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.)
God designed Christianity to be available to the humblest of persons. When Jesus walked around asking people "Who do YOU say that I am?" He did not first determine their university credentials.
I am deeply sorry that you have bought into the academic caste system of valuating people by their university pedigrees. No wonder you were so easily brainwashed by the lies of evolution. You can't even grasp your own thougts well enough to stand on your own feet like a man and simply SAY WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
Sad.
And how about God's design of Judaism? Who is that available to? Mormonism? Hinduism?
Main Entry: de·ni·al
Pronunciation: di-'nI(-&)l, dE-
Function: noun
Date: 1528
1 : refusal to satisfy a request or desire
2 a (1) : refusal to admit the truth or reality (as of a statement or charge) (2) : assertion that an allegation is false b : refusal to acknowledge a person or a thing : DISAVOWAL
3 : the opposing by the defendant of an allegation of the opposite party in a lawsuit
4 : SELF-DENIAL
5 : negation in logic
6 : a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality
I think that pretty much summs it up
EBUCK
EBUCK
It doesn't. That someone wants it in the classroom is what bothers me.
Oh, absolutely.
But I'm fascinated at the structure of this debate.
These folks paint themselves into a corner by stating that they do *not* believe in evolution, and then spend a lot of time arguing against evolution.
All the while, they do agree with evolution, and only disagree about the age of the universe.
They're arguing about the wrong thing, and it's easy to prove it to them. Just ask them if they believe that species evolve to adapt to their envrionment. You know when you've gotten too close to the truth when they refuse to talk to you!
Fascinating.
I don't think so, but possibly.
May I ask you -- do you believe that species evolve to adapt to their changing environments?
EBUCK
No doubt. However, there's a difference between being able to plug in a toaster, and being able to intelligently design a nuclear power plant.
It's not a question of an academic caste system. It's a religious difference. That every person should be able to determine the Creators' will, on his own, from a rather political 17th century translation of a translation of a translation of a compilation of a set of Divinely-inspired works is a very protestant idea.
What?? I thought Mormomism was the correct religion - or was that just in South Park?
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.