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.)

[laredo44]

there is gobs of physical evidence for Christianity

I've never seen a molecule.

[EBUCK]

Thanks for the ping. There are some new monkeys here. I'm getting tired of the old ones.

EBUCK

[Aric2000]

Lots of new monkeys, and sad to say, a lot of the old orangotangs too. Oh well, can't have everything!!

[DaveyB]

I've never seen a molecule.

Let him who has eye to see, see.

[mrsmith]

"(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.) "

Scientific American: " We think the best way to resolve the dispute is with the 'scientific method'... as refined by the WP/LAT."

[foolish-one]

What would you consider as evidence?

[laredo44]

You can both observe and repeat a test of gravity. You can do neither with evolution.

Sometimes science uses other methods of deducing its "truths". Helium was discovered on the sun before it was found on earth.

DNA is beginning to reveal much information about species and deductions based on it will be used to refine hypotheses on evolution. Darwin thought humans and apes shared a common ancestry, then lo and behold, it turns out we share 98% of our DNA with chimps. If Darwins notions were so screwy, you wouldn't assume that result.

[general_re]

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

Well, sort of. There are still a few hardcore young-earth creationists, denying the dating methods used for fossils and rocks and so forth, but they're rarer and rarer these days. What you'll find is that many creationists accept the existence of microevolution, but what they don't want to do is make the jump and realize that lots of little microevolutions over time equals macroevolution and speciation. So, microevolution, where an organism adapts to ite environment is A-OK, but macroevolution, where new species arise, is right out.

Why that is, I'm not so sure, but I trust that someone from the C end who can speak English will be along soon enough to explain it to you...

[Dominic Harr]

The only difference between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' is time.

If you believe in 'microevolution', you believe in evolution.

The only real, core difference here is a debate about the age of the Earth.

Interesting, yes?

[f.Christian]

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution.

Indeed it does, which is why AiG advised against using this in this section of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. In the paragraph quoted next, Rennie makes the same mistake as many do concerning the common ancestor, but he does realise the main problem with this argument.

The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

Which, according to G.G. Simpson and Gould would be called an ape or a monkey by anyone who saw it, so it’s just a petty criticism of those who say this.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, ‘If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?’ New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

As Answers in Genesis pointed out!

[EBUCK]

How can current evolutionary theory be subjected to the Scientific Method??

Here is a good example of how evolutionary theory is tested. Link

They give a prediction based on the theory. Then they give confirmation of the prediction based on the results/facts/evidence. Then they give some examples of what would ultimately disprove the prediction and reasons why. It really works pretty well. The Scientific Method, that is.

EBUCK

P.S. You might want to read the whole article.

EBUCK

[Dominic Harr]

So, microevolution, where an organism adapts to ite environment is A-OK, but macroevolution, where new species arise, is right out.

Because they believe the Earth is only 10,000 (or whatever) years old.

If you were convinced of that, you (and I!) would be on their side.

They believe in Evolution. They just don't believe there has been enough time on Earth for 'macro' evolution.

All the rest, in my opinion, is just people painting themselves into a corner.

[EBUCK]

LOL. I was trying to find a way to say that without getting too long winded. Great job!

EBUCK

[EBUCK]

Don't bother. He couldn't come up with a coherant statement to save his own life.

EBUCK

[DaveyB]

If you believe in 'microevolution', you believe in evolution. The only real, core difference here is a debate about the age of the Earth. Interesting, yes?

But oh so very wrong!

The expression of an existing gene is hardly the same as creating new reproducible genes.

[EBUCK]

"Right turn Clyde"

EBUCK

[f.Christian]

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed …

Actually, they have found out how some major building blocks CANNOT be formed, e.g. cytosine (see Origin of Life: Instability of building blocks).

… and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, …

This is just bluff, since spontaneous polymerization is a major hurdle for non-living chemicals to overcome (see Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem). So is producing molecules all of one handedness (see Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem). Chemical evolutionists have yet to solve these problems, let alone produce any self-replicating system which has any relevance to cells (Self-Replicating Enzymes?).

… laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Again, wishful thinking, partly motivated by the hopelessness of current theories about life spontaneously generating on Earth—see Sugars from Space? Do they prove evolution? and Did life’s building blocks come from outer space? Amino acids from interstellar simulation experiments?

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science’s current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

Here we go again with the bait’n’switch concerning the meanings of evolution. Anyway, that downplays the real problem. Evolution is a pseudo-intellectual justification for materialism, because it purports to explain life without God. So materialism would be in great trouble if evolution had a problem right at the start (‘chemical evolution’). After all, if the process can’t even start, it can’t continue.

[general_re]

Because they believe the Earth is only 10,000 (or whatever) years old.

Truthfully, it's not quite that neat. I'm sure there are some of that opinion, but there are also some who are perfectly willing to accept that the world is older than 10,000 years, that God didn't create the earth in 7 literal days, and who still deny macroevolution.

But, there are some who fall into the camp you describe. The "blue tool" is one of them, I suspect, although he denies being a young-earther. So, if you have something to persuade them, knock yourself out. Maybe you've come up with something undeniable.

I'm not holding my breath, but maybe. Nothing against you, but I know what you're up against ;)

[foolish-one]

The only difference between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' is time.

Well, I guess it's "time" to answer this statement. Microevolution usually involves mutations and changes in genes - hereditary units within chromosomes. Macroevolution requires the addition of entire chromosomes. Mutations are easy to understand and explain. The addition of entire chromosomes is difficult to explain and opens up a whole 'nother can of worms in unanswered questions. If you understand biology - a huge difference. If you don't (or if you don't wish to), ignore, wonder still and press on.

[EBUCK]

Evolution does not propose to explain the origin of life. Guess you never wondered why Darwin named his book

"The Origin of Species"

as opposed to

"The Origin Of Life".

I know I've relayed this to you many times in the past so please try to write it down this time.

EBUCK