Okay, We Give Up [Scientific American "Caves" on Evolution]

Scientific American ^ | 01 April 2005 (ponder that) | Editorial staff

[PatrickHenry]

This seems a few days late, but it just now appeared at their website. Everyone be nice.

[Cboldt]

Sci Am's April Fools jokes are well known ;-)

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 250 names. See list's description at my homepage. FReepmail to be added/dropped.

[GraniteStateConservative]

So, SA has a sense of humor? Who knew?

[Finger Monkey]

Dood, April fools.

[MEGoody]

Interesting. If one reads the entire article, one can pick up on the leftist slant, particularly at the end.

Strange, I thought science was supposed to be completely objective.

::::sarcasm off::::

[TrueKnightGalahad]

The nicest thing I can say is that SA is starting to rival the New York Times for bottom-of-bird-cage status -- wouldn't use either for fish-wrap, some of the type might bleed off onto dinner.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Perfect editorial for April Fools Day: "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God'..." -- Ps. 14:1

[BikerNYC]

That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

LOL. Too funny.

[dead]

I am a person who believes in evolution and I subscribe to Scientific American, but still I found this editorial smarmy, condescending and arrogant.

This is their lame-ass attempt at clever way of diffusing the very accurate charge that their magazine has grown unbearably political over the last few years. (Did you miss their tribute to congress's non-partisan champion of science - Henry Waxman a few months ago? Or their "strictly science" article that dismissed missle defense as an utterly unworkable system designed only to enrich the supporters of the Republican corruption machine.)

Instead of responding with this insulting misdirection, they should answer the question many of their readers want to know - Do they intend to be a science publication or a political publication?

Actually, in their snitty way, I guess they did answer it. I'll not be renewing my subscription.

[inquest]

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?

Not that it comes as a surprise, but it's good to see them show, all in one nice neat little paragraph, what their true political bent is.

[MeanWestTexan]

Especially the bit about missle defense.

I suppose their 1890 equivalent thought the Wright Brothers were are wet; the French flying wing designs were superior.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

However, I agree with dead who said:

I found this editorial smarmy, condescending and arrogant. This is their lame-ass attempt at clever way of diffusing the very accurate charge that their magazine has grown unbearably political over the last few years

[djf]

Yup. I have almost all the issues from the 80's and early 90's.

But they changed quite a bit, for the worse, and I haven't picked one up in years.

[agere_contra]

You nailed it, dead.

[ThinkPlease]

Perhaps they should talk to one of the 160 scientists who are pro-Creation.

I'll call your 160 scientists and raise you 500 Steves.

160? There are more scientists who support evolution where I work.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Do they intend to be a science publication or a political publication?

National Geographic answered that one for me last year, too. That's why I dumped them after 31 years.

[RobRoy]

I read two sentences and had to check the date:

April 1st.

Need I say more...

[inkling]

Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.
But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither.
Whatever he does prospers.
-- Psalm 1

Amen.