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]

Conclusion

Evidently the evolutionists fear the increasing spread of creationist information, despite their best efforts at censorship. So they are desperate to counteract this information. But their efforts don’t withstand scientific scrutiny, and in the end evolution is admitted to be a deduction from a materialistic belief system. It is philosophy/religion... dressed up---as ‘science’

[That Subliminal Kid]

I have to wonder how many of our "Free Thinkers" and "Rationalists" (you know, the goofy names atheists give themselves) will be reading the rebuttle. For some reason I suspect many won't.

[OBAFGKM]

"Can you explain to me, in your own words, what ID theory states and how this is equivalent to Creationism?"

Sorry, life's short and I have better things to do than expound on subtle differences between two versions of the same quackery. If want to take on the challenge, be my guest.

[N. Theknow]

Creationist'sEvolutionists' tactics remind me of the Democrats. They don't have any facts or ideas of their own. They can only ask "questions", and attempt to poke holes in other people's points, without making any affirmative argument of their own position.

Two edges on that sword.

[rudypoot]

Evolutionists extrapolate from scientific findings. This is quite different than faith.

[ImphClinton]

No, what's really fun is listening to a bunch of people say that woman being created from a man's rib, Adam & Eve being the first humans

Boy you chose the wrong argument. Remember Dolly the sheep??? Created from one cell of her (clone). Seem's like simple genetic engineering to change the sex. We do not know how God performs his miricles but in this case our Scientist could do the same thing in a few years. We also do not know how long it took God to perform this miricle.

[Blood of Tyrants]

But blindly and unquestioningly believing evolution dogma does?

[OBAFGKM]

"Evolution is also a faith based with all the implications of a religion."

Baloney. This oft-made claim can be true only if making rational deductions from physical evidence is faith, which it isn't. Faith is believing in the absence of physical evidence. Evolutionary theory devolves from massive amounts of physical evidence collected over the past two hundred or more years.

[That Subliminal Kid]

ROTFLMAO!!!

[f.Christian]

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...

Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!

[OBAFGKM]

"But blindly and unquestioningly believing evolution dogma does?" "Blind and unquestioning" certainly goes along with faith, but that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution or any other branch of science.

[That Subliminal Kid]

So you'll waste your time by continuing to post on this thread but you won't support your absurd, factless assertions? I see! Thanks for clearing that up!

[That Subliminal Kid]

For most of these kids, their own ability to conceive of something is the boundary for what is possible. It's the ultimate arrogance, but it's kind of funny if you step back and look at it in context.

[WyldKard]

I believe in Evolution, and think that Creationism is a bunch of hoey holding us back intellectually.

HOWEVER, I am *totally* behind AiG on this. They have EVERY RIGHT to rebutt S.A., and the latters reaction to the formers article is antithetical to the notion of true intellectual discourse. I am ashamed for them.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Okay, is there ANYTHING about the UNPROVEABLE theory of evolution that bothers you? (Proveable requires that an experiment be observable and repeatable of which the theory of evolution is neither.)

[That Subliminal Kid]

You're not too bright are you? Evolution states that life arose *naturally*. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that life arose *naturally*. It may have, or it may not have. That things evolve is obvious. That they do so purely by causal physical reactions is not. You are free to sit here and make baseless assertions until you're blue in the face- it won't make them true. So, you are free to believe in evolution. If you assert that evolution is a natural process, you are espousing a statement of FAITH. Deal with it.

[Dimensio]

Is there anything about the UNPROVEABLE theory of gravity that bothers you? What about the UNPROVEABLE theories regarding thermodynamics?

Theories in science are never proven. To state as much shows ignorance of the scientific method.

[That Subliminal Kid]

How does "Creationism" hold "us" back intellectually? Are you inhibited from learning or progressing mentally because your neighbor is a "Creationist"? Is the scientific establishment inhibited from carrying out science because some people are "Creationists"? Of course not. Don't be absurd.

[Dimensio]

Evolution states that life arose *naturally*.

Evolution theory deals with origin of species, but it does not at all address the ultimate origin of all life.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Can current evolutionary theory be subjected to the Scientific Method? If so, would you explain it to me?