Skip to comments.
Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal
AIG ^
| 2002/07/11
| AIG
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.)
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080, 1,081-1,100 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
To: Hajman
Now there's a large leap. If I believe in something that's observed, then I must believe in something unobserved? That just doesn't flow very well. I do hate to tell you this, but I dissagree with that sentence. I believe his statement is correct if and only if one defines Darwinism as only "adaptation to their environment." IMO, stating we see some speciation, natural selection, adaptation, variation and microevolution doesn't mean we agree with Darwin. The problem I have with his statement is nobody defines Darwinism as only "adaptation to their environment." Then again, I could be wrong.
To: scripter
The problem I have with his statement is nobody defines Darwinism as only "adaptation to their environment." Then again, I could be wrong. "Darwinism" is an inappropriate term which implies some kind of cult about the person of Charls Darwin. The more appropriate term is "evolution," which is well-defined. The theory of evolution holds that mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms which result -- over time -- in speciation.
To: scripter
I believe his statement is correct if and only if one defines Darwinism as only "adaptation to their environment." IMO, stating we see some speciation, natural selection, adaptation, variation and microevolution doesn't mean we agree with Darwin. The problem I have with his statement is nobody defines Darwinism as only "adaptation to their environment." Then again, I could be wrong.
Actually, I think he was trying to equate the two (micro and macro evolution) and claiming since they're equal, if you believe in one, you need to, by necessity and definition, believe in the other. I do agree with you, however I doubt he was attempting to define 'Darwinism' within only the bounds of micro evolution (else there'd be nothing to his particular argument). Nor do I think he was trying to define 'Evolution' within the bounds of micro evolution, either. So yes, even though I agree with you, I think you just stated that the grass is green. :)
-The Hajman-
To: PatrickHenry
"Darwinism" is an inappropriate term which implies some kind of cult about the person of Charls Darwin. The more appropriate term is "evolution," which is well-defined. The theory of evolution holds that mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms which result -- over time -- in speciation. I somewhat agree with the concept of what you said. Still, the poster did not say evolution, and stating somebody agrees with Darwin sounds like the concept of Darwinism. And since he didn't say evolution, well, I have no problem admitting I took some liberties from what he did say. Just thought it was fair game from what was said.
To: PatrickHenry
Thus, any statement or action which supports the dogma, no matter how irrational, is entirely acceptable to a cultist. Any evidence contrary to the dogma is disregarded. Verifiably observed reality itself must yield to the dogma. Any person who disagrees with the dogma is utterly evil, and cultists see no moral problem if such people are destroyed, because protecting the dogma is their highest moral activity. In their minds, they're doing good when they protect the dogma, and any ghastly consequences are irrelevant. Now that's what I call a pretty good description of some of the evolutionists on this forum, it's just amazing an evolutionist said it. That's humor for the humor impaired.
To: Hajman
Actually, I think he was trying to equate the two (micro and macro evolution) and claiming since they're equal, if you believe in one, you need to, by necessity and definition, believe in the other. I think you nailed it. My main intent was to poke some fun at an ambiguos statement.
To: PatrickHenry
Patrick, haven't you given up trying to talk to close minded Creationsists yet? I can't believe this thread is still going.
I would think that the evolutionists such as yourself and myself would let the creationists go play with themselves for a while. They love to convince each other that their narrow view of the world is the right one.
To: Aric2000
narrow view of the world...
funny!
To: Aric2000
They love to convince each other that their narrow view of the world is the right one.
As apparently, so do you. However, what's narrow about believing one theory is more valid then another? Or that a specific interpretation of the data may be incorrect? Is it truely narrow minded to look at another theory, but reject it because it doesn't seem valid enough? I wouldn't think so.
-The Hajman-
To: f.Christian
How come I knew that you were going to come out of the woodwork if I posted on this thread?
To: Hajman
I don't have a narrow view of the world, I have very broad view of the world, I look at the scientific evidence and decide based on that. I don't have a view of the world that is based on a book that someone has convinced me is the word of god or whatever.
Book is right, narrow view of the world, Evolution is the best theory that fits the facts, broad view. Pretty simple if you ask me.
To: Aric2000
Sclock science see their own sclock existence---world!
Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress(no evolution...none---ever...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH--scientific expertise(not evo--whack moonie marx-darwin-zombie swill)!
Science/reality is anti-possibilty(infinite/irrational)...
Science has to be predictable-probable-facts(finite/rational)---
Science must limit itself to the non-philosophical/spiritual higher world!
To: Aric2000
Patrick, haven't you given up trying to talk to close minded Creationsists yet? I can't believe this thread is still going. I would think that the evolutionists such as yourself and myself would let the creationists go play with themselves for a while. They love to convince each other that their narrow view of the world is the right one. No, I haven't given up. I admit I'm not making much progress, but that's okay. It's good to have both sides presented.
To: Aric2000
I don't have a narrow view of the world, I have very broad view of the world, I look at the scientific evidence and decide based on that. I don't have a view of the world that is based on a book that someone has convinced me is the word of god or whatever.
Actually, you look at interpretations of data (the scientific evidence), and you deside based off of that. There's nothing wrong with that. However, there is still a difference between the scientific evidence, and the interpretation of that evidence. As for the 'book', there's historical evidence helping to lead to it's own validity. I'm willing to accept that there might be more to Reality then what materialism claims. And such interesting modern theories as QM seem to suggest that there's far more out there then what observe (or might even be able to observe). You seem to infer that believing in such a thing as the Bible, and believing in science, is exlusionary. I would have to dissagree with you. Allowing for the possibility of something more then materlistic theories doesn't exactly strike me as narrow minded; granted that the possibility isn't illogical, and has at least an average validity.
Book is right, narrow view of the world, Evolution is the best theory that fits the facts, broad view. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Interpretation (human interpretation, if I might add) of bones is right, narrow view of the world. Evolution does support the facts...as far as actual observable facts go (organisms change). And historical evolution may be fairly valid as far as interprations of the evidence goes. However, what's narrow about the belief in historical evolution (from a good portion of evolutionists that I've seen), is that they claim it can be the only valid theory. This isn't being very objective, or open minded, imho.
-The Hajman-
To: Hajman
When a theory comes along that replaces evolution and the facts fit it better then the current theory, then evolutionists will move over to that theory, if it actually shows that evolution is indeed not the case.
On the other hand, if indeed a new theory comes into existence, the creationists will be the first ones to say that it isn't true and try to debunk it. The evolutionists will take a close look at it and decide on the available evidence.
Creationism CANNOT debunk evolution, only science will do that, and at this point no other theory fits the available facts as well as evolution does.
To: f.Christian
There is that cut and paste again, will you please have an original thought for once. PLEASE, just once?
To: Blood of Tyrants
Now it is YOU who ignore the accepted practices of science. You can both observe and repeat a test of gravity. You can do neither with evolution. Yes, you can.
The problem is that you won't live long enough to observe the final results. This is what makes it so difficult for some people to comprehend slow processes.
1,077
posted on
07/20/2002 5:22:28 PM PDT
by
reg45
To: Hajman
This isn't being very objective... Good luck with the objective angle. I was making the same point recently when someone said: "By the way, the word objective is not a crucifix to keep the vampires at bay."
Some appear to think being objective and rejecting evolution isn't possible to anyone who's looked at the evidence. In my objectivity I often forget theirs is the only valid interpretation. The point some try to make is if you've looked at the evidence and still reject evolution, you're not being objective, you're stupid, or you don't understand what you just read. Talk about closed-minded arrogance! Although I must admit I'm pleased with the posts of some here recently. Perhaps I'm digressing. Back to the books...
To: Aric2000
When a theory comes along that replaces evolution and the facts fit it better then the current theory, then evolutionists will move over to that theory, if it actually shows that evolution is indeed not the case.
On the other hand, if indeed a new theory comes into existence, the creationists will be the first ones to say that it isn't true and try to debunk it. The evolutionists will take a close look at it and decide on the available evidence.
Actually, Creationism is another theory. Whether it's more or less valid then Historical Evolution is another problem. You seem to assume Creationists will automatically toss any new theory out of hand. This isn't necessarily the case.
Creationism CANNOT debunk evolution, only science will do that, ...
You're technically correct on this point. However, the validity of Creationism or Evolutionism is independent of this particular point. Neither can be debunked, but rather only have their validity decreased, because neither can be observed. We can only try to pick which one we think is the more valid.
...and at this point no other theory fits the available facts as well as evolution does.
This is a matter of interpretation, and personal opinion. Just like any other theory. However, you may actually believe that historical evolution fits the interpretation of the facts best. More power to you. If it turns out to be correct (though that would be difficult to actually prove), then you've gained the title of being right. If it's wrong (equally hard to prove), then I haven't lost anything. I just simply don't agree it's as correct as many evolutionists claim.
-The Hajman-
To: scripter
Some appear to think being objective and rejecting evolution isn't possible to anyone who's looked at the evidence. In my objectivity I often forget theirs is the only valid interpretation. The point some try to make is if you've looked at the evidence and still reject evolution, you're not being objective, you're stupid, or you don't understand what you just read. Talk about closed-minded arrogance!
Yes, it does appear to be that way sometimes. (Though to be fair, this happens with both sides, and from what I've seen on FR, fairly equally. This is just my own personal observation though..)
-The Hajman-
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080, 1,081-1,100 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson