February 15, 2005 | David F. Coppedge

National Geographic Besieged by Letters Over Darwin Article

“Was Darwin Wrong?” the cover teased in November.  Inside, printed in huge bold type, the answer was ruthless and final: “NO.  The evidence for evolution is overwhelming” – end of discussion (see 10/24/2004 entry).  Not everybody liked this treatment.  Over 600 letters poured in, and in the March issue, NG printed six samples “chosen to reflect the variety and weight of your opinions….”  Summarized, they took these positions:

  1. Pro:  delighted with the article, glad NG not “compromising its scientific objectivity to gain subscriptions from the religious right.”
  2. Con:  accuses article of being arrogant and condescending, yet providing no new evidence nor addressing “gaping holes in the theory that lead so many reasoned people to question evolution.”
  3. Compromise:  “I hope that in my lifetime the theories of evolution and creation will merge, because the truth in each is overwhelming.”
  4. Pro:  A science teacher commends the lucid writing about this “seminal concept of biological science.”
  5. Con:  Offended by NG claim that disbelief in evolution is due to ignorance; “I always considered by thoughts on the subject as based on facts and science.”  Reminds editor that Nazis “used evolutionary and survival-of-the-fittest arguments as justifications.”
  6. Con:  A father writes he is not surprised that half of Americans believe in God alone, and not evolution: “when I look at my three beautiful children, it is hard to believe they are the end result of evolving Eocene pond scum.”  He throws in a one-liner: “My father-in-law, on the other hand, may be the evidence you’ve been looking for.”  (Hopefully the relative is not a subscriber.)

The 600 letters were among “the most passionate… we’ve received within the past year,” the magazine stated.
    Also in the March issue, decade-long editor Bill Allen announced his retirement.  New editor-in-chief is Chris Johns, a photographer and author, who seems more interested in good photojournalism than confrontation.  The announcement of the Allen’s retirement says that, under his leadership, “the magazine has continued to evolve, bringing its unique perspective to ever more topical and timely stories–from global warming and the oil crises to obesity, evolution, and human slavery.”
    Chris Johns honors his predecessor but speaks vaguely of his own mission, only describing it as to make the magazine a “must read.”  He wants to bring the photography into the digital age.  In an interview on Poynter Online, he listed two of his principles as: “Always be honest and tell the truth…. Be humble, there is no room for arrogance.”

Without access to all the letters, we have to take it on faith that NG printed an honestly weighted sample.  If so, half were strongly opposed, one was wishy-washy, and only a third were supportive.  That’s impressive.  If any pro-evolution letters were sent in by scientists, they didn’t mention it.  The two printed seemed more dogmatic than informed.
    Only an insider to the boardroom discussions would know what impact, if any, these letters had on editorial policy, the choice of editor, and the new directions the magazine should take.  It seems entirely possible that the number of passionate letters to the editor on the subject of evolution have had some impact.  Consider the letter from Kelly Olson of Los Angeles:

I must congratulate you.  Your article on evolution manages to be confrontational, arrogant, inflammatory, and condescending, all without being particularly illuminating.  You surmise that an intelligent individual should quickly realize evolution’s veracity, yet you fail to provide any new evidence.  Worse, you do not address any of the gaping holes in the theory that lead so many reasoned people to question evolution.

If you were Chairman of the Board, what would you tell your Editor-in-chief after reading this?  Wouldn’t it be a picture of poetic justice to envision a board member reading Kelly’s letter, then glancing askance at Mr. Allen and saying, “Aren’t you the one that rushed to press that story about Piltdown Chicken a few years back that got us into so much trouble?” (see 09/27/2000 entry).  We’ll leave the look on Bill’s face to your imagination.  Good luck truck driving, Mr. Allen.
    A mere fictional flight of fancy, the above; the magazine honors Bill Allen and wishes him a fond farewell.  We are not privy to the reasons for his leaving.  (If Chris Johns sticks to his principles, the number of in-your-face evolutionary sermons should decline.)  But it bears repeating: never underestimate the power of a cogently-written letter to the editor.  We’d like to know if our coverage here at Creation-Evolution Headlines prompted you to join the ranks of the Brigade of 600, armed with the mighty pen.  Write here and share your letter.  If NG didn’t print it – and you think it was a finely crafted piece of work – maybe we can.

(Visited 22 times, 1 visits today)
Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply