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 ... 1,121-1,140, 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180 ... 1,461-1,467 next last
To: berned
"Evolution is the only "widely accepted" scientific theory that continually falls apart under scrutiny. Nobody is still, today, hotly debating Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or Newton's Theories about gravity, or many, many other theories, for the simple reason that they WORK."----Actually, thats not true. Einsteins general theory of relativity presented a completely different explanation of gravity than did Newtons. Certainl Newtons theory seems to work over a certain realm of phenomenon and are still used to describe those phenomenenon, but Einstein's theory of gravity is different. There are other alternate theories being asserted to explain a whole host of scientific information, though most of them dont show much promise of becoming widely accepted currently. There is still a big push to combine quantum theory with earlier scientific theories. Like Einstein, many scientists find quantum theory with its probabilistic nature and its admission of inability to know anything with complete accuracy inherently unacceptable and are actively seeking alternate explanations. Evolution just fails more glaringly.
From a 'scientific' viewpoint though, it is often not the failure of a theory that we're concerned with, but the success. A theory may fail in many ways, but if it is successful even over a limited range it can be useful.
To: doryfunk
The difference is in what you have faith in. Yeah...bubble-schlock science---balloons!
To: Hajman
Actually, Creationism is another theory. Hello. Can you explain creationism in the framework of scientific theory for me? I am still a bit confused after several of these discussions as to what creationism is all about. Thanks in advance.
To: doryfunk
"Evolution is the only "widely accepted" scientific theory that continually falls apart under scrutiny. Falls apart? How so? What scrutiny?
To: gore3000
if such a struggle were occurring, destruction of organisms and their genetic material Yes, except you leave out how the organisms with the fittest genes survive. The "best" genes get through the filter.
For the *third* time, state your alternative theory to explain the origin and diversification of life on Earth.
To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry; longshadow; *crevo_list
As happens so often, jennyp seems to have brought it to FR first. Thanks, but I'm mad at you guys for never having pinged me. This is the first I heard of this thread!
Eh, no matter. I've been keeping myself busy over here.
To: jennyp
Explain your bias...how "capitalism is anarchistic--evolutionary" and "Christianity is manade---communism"!
To: jennyp
Explain your bias...
how "capitalism is anarchistic--evolutionary"---
and "Christianity is manmade---communism"!
To: RightWingNilla
I didnt write the quote you attributed to me.
To: f.Christian
Hey! Look at that!
It
makes
as
much
sense
either
way.
To: jennyp
What's the ***p for?
To: gore3000
To: PatrickHenry
Place .... MARKER!!!!!
Creationism ... Idi Amin ... Idiocy!!! ... DEATH!!!!
To: jennyp
So far, you're testing the "If you build it, they will come" principle with that site. A great link from there I haven't seen posted here:
You Figure It Out. (Why the hominid series isn't just a bunch of apes and a bunch of men, as creationists claim.)
To: Dominic Harr
My point -- that natural selection is the adaption of species to changing environments, and you agree with the theory of natural selection -- still stands unrefuted. You've never once addressed it. How would you objectively determine the point at which macroevolution occurrs?
To: PatrickHenry
Creationism ... Idi Amin ... Idiocy!!! ... DEATH!!!!Infantile---try harder...do you think pol pot was a creationist too?
To: Nakatu X
bump me sometimes if my name is in a post ;)
To: doryfunk
I didnt write the quote you attributed to me. Oops, sorry about that. I thought I clicked back to the "berned" post.
To: PatrickHenry
Don't all of these f.christian posts fall under "spam"? The creationist haiku was cute once in a while but now it is every other post. It is so tedious reading through all the garbage on these threads (medved + f.christian).
To: Blood of Tyrants
I'm a creationist and I agree with you but please double check your evidence.
Too often fellow Creationists are over eager to cite evidence that supports Creationism and wind up discrediting that world view.
Check out
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
There never was polystrate whale fossil even though that bit of "evidence" has been uncritically passed around.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,140, 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180 ... 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