Teaching Evolution

A blog devoted to teaching evolution, both in our schools and in our communities.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Was Darwin Wrong Revisited

Loyal readers will remember that I previously recommended David Quammen's article in National Geographic, "Was Darwin Wrong?" Today the article won a National Magazine Award. An award judge wrote,
Much of the American public still fails to accept the truth of the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, National Geographic’s courageous cover story dared readers to shake off their prejudices. Firmly but tactfully, David Quammen marshals genetic data, antibiotic-resistant germs, and the anklebone of a fossil whale to build the case for Charles Darwin’s great insight, concluding that ‘the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.’

Unfortunately, only an exerpt of the article is available online.


At 12:54 PM, Blogger mynym said...

That is humorous. I suppose I am more knowledgable than I thought! When I read that piece of junk science I picked up on its use of fraudulent claims and the like just by scanning through it. From your post here, it seems that others are too blinded by their prejudices to do so.

My post on it at the time:
"I do not have a National Geographic."

More refutation:
"In a continuing attempt to locate some type of scientific evidence that “proves” evolution to be a fact, David Quammen turned to the field of embryology, and in doing so, invoked the long-ago-discarded concept of embryonic recapitulation.
One would assume that a well-known publication like National Geographic would possess the ability to internally review and check such basic tenets, in an effort to present only the truth to its readers. Yet, that same long-discredited material—which even prominent evolutionists admit makes them “ashamed”—is exactly what David Quammen attempted to portray in the November 2004 issue of National Geographic as a “proof” of evolution. The question is: Why is the use of such material—which is known to be fraudulent—allowed to continue?

Evolutionists themselves have been forced to concede that the idea of embryonic recapitulation apparently has become so deeply rooted in evolutionary dogma and textbook production that it simply cannot be “weeded out.” Paul Ehrlich observed: “Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology” (1963, p. 66). Indeed it does! Gould once wrote that embryonic recapitulation is “an evolutionary notion exceeded only by natural selection itself for impact upon popular culture” (2000, 109[2]:44)."
The National Geographic Shoots Itself in the Foot, Again!

Here is an open opportunity for people such as yourself to write a mythological narrative of Naturalism. It is getting difficult to find people who believe in all the mythological narratives of Naturalism.


Post a Comment

<< Home