or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism  

post #1 of 430
Thread Starter 
In the April 2005 issue SciAm finally admits they have not given enough space to creationism and intelligent design:
Quote:
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...

Okay, We Give Up

MATT COLLINS
THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com
COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.

Read the whole thing here

Is creationism finally close to being taken seriously? What impact will this have on the debate over creationism in schools?
post #2 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
In the April 2005 issue SciAm finally admits they have not given enough space to creationism and intelligent design:

Read the whole thing here

Is creationism finally close to being taken seriously? What impact will this have on the debate over creationism in schools?

What is it???

March 1st? May 1st?

Ohhhhh April 1st

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #3 of 430
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #4 of 430
VERY funny article.
meh
meh
post #5 of 430
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #6 of 430
Hehe.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
post #7 of 430
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #8 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo

Dammit, I've been duped twice today.

I almost bit my tongue off when I read (and reread) "hideously one-sided" and "Charles Darwin and his cronies."
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #9 of 430
Quote:
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.

That paragraph is hysterical. hahahahha
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #10 of 430
If only this IMAX story were a similar prank. \
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
post #11 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Methinks the lady is staring at you with undisguised horror.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #12 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by curiousuburb
If only this IMAX story were a similar prank. \

Oh. No. Please. No.

And in other news, the Alabama State Museum of Science has removed an exhibit on the origin of man because many of the museums patrons were uncomfortable with the notion that all humankind share a common African ancestor.

As one visitor remarked: "Maybe the liberals that run this place have Negro blood, but I can tell you right now me and mine are 100% American".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #13 of 430
This commentary/editorial/article might actually be humorous if the arrogant, mocking attitude were limited to April 1st. Sadly it isn't. It exists, pervasively if unspoken...or merely muttered and mumbled under one's breath.

What is refreshing is the candidness and transparency.
post #14 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This commentary/editorial/article might actually be humorous if the arrogant, mocking attitude were limited to April 1st. Sadly it isn't. It exists, pervasively if unspoken...or merely muttered and mumbled under one's breath.

GOOD. Thank God if it is pervasive.

If God made us, he made us have minds and eyes. You'd blind us forever in a mountain of dogma.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #15 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This commentary/editorial/article might actually be humorous if the arrogant, mocking attitude were limited to April 1st. Sadly it isn't. It exists, pervasively if unspoken...or merely muttered and mumbled under one's breath.

What is refreshing is the candidness and transparency.

You and I share the exact same view in this case. I did not say anything nor will I add anything further to the thread as I realize this is April 1st and love the humor of the pranks this day. I agree it "would" be funny if it were limited to the context April 1st but you and I know it is not limited to this day.

I am not adding more to this discussion to show that even a thoughtful Christian can keep his mouth shut where "disciplined scientists" can not.

I think the magazine has shown itself. Tabloid faulty "science" at best.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #16 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I am not adding more to this discussion to show that even a thoughtful Christian can keep his mouth shut where "disciplined scientists" can not.

I think the magazine has shown itself. Tabloid faulty "science" at best.

Fellows


Great, what's next on the agenda? SA book burning?
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #17 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Great, what's next on the agenda? SA book burning?

johnq I have no beef with you what is up with the comment to Chris and now to me?

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #18 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
johnq I have no beef with you what is up with the comment to Chris and now to me?

What beef? Just commenting on 1. Chris' post about the science community taking shots at Creationism and 2. your post that SA is a faulty science tabloid for mocking ID.

Is arrogant mockery of Evolution/Darwinism not pervasive in religious communities? Take some of your own medicine for once.

Anyway, in the spirit of the day, I'll not argue further.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #19 of 430
SA is gaining a reputation of having a 'consensus' or the highway approach to what they term science. They pummeled one Bjorn Lomborg -- a while back:

Quote:
In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

...now, I don't care if you think the moon is made of green cheese, but that approach is a raw deal.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #20 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
[B]
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This commentary/editorial/article might actually be humorous if the arrogant, mocking attitude were limited to April 1st. Sadly it isn't. It exists, pervasively if unspoken...or merely muttered and mumbled under one's breath.

GOOD.

My thought exactly.
post #21 of 430
It figures these internally inconsistent materialists evolved from monkeys.
post #22 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
What beef? Just commenting on 1. Chris' post about the science community taking shots at Creationism and 2. your post that SA is a faulty science tabloid for mocking ID.

Is arrogant mockery of Evolution/Darwinism not pervasive in religious communities? Take some of your own medicine for once.

If "Scientists" like to hate on ID'rs they have every right to.

I just find it bad policy for a magazine to egg on the hate.

Such a magazine is not true science nor is it worthy journalism.

If Fox news for example has a lot of hicks that hate Gays out there and then the network mocks gays on April 1st such as SA did with ID'rs I think that would be just as wrong.

Sure you would be correct to say that ID'rs are not Born ID'rs and you may argue that Gays are. That is not the point. The point is that born that way or not it is tasteless to endorse hating on a group of people.

I think it is bigotry.

The magazine has the right to free speech and the right to make a fool of itself.

The marketplace will either support it or not.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #23 of 430
Thread Starter 
Haha. "Scientists"
post #24 of 430
Why is creationism unassailable, Fellows?
post #25 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Haha. "Scientists"

"scientists" are like "financial advisors"

or in the world of retail "product specialists"

Just my findings,,,, not scientific

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #26 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Why is creationism unassailable, Fellows?

hmmm you know full well it is. I did not say it was not.

I said the magazine showed their colors.

tabloid hate pushers.

That is all I said and I am going to exit this thread now as I have to get ready to go out for this weekend.

Peace,

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #27 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I said the magazine showed their colors.

Yup. Who knew they valued logic and evidence?
post #28 of 430
Despising mob ignorance or dogmatic status quo is not the same as hating a specific group of people.

Well...

"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #29 of 430
I have to say I'm ambivalent about things like this. On one hand, I think it's fine to bring some levity to serious issues and often engage in such banter with my creationist friends. On the other hand, as a teacher, I know that the quickest way to close people's minds is to mock their beliefs.

To be sure, creationist literature is replete with arrogant mockery, gross caricatures, and snide remarks, but even if turn-a-bout is fairplay it is generally unproductive.

It reminds me of the placard outside the Baptist church in my hometown during last Xmas. It said, "to our Jewish friends- Happy Hannakah, to our Athiest friends- good luck!"

Whoever put that up wasn't interested in spreading "the word" or saving their fellow man, just being a smug, know-it-all asshole.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

post #30 of 430
It's not the most mature thing in the world, but the idea that scientists have to defer to silly ideas that aren't even theories simply because people choose to believe the silly ideas is extremely disturbing.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #31 of 430
Quote:
It reminds me of the placard outside the Baptist church in my hometown during last Xmas. It said, "to our Jewish friends- Happy Hannakah, to our Athiest friends- good luck!"

Whoever put that up wasn't interested in spreading "the word" or saving their fellow man, just being a smug, know-it-all asshole. [/B]

What's wrong with that sign? I'm quasi-atheist/agnostic but it doesn't offend me.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #32 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
the idea that scientists have to defer to silly ideas that aren't even theories simply because people choose to believe the silly ideas is extremely disturbing.

That's so perfectly said I want to frame it.
post #33 of 430
I heard a phrase today that I'm going to keep:

"Aggressive ignorance"
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #34 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
What's wrong with that sign? I'm quasi-atheist/agnostic but it doesn't offend me.

Well, to begin with its rather strange that they wish Jews a happy Hannakah because Baptists believe the jews are goiing to burn just as much as the atheists. Second, there is simply no way to interpret it as an honest wish that atheists fair as well in the afterlife as they believe they will. By their beliefs atheists will burn, pure and simple, luck is irrelevant.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

post #35 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Well, to begin with its rather strange that they wish Jews a happy Hannakah because Baptists believe the jews are goiing to burn just as much as the atheists.

yes, they discriminate between Jews and Athiests, because they 're weak and pandering to God. Like you can fool God.

edit: I just typed 'Jews', and look who showed up!!! damn.
post #36 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The idea that scientists have to defer to silly ideas that aren't even theories simply because people choose to believe the silly ideas is extremely disturbing.

I agree. But we are not talking about scientists here. We are talking about a popular science magazine, trying to popularize science through journalism. Its extremely arrogant IF the only way they deal with ID is in this way. How am I to trust them to be open minded with new data?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #37 of 430
That fact of the matter is that the 'science' -- as it touches many areas -- and pushed by SA, is not true science; it's an excercise in defending an unproven consensus. Evolution, like SETI, nuclear winter, second-hand smoke, and now global warming are tools to shape public policy, they are not science. These things all started with assumptions and wishful-thinking-for-a-good-cause at their base, and have all been pushed on the public for reasons other than a solid basis in fact. This isn't about reasearch and what has been proven, it's about power for power's sake.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #38 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Evolution, like SETI, nuclear winter, second-hand smoke, and now global warming are tools to shape public policy, they are not science.

You have expanded your list to second hand smoking? Of all professions I must say medicine is the one who uses statistics with most discipline. And life studies that include second hand smoke as a factor for life expectancy explains a lot more than those who don´t
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #39 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Well, to begin with its rather strange that they wish Jews a happy Hannakah because Baptists believe the jews are goiing to burn just as much as the atheists. Second, there is simply no way to interpret it as an honest wish that atheists fair as well in the afterlife as they believe they will. By their beliefs atheists will burn, pure and simple, luck is irrelevant.

Ok, I do see it now. I momentarily gave baptists more credit than they are likely due.

Anyway, while they might think I'll roast in Hell, I can be happy "knowing" they will be in a box next to me, rotting in the earth and not in heaven with their God. I think they get the worst part of the bargain.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #40 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Oh. No. Please. No.

And in other news, the Alabama State Museum of Science has removed an exhibit on the origin of man because many of the museums patrons were uncomfortable with the notion that all humankind share a common African ancestor.

As one visitor remarked: "Maybe the liberals that run this place have Negro blood, but I can tell you right now me and mine are 100% American".








"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism