A special edition of National Geographic, National Geographic Science of the Supernatural (September 27, 2019) elicited this reaction from Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne:
We’ve all observed National Geographic magazine going down the tubes and going soft on religion (e.g., investigating and affirming the historicity of scripture), and on woo. Apparently this issue, highlighted by fellow skeptic Phil Ferguson on his Facebook page, is about trying to validate woo, or at least about implying that there might be something to it. (Until recently National Geographic was owned by Fox, but as of this year it’s a Walt Disney property.)
Yes, it is sad, and I wasn’t pleased by the prospect of trying to find out what was between the covers (it’s not easy to find that!). I did notice the subtitle, which hearkens to the woo-ey X-Files. But I was saved from having to read this tripe by Hayley Stevens, who wrote an analysis and critique of the issue’s contents on her website, Hayley is a Ghost (click on screenshot below). Stevens researches claims of the paranormal, trying to find out what’s behind them (she says she isn’t committed to debunking these claims, but to understanding them).
Jerry Coyne, “Once more, National Geographic goes for the woo” at Why Evolution Is True
So he hasn’t read it.
He says that National Geographic has “lost half its subscription base” in the last few decades, a claim we were not immediately able to source. However, it’s not clear how that loss, if true, relates to the woo issue—unless the mag is simply trying new formulas to see what works for the new boss, Disney. Some people are angry with NG over errors and inaccuracies on contentious issues (in the linked case, the oil sands).
But in general, National Geographic dances to Jerry Coyne’s tune where evolution is concerned and the decline, if real, has continued during that same period. The only thing we really know is that the internet has drop kicked almost all magazines.
More generally, while we certainly don’t have much use for sprites and frites around here, one significant change over the last few years has been a general recognition that the atheistic naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” that Coyne espouses, which underlies the Darwinism he professes, has some serious problems accounting for what we know about the universe.
See, for example,
Why some scientists believe the universe is conscious
and
Why materialism fails as a science-based philosophy. There is no doubt that consciousness is a fundamental property of animal and human existence. As philosopher Philip Goff notes, a philosophy that cannot plausibly account for it cannot be correct.
The problem is, when people can’t discuss this stuff straightforwardly due to the din created by people like Jerry Coyne, it has a way of reappearing as nonsense. Ironically, he had a hand in creating the stuff he can’t bear to read.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
So he hasn’t read it, but doesn’t like it. This says more about Coyne than about the National Geographic. The NG, like so many other “sciency” magazines has hitched itself to the Climate Crisis and the Darwinist faith, both of which are becoming less credible to a growing segment of the population. That may partly explain any drop in readership.
“He who marries the spirit of the age is soon a widower.” Dean Inge.
Only those who don’t know much about science believe science claims to know everything there is to know about the universe. Besides, don’t Christians believe that everything that is worth knowing is to be found in the Bible? That’s why no Christian children die of deadly diseases, because their devout parents pray to God and He cures them every time, as in the case of the 11 year-old girl who suffered from diabetes I’ve mentioned elsewhere. Oh no, she died. Obviously, her parents were not devout enough.
Seversky once again attacked Christianity for a father praying for his daughter and allowing her to die instead of seeking medical treatment for her. What Seversky will NEVER tell you are the millions of lives that have been saved by medicines that were developed by devout Christians:
Nor will Seversky ever mention documented miracles
Sev,
>”Besides, don’t Christians believe that everything that is worth knowing is to be found in the Bible?”
Not sure I’ve heard it put that way before. (Maybe by fundamentalists?) The most important things are there, but as a finite book, it cannot contain all possible knowledge. And I’d like to know as many true things as possible.
Seversky at 2: ”Besides, don’t Christians believe that everything that is worth knowing is to be found in the Bible?”
No, actually. Christians believe that the message by which one might attain eternal salvation is to be found in the Bible. That is not identical with “everything that is worth knowing.” The best available treatment for an illness like diabetes is very much worth knowing. But all who benefit from such knowledge are still mortal and their deaths are merely postponed. The Bible speaks of eternity, of that which cannot just die.
Also, Seversky at 2: You write, “That’s why no Christian children die of deadly diseases, because their devout parents pray to God and He cures them every time, as in the case of the 11 year-old girl who suffered from diabetes I’ve mentioned elsewhere. Oh no, she died. Obviously, her parents were not devout enough.”
People who believe that, by prayer, they can force the hand of the Almighty believe an impossibility. It amounts to magic, which is not the Christian tradition.
Prayer for healing in the Christian tradition must always be provisional. We think that the survival of our loved one is the best possible solution. So we ask for that.
As a show of our good faith in the matter, we avail ourselves of all known earthly helps. That is one reason that Christians have done so much medical research and outreach.
But if a greater wisdom says no, we must accept it.
Seversky
Only those who don’t know much about reality believe that science knows everything that is known about the universe.
News
Fascinating point. Ironic and true.
People are ridiculed for trying to discuss aspects of reality that do not fit neatly into the materialist framework.
The fear of discussion causes many to accept evolution blindly, never permitting criticism.
In other cases, people just cannot live with the artificial constraints and they just start taking about ghosts and wizards.
Yes, exactly. That’s the world that Jerry and his friends helped create. He doesn’t have any solutions to fix it except raising more din, condescension, hostility, confusion, contempt — and then proclaiming that he’s above it all and won’t even read or investigate the article in question.
further to Seversky bashing Christianity at 2: