Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

An evolutionist magazine surrenders

Expand Messages
  • PIASAN@aol.com
    An upcoming* Scientific America editorial: OK, We Give Up ... There s no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      An upcoming* Scientific America editorial:

      OK, We Give Up
      ----------------------

      "There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers
      told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and
      politics
      don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of
      such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We
      resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations
      that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or
      Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is
      in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's
      no
      better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

      In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has
      been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every
      issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True,
      the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called
      the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest
      scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics
      about it.

      Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for
      scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that
      dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the
      Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy
      fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of
      peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being
      persuaded by mountains of evidence.

      Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID)
      theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe
      that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But
      ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed
      superpowerful
      entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some
      of
      the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory:
      it doesn't get bogged down in details.

      Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our
      readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or
      discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible
      arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of
      thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say,
      U.S.
      senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or
      special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our
      duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction.
      To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit,
      we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an
      editorial page is no place for opinions.

      Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how
      science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to
      building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that
      will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national
      security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the
      administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the
      dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two
      decades,
      that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect
      science either. So what if the budget for the National Science
      Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to
      science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that
      scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day. "

      Okay, We Give Up

      MATT COLLINS THE EDITORS editors@s... COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC
      AMERICAN, INC."

      (Pi notes: That is, of course, the APRIL issue.......


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • kurt_streutker
      Hardly surprising that pretend-Catholic Pias would cite with approval the anti-Christian leftist pro-abortion pro-population- control Scientific American with
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hardly surprising that pretend-Catholic Pias would cite with
        approval the anti-Christian leftist pro-abortion pro-population-
        control Scientific American with approval. You'd think that SciAm
        would learn after their drubbing at
        http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp


        --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@a... wrote:
        > An upcoming* Scientific America editorial:
        >
        > OK, We Give Up
        > ----------------------
        >
        > "There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter
        writers
        > told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and
        > politics
        > don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our
        presentation of
        > such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We
        > resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the
        accusations
        > that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or
        > Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But
        spring is
        > in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so
        there's
        > no
        > better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
        >
        > In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has
        > been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in
        every
        > issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies.
        True,
        > the theory of common descent through natural selection has been
        called
        > the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest
        > scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be
        fanatics
        > about it.
        >
        > Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for
        > scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that
        > dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood
        carved the
        > Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their
        fancy
        > fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of
        > peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business
        being
        > persuaded by mountains of evidence.
        >
        > Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID)
        > theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists
        believe
        > that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea.
        But
        > ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed
        > superpowerful
        > entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just
        some
        > of
        > the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific
        theory:
        > it doesn't get bogged down in details.
        >
        > Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our
        > readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or
        > discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically
        credible
        > arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of
        > thinking that scientists understand their fields better than,
        say,
        > U.S.
        > senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or
        > special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or
        misleading, our
        > duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or
        contradiction.
        > To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that
        spirit,
        > we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this
        space: an
        > editorial page is no place for opinions.
        >
        > Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of
        how
        > science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to
        > building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised,
        that
        > will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil
        national
        > security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest
        that the
        > administration's antipollution measures would actually increase
        the
        > dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two
        > decades,
        > that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect
        > science either. So what if the budget for the National Science
        > Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to
        > science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that
        > scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools'
        Day. "
        >
        > Okay, We Give Up
        >
        > MATT COLLINS THE EDITORS editors@s... COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC
        > AMERICAN, INC."
        >
        > (Pi notes: That is, of course, the APRIL issue.......
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • piasanaol
        ... ****** Pi: What is hardly surprising is that Kurt would respond with his usual name calling and un-Christian behaviour to an article posted as an April
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, kurt_streutker
          <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          >
          > Hardly surprising that pretend-Catholic Pias would cite with
          > approval the anti-Christian leftist pro-abortion pro-population-
          > control Scientific American with approval. You'd think that SciAm
          > would learn after their drubbing at
          > http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
          >

          ******
          Pi:
          What is hardly surprising is that Kurt would respond with his usual
          name calling and un-Christian behaviour to an article posted as an
          April Fools Joke.

          Oh yeah.... why should SciAm care what a Christian Ministry writes?
        • pimvanmeurs
          ... The joke seems to be on Kurt who once again displays a behavior which I find hard to reconcile with either a scientific or Christian foundation. Ah the
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "piasanaol" <PIASAN@a...>
            wrote:
            >
            > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, kurt_streutker
            > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hardly surprising that pretend-Catholic Pias would cite with
            > > approval the anti-Christian leftist pro-abortion pro-population-
            > > control Scientific American with approval. You'd think that SciAm
            > > would learn after their drubbing at
            > > http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
            > >
            >
            > ******
            > Pi:
            > What is hardly surprising is that Kurt would respond with his usual
            > name calling and un-Christian behaviour to an article posted as an
            > April Fools Joke.
            >
            > Oh yeah.... why should SciAm care what a Christian Ministry writes?

            The joke seems to be on Kurt who once again displays a behavior which
            I find hard to reconcile with either a scientific or Christian foundation.
            Ah the smell of ad hominems in the morning, such a pleasant way to see
            YEC'ers struggle with the facts.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.