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.
I recall an archaelogical magazine with the same title, but don't know if it is this one. The one I read was put out by amateurs, not scientists. If this is the same mag, it would be dishonest to say scientists are "admitting" their bias.
"Perhaps they should talk to one of the 160 scientists who are pro-Creation."
Scientists who are "pro-Creation" are not scientists in that regard. Evolution is supported by a wealth of scientific observation. Creation (as taught in the Bible) is supported by none.
I suppose you also maintain the Earth is 5000 years old. ;-)
Ping to #10, a good summing-up of this item in particular, and our smarmy, condescending and arrogant press in general.
Checked the site, it's not the same one written by amateurs.
Sam, a large turtle, created everything out of old legos and silly putty.
I am a Turtlist.
dead on!
Another deep dissappointment is National Geographic. We have been subscribers (perpetual Christmas gift) from 1967. They ought to call the present mag National Geopolitical. What does an article on the physiology of brain chemistry have to do with Geography? NG is another mag that has obviously been taken over by the PC Left.
The one that got me good was their rope and pully computer from ancient times! I bought it hook line and sinker. LMAO!
"Evolution is supported by a wealth of scientific observation.'
Kewl! They've seen evolution? I wasn't aware of that. Would you please post the pics?
Or maybe you could just post the pics of the Cambrian transitional forms.
Thanks in advance.
Yeah, they're lefties. Much of academia is. That's why we treasure our science threads and our many conservative scientists on this website.
I gave up on them years ago. I read "The American Scientist" and "Physics Today". (Member of APS)
Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:
Mock on, mock on: tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
And every sand becomes a Gem,
Reflected in the beam divine;
Blown back they blind the mocking Eye,
But still in Israels paths they shine.
The Atoms of Democritus
And the Newtons Particles of Light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israels tents do shine so bright.
-=- William Blake, 1757-1827
Funny how the so-called "scientists" worship their theories with a faith unmatched by the most fanatical of any other religion. More funny when an exalted theory crumbles under new evidence and they are left with nothing.
Thou shalt have no others gods before me. - GodThe wise man built his house upon a rock. - Jesus
Fanaticism in defense of ignorance is no excuse, even on April Fool's Day.
"Darwin is God, we worship him, so don't bother us with anything different."
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.