Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.
AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
Creationist's tactics remind me of the Democrats. They don't have any facts or ideas of their own. They can only ask "questions", and attempt to poke holes in other people's points, without making any affirmative argument of their own position.
In a way you are right. We just rely on what God told us as the truth.
You can't prove a negative, but you CAN prove that the theory of evolution is so full of holes that it simply cannot be true. For example, do you care to explain how many fossils in the "wrong" levels are ignored and how a tree managed to remain standing for "millions" of years while TWO coal beds formed around it or how a whale managed to stand on it's head for "millions" of years as the silt drifted around it to fossilize it?
No, that's not what one can "only assume." I hate defending SciAm because they're so off the deep end lately, but due to the way copyright law works, they're compelled to threaten anyone who uses anything of theirs in any way. This is why Disney goes after mom & pop day care centers that use a drawing of, say, Snow White based on the Disney design. There was a thread here on FR not long ago about how one avant garde musician wrote a :60 track consisting of total silence. He was promptly sued by the attorneys for an avant garde composer who had previously written a piece that was four minutes of silence.
Naturally, the musician said his silence was in no way related to the other silence.
At this point, I have nothing to say regarding the validity of the arguments on either side.
Evolutionist base their arguement on faith as well.
No, what's really fun is listening to a bunch of people say that woman being created from a man's rib, Adam & Eve being the first humans, the Earth only being approx 6,000 years old and the story of Noah should all be taught in science classes.
Which is precisely why Scientific Creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever nom du jour has no place in science education -- it's a religion.
But they just won't admit it.
Evolution is also a faith based with all the implications of a religion. If looks like a duck and walks like a duck...
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.