Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal

AIG ^ | 2002/07/11 | AIG

[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.)

[Hajman]

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.

The main problem isn't that the tests would have to extend over generations (we've already been there, done that, with certain things), but rather that it extends over so many generations that only future (way in the future) generations will be able to say for certain (if they manage to keep the data and not destroy themselves before hand). It's simply not practical to claim it can be tested on a human scale. Scientists now can't test it, even if we assume a number of generations for it. 10's of thousands of years is simply a time line to large for humans to consider taking any specific endevor. Heck, structured societies can't even exist that long (I'm talking governments and such here). Now the data may survive and be used by furture scientists, but to keep a specific test going that long would, imho, be a bit too much for man to take on. Man simply doesn't do tasks at that time scale.

-The Hajman-

[PatrickHenry]

Scientists now can't test it, even if we assume a number of generations for it.

Actually there are tests. As new fossils are uncovered, they have to fit into the framework of the theory. If not (for example if a mammal were discovered in an unquestionably ancient rock stratum way too old for mammalian existence) then the theory would flunk. In this sense, each new fossil is a test.

There are many other tests. For example, evolution says that island-dwelling flightless birds developed from birds that landed on the island and produced mutated flightless offspring that managed to survive in the absence of predators. If true, then any species of flightless bird, being bound to their island, are unique species. If they were created, they could exist on several widly-separated islands. But each such species is limited to its own island, as evolution predicts.

There are other tests too. You've probably been around long enough to have seen this: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution .

[Hajman]

Actually there are tests. As new fossils are uncovered, they have to fit into the framework of the theory. If not (for example if a mammal were discovered in an unquestionably ancient rock stratum way too old for mammalian existence) then the theory would flunk. In this sense, each new fossil is a test.

I suppose it depends on what you're testing. I was talking in terms of testing the event. Here, we're using tests of the effect to help validate the event theory. So in this case, I would say you're correct.

There are many other tests. For example, evolution says that island-dwelling flightless birds developed from birds that landed on the island and produced mutated flightless offspring that managed to survive in the absence of predators. If true, then any species of flightless bird, being bound to their island, are unique species. If they were created, they could exist on several widly-separated islands. But each such species is limited to its own island, as evolution predicts.

This could also be true for any other flightless creature, bound to a specific land segment after certian geological changes, such as the splitting of Pangea (one of the larger events). However, there are 'modern' flightless animals that are found on multiple continents (I can't remember the details off the top of my head. One of the downfalls of a sucky memory. However, I believe the explinations of how they got from island to island is that they took a natural 'boat' {floating logs and such}. I'll try to find examples of this). What's the tests to tell if any specific species should be in any specific places? It would seem, with all the possibilities of paths of migrations, that there could be a fair number of 'exceptions' that would need to be explained by a method other then strict historical evolution (the thing I worry about here, is that a theory that becomes so broad as to explain about anything, isn't usually reguarded as a very valid theory. Too broad isn't good). Though this is an interesting test for historical evolution, and it does help validate it some.

There are other tests too. You've probably been around long enough to have seen this: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.

Yes, I've seen that...and the rebuttal. I glanced over the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, and found only 2 or 3 that couldn't be explained by Micro Evolution, or some other process that didn't absolutely require Macro Evolution (I'll have to review that post again).

-The Hajman-

[PatrickHenry]

During your long absence from our threads, perhaps there were some occasions when you unaccountably found your ears ringing. Those were the times when I mentioned you as an example of a creationists who isn't a whack-job. You should visit with us more often. Those on your side of the debate who participate most often could benefit from your presence.

[PatrickHenry]

I was talking in terms of testing the event.

Well, we can't sterilize the earth and start all over as a lab demonstration. This is the problem with all so-called "historical sciences," like evolution, geology, astronomy, historical linguistics, climate history, archaeology, etc. Even crime detection. We can't re-create the past. All we can do is study the clues that exist now, and try to put together a picture of what the past was like and explain how things could have happened.

[Hajman]

Well, we can't sterilize the earth and start all over as a lab demonstration. This is the problem with all so-called "historical sciences," like evolution, geology, astronomy, historical linguistics, climate history, archaeology, etc. Even crime detection. We can't re-create the past. All we can do is study the clues that exist now, and try to put together a picture of what the past was like and explain how things could have happened.

Yeah, I agree. However, with most historical sciences we already have control cases..cases in which we know what happened (we were there, or someone confessed, etc), which we use to apply to future situations. Or we documentation from people who were actually there in some way. However, the main problem with historical evolution is that there is no control case. It's unique to our observations (as in, we've never observed anything like it before), so it's 'assumption level' is higher then most other historical sciences, simply because of the lack of a control.

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

During your long absence from our threads, perhaps there were some occasions when you unaccountably found your ears ringing. Those were the times when I mentioned you as an example of a creationists who isn't a whack-job. You should visit with us more often. Those on your side of the debate who participate most often could benefit from your presence.

I thank you for your compliment. Work should be getting a bit easier within a month or so, so perhaps then I'll have more time to spend around here. I do enjoy conversing with you and others.

-The Hajman-

[PatrickHenry]

However, with most historical sciences we already have control cases..cases in which we know what happened (we were there, or someone confessed, etc), which we use to apply to future situations.

Not really. Consider the shifting of the continents, the existence of ice ages in the distant past, ancient mass-extinction events, the formation of craters on the moon, the creation of Saturn's rings, the asteroid belt, etc. Lots of stuff that seems to be a "one-time event" that happened "long long ago," yet we can still look for clues and develop credible models of how they happened. Oh, I almost forgot the Big Bang. That's probably the best example. I doubt that we'll be reproducing that one in the lab.

[Hajman]

Not really. Consider the shifting of the continents, the existence of ice ages in the distant past, ancient mass-extinction events, the formation of craters on the moon, the creation of Saturn's rings, the asteroid belt, etc. Lots of stuff that seems to be a "one-time event" that happened "long long ago," yet we can still look for clues and develop credible models of how they happened. Oh, I almost forgot the Big Bang. That's probably the best example. I doubt that we'll be reproducing that one in the lab.

None of those historical events were directly (or even indirectly) observed. They're infered from the evidence we already have (the difference between the event, and the effect of the event). For example, if we have a table will a good number of rubber balls on it, and we find one on the floor beside the table, we can infer there's a high probability that it fell off the table. However, without seeing the event (in this case, the ball fell out of the box unseen when the balls were placed on the table, for example), and we have no control to establish such (like we've never seen a ball get dropped), then our assumption, though valid in the sense that it's probable, can only be considered what it is...an assumption, infered from the evidence (or rather, from the last effect left over from the evidence). It's a small distinction, yes, but an important one to realize that seeing the effect is not the same as witnessing the event (though in certain cases, the assumptions infered can come close to what really happened, and we can be pretty sure of it if we have a control to fall back on).

-The Hajman-

[scripter]

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..)

Since you seem like a reasonable guy I don't doubt your observation. If work stays slow and you have the time and interest, you can always check out the crevo threads here. Experience dictates your observation will probably change when you reject the interpretation of some of the more vocal posters here, no matter how polite you come across. Perhaps, just maybe, things will improve for the better starting today, on BOTH sides, folks.

[Gumlegs]

A correction to my earlier post excoriating Gore3000 for not correcting his mistakes (ahem):

[In reference to Malthus] ... human population would increase exponentially and the food supply geometrically...

That should have been "the food supply [would increase] arithmetically. Thanks to longshadow for pointing it out to me.

[PatrickHenry]

That should have been "the food supply [would increase] arithmetically. Thanks to longshadow for pointing it out to me.

You're both wrong. According to my lifelong research, the population would undergo a wildly elliptical increase, while the food supply would only increase by 1⁷²⁰. The consequences are self-evident.

[Dominic Harr]

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.

You nailed it. The only difference between a buch of 'small' changes and 'big' changes is time.

A large number of small changes always equates to big changes, in every system you observe, I'm certain you'll agree. If you make enough small changes to an object, you end up with an object that bears only a slight resemblance to the original object.

If you believe in micro, you believe in evolution -- Darwin's theory of natural selection.

And the really fascinating thing here is that fake definition: 'micro' v. 'macro'. As if 'small' changes didn't add up to 'big' changes.

It makes it sound as if you haven't considered the meaning of the words.

[Dominic Harr]

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.

Very astute, very good point.

That brings up a very interesting possibility . . . let me think about the best way to use this.

[Dominic Harr]

And since he didn't say evolution, well, I have no problem admitting I took some liberties from what he did say.

So let me see -- you avoided the point of what was actually said, and instead "took liberties" to rephrase what was said and then argued against that.

"Straw men" don't help your case here, I'd say.

Bottom line is, the only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' changes is time.

If you believe in so-called 'micro' evolution, you agree with the theories of Darwin.

And you're running from that fact.

[PatrickHenry]

Very astute, very good point. That brings up a very interesting possibility . . . let me think about the best way to use this.

Getting people to think is what it's all about. That's why I'm here.

[Dominic Harr]

Getting people to think is what it's all about.

:-)

So on one level, deep down, this is all really about the nature of 'what is evidence'.

That's the bottom line, for all the partisans of all sorts. Well, the ones who aren't flat-out lying on purpose, anyway.

Very interesting.

[gore3000]

The problem I have with his statement is nobody defines Darwinism as only "adaptation to their environment." Then again, I could be wrong.

Absolutely correct. As I have shown already species adapt to their environment without the addition of new genetic material. The favorite examples of evolutionist 'micro-evolution' the moths did not add any genetic material there were both kinds before the industrial revolution and after pollution was cleaned up. The finches have been shown to not only interbreed (and produce better mixed progeny) but also to change the beak size back and forth according to weather conditions in less than a dozen years. Species are able to adpapt so quickly because they already have the genes needed for adaptation in their gene pool.

[longshadow]

According to my lifelong research, the population would undergo a wildly elliptical increase, while the food supply would only increase by 1⁷²⁰.

Well, it does sound suspiciously like something someone would say....