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.)
There's more to it than that. Aside from happening, the microchanges would have to happen in combinations which are simply prohibited by the laws of probability, and they would also have to spread through large populations of animals.
At that point, you get into the Haldane dilemma and other problems of population genetics. Even assuming macroevolution were possible which it isn't, the kinds of time spans which you would need to have our present biosphere from such a process would be, minimally in the quadrillions of years, and not millions or billions.
There's an old saying in the used car business, "There's an ass for every seat", meaning no matter how messed up a car might be, there is somebody who will buy it, you've just got to find him. Same thing apparently holds true for BS ideological doctrines ( e.g. evolution).
Anyway, although people knew he was dishonest, they would buy cars from him because the price was so cheap.
Yes, but the bottom line is you do believe in evolution, and do agree with Darwin on the topic.
It might help you comminicate if you realized that.
You're a Darwinist.
Chaos, as in a system of randomness. Chaos, as in 'game theory' or 'chaos theory' as probability has been fashioned.
That's my opinion of the universe I observe.
And I'm very aware that I'm only taking a 'best guess'. I could easily be wrong.
I once test-drove an old caddy when my son was seeking his first car. The engine was so quiet with 128000 miles on it, I pulled a lifter cover to marvel at it. A man's teeshirt was stuffed down onto the spring mounts on both sides! Knew a jet mechanic who bought an old British car, vintage WWII, to get parts for one he was restoring. In the engine he found an oak piston used to get the car running again during the war when parts were not available ... there was a metal plate atop the piston rig.
Secular Taoist Darwinist?
That's about as close as I can get, I think.
More specifically, I'm a systems analyst. And perhaps that explains my particular brand of madness best.
I'm a married man.
I'm *always* wrong, when I disagree with the wife!
And darned if that woman doesn't remember every single stupid thing I've ever said! Which is quite a bit to remember . . .
'Interfere'?
I'm here taking part in a discussion.
Many things fascinate me. This conversation does, in particular.
Specifically, the manner in which some folks make amazing statements about Darwinism, how it's been disproven, can't be true, etc. But it turns out those folks believe species evolve. They're talking about something else entirely.
I find that *very* interesting. Don't you?
Arguments have become stereotyping from a time long gone.
Right you are. In fact this dedication to the principal of Naturalism puts Science in the uncomfortable position of admitting that it is no longer interested in truth - it is interested in Naturalist doctrine.
Suppose that an intelligent designer were responsible for all that is. Modern Science in its dedication to Naturalism would not be interested - even though it were true.
Yes, I'd say you're right.
To my mind, your point seems to be better expressed by the a notion something you could call, say, 'Darwin Plus'.
You believe evolution happens, but that it's only part of the picture. One piece of the puzzle.
Am I wildly off my rocker?
What a succinct and clear expression of the original intent of the Founding Fathers!
My my...
We have come a long ways haven't we.
Some will argue that we have evolved and become more enlightened.
We have come to the point where perverts pervade every nook and cranny, and ignorance is king. We have become a purer democracy.
Junk science rules our "sensitivity" to society and the "environment", and enboldens the controllers among us to dream up all manner of ways to enslave us or to destroy us.
So it's a surprise that after more than 20 years I stopped subscribing to the SA after it made that sharp left turn?
All one has to do is lay aside his or her ideological blinders for a moment to see that it is most foolish, indeed, to allow the most uninformed, the most pettily selfish, the most illiterate and ignorant people to choose the leaders of a complex government.
Those are just a few entire threads discussing the matter of teaching Creationism in school....you haven't been around these for very long, have you?
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.