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.
Xenudidit.
Ouch!..thats gonna leave a mark. ..Stalin fav. Geneticist.. :^)
Exactly. There is another agenda at work here, and it is not so much scientific as it is political or even religious. Richard Dawkins gave the game away when he said that evolution makes atheism intellectually respectable. Dawkins and his ilk see science -- and evolutionary science in particular -- as a weapon to use against religion. In so doing, they commit the logical fallacy of begging the question (or circular reasoning).
Frankly, I can't see how a scientist cannot believe in God.
You might want to look at the research of Peter and Rosemary Grant, studying evolution among finches in the Galapagos islands. They've been doing it for decades, and _have_ documented ongoing change in the birds there.
And as to Cambrian transitional forms: why don't _you_ show us when, where, and how creation by divine fiat occurred? Not just Bible quoting, mind. Actual physical proof.
Hope they don't cut out the missile defense and global warming articles. WE MUST BE WARNED!!
Don't play word games. Intraspecies variation and adaptation (finches beaks) is not disputed even in religious circles.
It's the baseless and unobserved extrapolatian to speciation that's debated.
Yep they have made it crystal clear that any dissent from the politically correct conventional wisdom will be met with ridicule and not serious scientific argument. It is sad because if people are not allowed to dissent to the latest theories, it is no victory for true science. Global Warming is a prime example. A substantial part of the theory is based on computer models that have more assumptions than facts, but SA will tar and feather anyone who dares questions any aspect of it.
Are you projecting the future fall of evolution as a theory, or suggesting that the "new evidence" already exists?
The scary thing is, we're likely to see DI or AIG latch onto this as if it were the real thing. Remember how all those Christian sites went nuts over the Onion piece on Harry Potter?
All scientific theories in general eventually fall to new evidence, the theory is discarded, and a new theory is developed despite the fervor of the original theory's adherants.
One last laugh before you go ...
This is the part that's idiotic and why I don't subscribe to this left-wing rag any more.
So Happy, Togetherrrrrr..
I can't recall a time when it was.
The real question is: compared to what?
Hey! Don't start getting profound.
Horse hockey..
It's all about the monkeys.. our ancestors..
You are all aghast and mortified at being descended from apes..
Ooock.. Ooock.. That's Gran'paw saying, "hello, sonny"..
Nope, you probably misunderstood their title as I did--which is what they wanted to happen. The cover says "Was Darwin Wrong?" Then you open to the article and it says "NO" and then proceeds for many pages in a fairly condescending and mocking tone to shred anyone who might just happen to believe that something besides random chance was involved in our creation. I think you can go to their site and read it for yourself and form your own opinion.
As a believer in a Creator (but not "creationism,") bravo for your intellectual honesty.
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.