Denyse O'Leary, "National Geographic Cheerleads for Darwin, but Drops the Baton" (2005)

National Geographic devoted its November 2004 cover story to a defense of Darwinian evolution, "Was Darwin Wrong?"

… such an obvious misrepresentation of Darwin's own views right up front—in your face!

In principle, this should have been good news. Currently, intense, career-endangering controversies swirl around Darwin's claim that a long, slow series of steps brings us from goo to zoo to you. The claim may be true or false, but if it is to be science rather than a creation story for atheists, it must be defended by evidence. Contrary arguments must be addressed.

Are there contrary arguments? Yes indeed. In By Design or By Chance, I wrote a chapter called "How Modern Evolutionists have Evolved Away from Darwin," describing a number of questions and problems, and provided a chart listing and briefly describing 19 of them. And that was before I got around to discussing the rival intelligent design hypothesis in any detail!

Well, National Geographic has opted to do no such thing. It has provided thirty-three pages of beautiful photos and slick public relations copy that makes little effort to address the issues. Tom Woodward, writing in Christianity Today, dismisses it as more in the genre of high school cheerleading than sober analysis

Copies of National Geographic tend to hang around for years and provide a staple resource for school systems. So I am going to provide some information at the end of each of my upcoming Weblogs that apply corrective information to National Geographic's photos and dramatic proclamations. When finished, I will web the material for convenient reference at www.designorchance.com.

Okay, let's start with the opening statement "From the Editor" (Bill Allen): "Humans are not descended from apes. But then Charles Darwin never claimed we are."

That is false. Australian biologist Stephen E. Jones responds, "What does Allen think the title of Darwin's Descent of Man means? Darwin clearly said that 'we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous [ape] sub-group gave birth to man'":

Jones goes on to quote:

"If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group, then as man agrees with them, not only in all those characters which he possesses in common with the whole Catarhine group, but in other peculiar characters, such as the absence of a tail and of callosities, and in general appearance, we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man." (Darwin C.R., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, p.238);

and also:

"And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarhine or Old World [monkey] stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated. " (Darwin C.R., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, p.239).

Now, it may well be true that we are descended from apes. Science is about determining where the evidence leads. But, faced with such an obvious misrepresentation of Darwin's own views right up front—in your face!—my advice to the reader of National Geographic's defense of Darwinism is: Be very cautious about the large claims that follow. Check back here to see some of them unpacked.

Incidentally, Jones is currently writing a book, Problems of Evolution, http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoEPrsRl.html and invites interested parties to discuss the subjects of the book online with him http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProblemsOfEvolution/.

That, by the way, demonstrates beautifully how the Internet is changing the way these issues are addressed. It used to be, we would just pick up National Geographic, read the article, and go away saying, "Well, I'm uneasy but I guess the experts know best." Today, I can put you in touch—immediately and for free—with an Australian biologist who can demonstrate for you that the ringing opening declaration, for example, is simply not true as written. You can even examine the evidence for yourself from Darwin's writings online.

Is it any wonder that the term "legacy media" has recently been coined to describe outfits like National Geographic? They are a legacy of the good ol' days when you just had to take their word for things. See you in two weeks, and happy Web linking.

(Note: I have now put the Web links in By Design or by Chance? online. You can conveniently check references from that page. Unlike the legacy media, I am not asking you to just take my word for it.)

Denyse O'Leary is an award-winning Canadian science writer/journalist living in Toronto. She can be reached at [email protected].

Read brief excerpts from her newest book By Design or by Chance? The Growing Controversy On the Origins of Life in the Universe (Augsburg Fortress, 2004), www.designorchance.com.

By Design or by Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe > Do we exist by design or by chance? What does modern science really show? Award-winning journalist O'Leary explains in clear and simple terms why increasing numbers of scientists now accept intelligent design.<p>

Used with permission of the author. Copyright © 2005 Christianity.ca.