The cover of the November issue of National Geographic magazine asks a single question: "Was Darwin Wrong?" As is typical of evolution's faithful, they answer the question before they begin. "NO" (in at least 200 point type). "The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming" (notice the capitalization of the word evolution, as if they were writing the name of God).
Evolution-istas usually try to paint skeptics as ignorant, religious literalists without a clue about science; National Geographic is no exception. The very first thing they do, in the first paragraph of the article, is attack the scientific sophistication of anyone who might have a doubt about the validity of the theory - an obvious attempt to squelch dissent.
It is possible to love both God and science; they are not mutually exclusive (however, notice which one is capitalized). One does not need to be a religious literalist to doubt evolution. One can see the merits of the theory of evolution, it even seems a likely explanation of some things we observe in nature, but to argue that it is proved, which is the whole point of the National Geographic article, is to have ones head buried so deeply in the religion of evolution as to be an unreliable witness.
Rusty at New Covenant has taken on the task, without rancor, or prejudice, of taking apart National Geographic's attempts at building what they call an argument. His post, in his own words, is "not intended to be a comprehensive review of the article but, instead, a synopsis of the biased manner in which the evolutionary community addresses data." It's an excellent post, you should read it.
One cannot come to a conclusion about the "truth" of the theory of evolution through the National Geographic's superficial and misleading article, nor through New Covenant's dissection of it. It is too big a subject. What one can conclude, from both, is that National Geographic has been irresponsible in their approach to the science of the matter. This is something they have done with increasing frequency over the last few years.
The National Geographic has jumped the shark and I canceled my subscription almost a year ago (it was a kind of traditional, annual, Christmas gift to my kids from my Dad, and I told him we don't want it anymore, but it was too late to cancel this year's subscription). Their reporting has become unreliable and their obvious ax-grinding is oppressive. It would be fitting if this were the last issue we received.
Don't forget to read Rusty's post.