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.)

[f.Christian]

Weight gain-loss...diet---is that micro-evolution?

[iranger]

"And no matter how often you test the theory of gravity and acheive results within the predictions of the theory you still have not "proven" the theory."

HUH? How do you figure? Using that that criteria, there are no truths in your world, only unproven theories.

[Dominic Harr]

I'm sorry, call me dense, but your post didn't communicate anything I understood.

You do agree with microevolution, yes?

You only disagree with the age of the Earth, am I correct?

[f.Christian]

---000% Evolution/lame...1000% Creation/God!

[Dominic Harr]

P.S. I respect the e.e.cummings thing you're after, but when the style of the words interferes with the message being communicated, I'm not sure I'd call that a 'good' use of language.

[Dominic Harr]

---000% Evolution/lame...1000% Creation/God!

Again, I don't get it.

It seems like you're saying that there is a 000% chance that evolution is lame, and a 1000% chance that Creation was made by God.

Which is self-contradictory. If there's a 000% chance that evolution is lame . . .

And it doesn't answer my question at all.

Can we communicate?

[f.Christian]

The age of the Earth...backlot---props!

[general_re]

Am I understanding this correctly...

Dom, if you can understand a damn thing that tool posts, I'll buy you lunch. I hate to say it, but you're just not going to get much in the way of answers out of Mr. Magic Eight-ball there...

[f.Christian]

---000% Evolution(lame)...1000% Creation/God!

[rudypoot]

" Science has never made life - has never once shown inter speices evolution despite a myraid of attempts --so it would be fair to extrapolate the theory is wrong!"

The word cloning comes to mind. Anyway, extrapolation is a tool to help us understand things. And like any tool, it can be misused, especially when we want a predetermined result (ie proving global warming is due to carbon dioxide produced by humans).

[gdani]

Can we communicate?

Here's a hint: Notice how everyone else ignores "f.Christian"?

It's because everyone else realizes that he's usually too busy trying to keep the oatmeal from sliding out of his ears to make any sense.

[laredo44]

Science has never made life - has never once shown inter speices evolution despite a myraid of attempts

You should seriously cogitate the mule. It is interspecies in the making.

[EBUCK]

Evolution, is a very different matter. Every year, more and more scientists express grave doubts about the validity of it.

Complete and total lie. Propoganda spewed forth by creationist folks to build credibility. Been debunked too many times for an honest person to even consider repeating it.

Because it's a BOGUS THEORY. It doesn't work. It never did. If evolution was sound science, it wouldn't fall apart at the seams the minute somebody starts asking the hard questions that evolutionists CANNOT answer.

BS. Give an example. I promise to refute it if you promise to actually read the refutation.

EBUCK

[Dominic Harr]

The age of the Earth...backlot---props!

If English isn't your first language, I apologize.

Do you mean to say that you agree, and the age of the earth is similar to a movie backlot and all the evidence is 'props' in a play?

If so, then you don't disagree with Evolutionists. You really disagree with Geologists.

You do agree with 'micro-evolution', yes? You don't dispute the basic theory of the evolution of species in adapting to their environment?

I think you'd have more luck communicating with these folks if you took that approach.

[f.Christian]

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

This is double talk, and merely closing ranks against creationists. This is the old trick of claiming ‘there is no doubt that evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.’

But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life’s complexity without God. If the disputes undermine favored mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles. The supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the mechanisms proposed by rival camps, so it’s perfectly reasonable for creationists to point this out.

For example, with the origin of birds, there are two main theories: that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory), and that they evolved ‘trees-down’ from small reptiles (the arboreal theory). Both sides produce devastating arguments against the other side. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!

Similarly, supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing change is so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!

Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists’ comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements.

Pure assertion. This ‘quoting out of context’ is a common fetish repeated by skeptics and their churchian allies. The silliest thing of all is to write to the author and ask whether he had been misquoted, which some anti-creationists actually do, as surprising as it may seem. All one needs to do to demonstrate misquoting is to compare the quote with the original.

Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals—which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould’s voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, …

They do no such thing. Rather, they make it very clear that Gould was a staunch evolutionist, but criticised many aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Quoting Gould was the perfectly honorable strategy of using a hostile witness. See Gould grumbles about creationist ‘hijacking’.

… and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.

First, most creationists present Gould’s ideas correctly, and those ideas are not the exclusive property of evolutionists. Second, even many evolutionists think that Gould has largely himself to blame because of his injudicious (from an evolutionary viewpoint) comments. For example, Richard Goldschmidt was famous for promoting a ‘hopeful monster’ theory, which indeed said something very much like a bird hatching from a reptile egg. And Gould wrote an article called ‘The return of hopeful monsters’11 where he said:

‘I do, however, predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.’

When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

Easy to assert, but another thing to prove. If there is any ‘out-of-context’ quote on our Web site, for example, we would like to know about it, because we are not about misleading people. Where such things have very rarely occurred in our literature over the years, we have willingly corrected them. Rennie has made sweeping assertions, but without substance.

[DaveyB]

...The word cloning comes to mind...

Cloning is not creation of life from non-life, cloning first requires life.

[Dominic Harr]

Dom, if you can understand a damn thing that tool posts, I'll buy you lunch.

I'm guessing English isn't his first language.

But I'm fascinated by a thought I had -- this idea that the Creos don't disagree with evolution.

They all seem to agree with evolution, but only disagree about the age of the Earth.

Yet they spend a lot of their time insulting evolution mistakenly.

Interesting, to me.

[laredo44]

Dave, to be a "Free Thinker" you must have FAITH that science will eventually provide us with answers, even if we are ignorant of them right now.

You are undoubtedly correct, given that that is what science has consistently done, some of it in the face of considerable opposition pressure. Similar to believing the sun will rise tomorrow -- faith, but backed by a lot of experience.

[Aric2000]

I hate to say it, but you're just not going to get much in the way of answers out of Mr. Magic Eight-ball there...

ROFLMAO!! God that was just too perfect, never thought of it that way, you got me laughing, AGAIN!! Thank you sir!!

[Dominic Harr]

I'm really on a hot thought, tho.

He, and all the creos I can find, seem to agree with all the specifics of evolution, and only disagree about the age of the Earth.

Which brings a *very* interesting light on this running debate.

I'm thinking this long-running debate is more a study of people painting themselves into corners than anything else.

The 'creo' crowd has spent so much time convincing themselves they don't believe in 'evolution', all the while agreeing with evolution.

Interesting.