Posted on 04/05/2005 8:56:03 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
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 so-called 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.
Yeah, well we have already discussed this issue. A lot of these so called scientists are really fakes. A few in particular recieved their degrees from a mail order house.
Anybody want to buy a Ph.D for $50???
This statement is as ignorant and arrogant as the Scientific American editorial. I guess you fight fire with fire. If they are arrogant, you can be too.
Perhaps you might consider that a few of us are scientists and Christians. I personally find your viewpoint particularly offensive. I am a scientist and a Christian and I don't particularly like your questioning my faith. (I don't question yours).
Moreover, we do not believe in evolution as a religion. We are indeed passionate about it though. But that is largely born out of frustration. If one of you creationists argued that 2+2=5, we would argue against that too. And if you persisted, we would argue more strongly and passionately.
I suppose, that after a long enough time of you arguing that 2+2=5 and of us arguing against it, we would find ourselves in a similar situation as we are now. We would call you stupid and you would question our faith.
However, 2+2=4 is not our faith. It is our knowledge of mathematics.
Really? So, you don't believe that 5 + 2 can be greater than 5,000?
Really? So, you don't believe that 5 + 2 can be greater than 5,000?
No.
I am guessing that you are making a biblical reference to Jesus' feeding the multitude from a few pieces of bread and fish. However, it is a specious argument.
5+2 is not greater than 5,000.
I cannot believe this. The crevo threads are now going to be arguing arithmetic. Let's start with the addition table.
1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
1+4=5
.
.
.
.
And you professed to be Christian... If 5+2 can't be greater than 5,000, then how did Christ feed the 5,000 with 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes? Which scientific theory explains how this was done?
Ah... There you go again.
If 5+2 can't be greater than 5,000, then how did Christ feed the 5,000 with 5 barley loaves and 2 fishes? Which scientific theory explains how this was done?
No scientific theory does. Science is minimalist. It doesn't explain what it doesn't explain. However, it states that it doesn't explain.
As a matter of science, 2+5=7, not 5,000. That is mathematics. Neither science or mathematics explains how Jesus fed the multitude. It is not that science is wrong, it is that Jesus' miracle is OUTSIDE of science. But, science isn't wrong because Jesus fed the multitude and I guarrantee you that you will be wrong if you use 2+5>5,000 as the basis of your arithmetic (try doing your taxes that way).
I think one of the fundamental misconceptions about science is that it is REQUIRED to explain everything. However, that is not the case. Science isn't required to explain anything. What it does do is explain some things and not others. And when it cannot explain something, it says so. (I am anthropomorphising a bit, but if you read well-written scientific papers you will find them heavily qualified).
So, as an example: I believe (and science states) that the process of developing life was through evolution (broadly defined). However, science does not state who invented evolution. That is the province of faith, not science. Science states that the universe was created using the big bang mechanism. However, it does not state what came before the big bang or who created that. Science is not wrong because it cannot explain everything. It is just limited. However, it is explicitly limited: the qualifications are stated explicitly.
I never said that science was wrong. I simply said that it was not infallible. The same goes for mathematics. Again, the wise man builds his house upon a rock. It seems that you may have chosen to build yours on the sand because it looks solid enough right this moment.
I'm wise to your game. Let's get this clear right up front. I can go with 1 + 1 = 2. Fine. That's micro addition. But don't go getting carried away and making wild claims about macro addition. That takes more faith than the tooth fairy.
</creationism mode>
smarmy, condescending and arrogant
Should be the subtitle of the publication....
Scientific American: Smarmy, Condescending, and Arrogant."
I canceled my subscription long ago.
Please give a reference where the theory of evolution is stated such. The actual theory is that speciation is caused by the variation over time of allele frequencies in organism populations. No mention is made of design or lack thereof.
Dave, I assure you. They do indeed know, and they don't care. Many threads ago, when I argued Darwinianism was the moral cover for on-demand sexual license frameworks, I was so ridiculed by these folks it was as if I was trapped in DU instead of FR.
It got eerie when they started calling me 'General Ripper' and quoting the movie Dr. Strangelove, line by line.
Leftists LOVE this movie (I rented it, watched it twice - it is not that good, but the subtexts ... very, very revealing, so it was useful enemy intelligence).
It is in the top 10 of leftist cultural touchstones. Why Freepers would know this movie so well, that they would quote it an chortle among themselves about it .... why, 'trollish' is the perfect word to describe that behavior. But on a given crevo thread, you have to stick around a few hundred posts before this tone really starts to be revealed....
If that's the "actual theory" it's certainly not the way it's presented to the public. Every explanation of the theory I've seen from its proponents states that this variation is brought about by naturalistic forces alone, and indeed they often identify these forces (cosmic rays, etc.).
Sure. I've heard statements like this one too often.
Now here's what I don't understand. How do they know you're conservative? Is that asked in the interview, or do candidates for a position usually walk in and announce their political views?
Sometimes we talk about things non-work related ya know!
You've found a transitional fossil record?
Man, hold a press conference! Everyone from the anti-creationist geologist Derek Ager to evolutionary paleontologists to the editors of "Scientific American" would be profoundly indebted. Can you say, "Nobel Prize"? :)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter8.asp
If before, my experience (admittedly with non-academic jobs, but with jobs nonetheless) is that there isn't too much opportunity to talk extensively about politics or much of anything else non-work-related during the interview.
If after, then those who know your views on politics would by then surely be familiar with your views on creationism vs. Darwinism. So if they're still accusing you of being a creationist by that point, then it's obvious they don't really believe that, and are just using it as something to hang their hats on. Even if you were to succeed in beating creationism into the ground (good luck), they'll still use that, or any other excuse they can get ahold of to exclude conservatives, because, quite simply, they don't like conservatives.
Instead of just making wild assertions why don't you show this 'evidence' that is bringing down the ToE!
What would you accept as a transitional form and why?
I deg to biffer. The disc is on four elephants which are on the turtle's back.
I never mentioned the ToE. I only stated a fact about scientific theories in general. That is, that new evidence eventually emergence, the theory is discarded, and a new theory replaces it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.