And I saw one that had on the cover this question:

"Was Darwin Wrong?"

At first I was kind of annoyed. I mean, seriously? Creationism propaganda in National Freakin' Geographic?

... Until I opened the magazine out of curiosity to the article mentioned on the front page.

The first thing I saw was the word "NO" written in gigantic letters on the article's first page.

Mind telling me/us which issue c:?

I don't recall, and I don't think he has them anymore...

lolcheapattempttobringinreaders

Well, that was easy.

Yep, no possibility that they could've found an honest flaw in the Evolution theory, the only people who could possibly contradict it are creationists.

(Though in this case it does sound like it was just attention whoring)

I knew it was from this decade c: I had the issue before until it got lost.

That's pretty damn awesome. Good going National Geographic.

Question for current NG readers: Is the magazine still worth getting now? I'm considering subscribing to a few magazines and enjoying them bit by bit rather than getting hammered by the constant updating of the internet...

New Scientist did a cover◊ with the headline "Darwin was Wrong" a couple years back. What it actually meant was "evolutionary theory has moved on since Darwin, here are some new findings". Naturally, scientists were not pleased.

@ Moe.

You know finding a scientific magazine with an article that says: "Gravity finally disproven" would be much less surprising than a sudden article discrediting evolution.

edited 18th Mar '11 2:06:00 AM by Yachar

Hey, we read that article in my biology class.

Darwin was wrong. The current theory of evolution, while very similar to the one Darwin proposed is not the same, and differs quite notably in some areas, namely the driving force of evolution. Darwin placed a lot of importance on direct competition and the survival of the fittest, ie. the strong survive and the weak perish. However, modern view holds that what really determines evolutionary success is the ability to pass those genes forward, which is determined by more thing than just being objectively better. This is why we see plenty of animals that have evolved objectively useless like peacock's long tail feathers. They may not provide any benefit for the animal's survival, and infact may hinder it, but females of the species find them attractive and therefore peacocks with long tail feathers have better chance so pass their genes than their short-tailed brethren.

"Beyond Darwin" would have been a less dumb title then. But I've heard of creationists using both the National Geographic and New Scientist covers as proof that the theory of evolution is under attack, without actually mentioning what was in either article.

It was only a few years ago. I was greatly annoyed at that ratings grab.

WAS DARWIN WRONG?

NO, OF COURSE NOT. THAT WOULD BE STUPID. WHY WOULD WE ASK THAT?

Yeah, Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. That's kind of how science works: the initial theory always has flaws, and has to amended over the years.

Unfortunately, this is such a politicized issue that anyone making enquiries into Darwin's theories is automatically labelled a fundie.

I don't think anyone accused New Scientist of becoming a creationist rag, but that the cover was guaranteed to be used by creationists who hadn't read the article inside to promote that all of evolutionary theory was wrong...

And suddenly the question is not "Was Darwin Wrong?" but rather "Was Michael Crichton Right?"