's one of our firmest scientific possessions.

My point was simply this: Even if G-d had spelt out in detail all the complexities of the universe, there are plenty of doubting men (and women) who would find ways to contradict it and to deny the validity of it. Because there are people out there who don't want to have a G-d to answer to, they only want to answer to themselves. They want to be right and want G-d to be wrong.

Fallible humans quibble over what already is in the Bible about our history like:

*why G-d described the differnt categories of animals as "kinds" rather than using the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species classification.

*How can G-d create light before He created the Sun? (Forgetting that G-d can create light independent of the sun)

*the fact of the global flood of Noah's day. The copious findings of fossils all over the earth, particularly of the marine kind, are the greatest evidence of a global flood. ('Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.’)

However, many people would rather explain away G-d than allow G-d supremacy in their lives. Most scientists are no more objective than most journalists in the MSM.

[snarks_when_bored]

I see the general point you're making. But part of the problem is that many Biblical accounts are either too vague to refute or else open to dispute on the basis of more recently discovered evidence and principles.

I wasn't aware of the dispute about whether God could have created light before creating the Sun. That seems a bit silly, since light has many sources (indeed, photons are always boiling up and being re-absorbed throughout space, if we're to believe the findings of quantum physics).

Anyway, thanks for replying. I'm going to lay off now so as to not place further stress on the tint of your tresses.

Best regards from a well-meaning skeptic...

[Ditto]

Yet many still cling to a younger date such as the 4004 B.C. origin date for man that was printed for years in Bibles, which convinced many people it was a fact. Again, this is in spite of well-substantiated dates that conclude mankind is nowhere near being so young, which is why young-earth creationism is often used by skeptics as a reason not to believe in the Bible or Christianity (apparently many of these skeptics assume young-earthism is the Christian viewpoint, or perhaps some want you to assume that).

I agree. The "young earthers" harm Christianity and actually strengthen the people who seek to use science to promote atheism.