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.)

[EBUCK]

Consider this....ala Bill Nye the science guy...

The folks writing that Book really understood the word/deeds of God and also understood that if writen in literal terms the populace at large, people like you, would never take to it. So they spiced it up a bit and dumbed it down it a bit to make sure that folks like you wouldn't get scared off and join a thuggee cult.

EBUCK

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh, man, there are so many great candidates, starting with a couple of hundred congressional Democrats.

[EBUCK]

But your candidates were at least smart enough to convince a large segment of the population to vote for them. That is why I ruled slick finger Bill Clowntoon out. He may have been the worst white man in recent memory, but dumb he wasn't.

EBUCK

[That Subliminal Kid]

Wrong as usual.

[Dominic Harr]

In the most traditional sense of the word, Yes I am.

And there's no shame in that. Darwin's theory is simple, and seems observably correct.

Ya'll have no beef with Darwin.

I do respect that ya'll have differences of opinion about specific applications of the theory, and that's cool, I can enjoy discussing that too.

But all these comments about Darwin being disproven, stupid, etc, from folks who actually agree with Darwin's theories is very, very odd.

"I don't believe in Darwinism, but I do believe species evolve to adapt to changing environments."

That's a contradiction.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Creationism is the identical twin to Post-Modernist-Deconstructionism. Both deny that the scientific method is a valid method of obtaining knowledge. Both claim that personal beliefs trump experiment.

[f.Christian]

My mistake. In linking to the words of John Paul, I implicitly assumed that those reading them would possess some level of comprehension. It was a speech by a sophisticated metaphysician to an audience of scientists. Do you really think you should be responding to it without being sure you understand it?

In the preceding text, the Pontiff referred to a multiplicity of theories of evolution. In the section you quote, he discusses that subset of such theories which "regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter".

Got it now, or would you prefer a translation into monosyllables?


209 posted on 7/11/02 2:02 PM Pacific by Right Wing Professor





5. The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought. The Council recalled that "man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake." In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself. St. Thomas observed that man's resemblance to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God's relationship with his creation. (Summa Theologica I-II, q 3, a 5, ad 1) But even beyond that, man is called to enter into a loving relationship with God himself, a relationship which will find its full expression at the end of time, in eternity. Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us. (Gaudium et Spes, 22) It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis)

As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

[foolish-one]

Hmm. I've read a lot of things on both sides of this issue, but I can't say that I've EVER heard a creationist deny scientific methods of obtaining knowledge or claim that belief (or faith) trumps experimentation. Got anything to back that up or is that just another attempt to slander the 'other' side and render anything 'post Doctor' said irrelevant and unworthy of further intellectual consideration? Guess if they don't agree with you re: evolution, they're all flat-earthers in every sense, huh?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I assume you are kidding of course. Here are a few quotes by Creationists themselves:

"Bible-believing students of the biological sciences possess a guide for their interpretation of the available data, the Biblical record of Divine Creation contained in Genesis."
--Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975, p. 69)

"The Christian student of origins approaches the evidence from geology and paleontology with the Biblical record in mind, interpreting that evidence in accord with the facts divinely revealed in the Bible"
--Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975, p. 40)

"Creation science begins with wholly Biblical presuppositions and interprets data from all of reality, including science, within that framework."
--Donald Chittick (Rohr, 1988, p. 156)

"If the Bible is the Word of God--and it is--and if Jesus Christ is the infallible and omniscient Creator--and He is--then it must be firmly believed that the world and all things in it were created in six natural days and that the long geological ages of evolutionary history never really took place at all."
-- Henry Morris (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, 251)

[medved]

The one thing that might drive me off FR are creationists.

You worried about ME having a nervous breakdown or committing suicide from remorse because you left??

[medved]

I'm sorry, I must not be understanding what point you're trying to communicate here.

The point is that no number of microevolutions will ever add up to a macroevolution, i.e. a change in kind. In the fruit fly experiments, changes which appeared to be on the road to producing different kinds of animals led either to sterility or to more fruit flies, when the mutated flies produced new generations. There was nothing the scientists could do over several decades of effort with creatures which produce new offspring every few days, which would create any new or different kind of creature.

[Aric2000]

This is one of the other subjects that emotion trumps facts and scientific investigations with you.

Feelings, nothing more then FEELINGS!! LOL

Too bad, you might actually be pretty good at science if you let your brain outweigh your emotions. oh well, better luck next life.

[Aric2000]

decades is all they have had to do this, now, if we were able to somehow compress millions of years into that timeframe, you would see new creatures. Decades is not even close to long enough, no matter how fast the creatures die off.

Some humans are now born without wisdom teeth, why? because they are no longer needed, how about an appendix? we don't use it, why is it there, if we are gods creation, shouldn't we have just what we need? not some organ that is not used that might kill us if it gets infected. Come on Medved, give me a break. It's fun to hear you guys talk, and I thought those fundamentalist Islam terrorists were crazy. You seem to scream at the top of your lungs, I'M NOT WRONG, science can't be right. Well, you say the fundamentalist terrorists are wrong too, but go ahead and tell them that.

You're all a bunch of goofballs that are hanging onto thier creationist myth with both hands because your faith is so weak.

[Aric2000]

BS, if your faith is so weak that you must tear down science in order to keep it, then you have a massive problem on your hands.

[f.Christian]

pre-emptive strike...running out of ammunition/rations---courage?

[Aric2000]

I have plenty of ammunition F.Christian, but I will not use that ammunition for this debate. Now if you want to start a religious debate thread instead. The fact is that the bible was written by man, it has mistakes in it, PLENTY of mistakes.

Now if you would just accept the fact that you cannot take the bible totally literally, then we would be at a base where we might actually communicate, but until you quit fooling yourself, we'll never get there

[Right Wing Professor]

You worried about ME having a nervous breakdown or committing suicide from remorse because you left??

When I do worry about you at all, it's that you're consuming oxygen that might otherwise be used by an organism with some chance of evolving into a higher life form.

[OldDominion]

bump for later

[f.Christian]

Wrestling with your rubber phoney self doesn't amuse me!

[Dominic Harr]

The point is that no number of microevolutions will ever add up to a macroevolution, i.e. a change in kind.

You mean you're suggesting that the fruitfly experiment was in some way related to species adapting to a changing environment?

Interesting supposition, but I can't say I agree with your reading of the evidence.

They didn't test "Darwinism" at all. They didn't expose the fruitflies to a changing environment. They only exposed the fruitflies to random mutagens to produce random mutations.

So again, you aren't disagreeing with Darwin at all. You seem to agree with Darwin. What you disagree with is certain, specific theories of other people.

Isn't that interesting?

I think you're not communicating your opinion well. I think that insulting Darwin is a mistake, since you agree with him.

If I understand your position correctly, you're more of a "Darwin Plus" thinker. You feel species do adapt to their environment, but that isn't the whole story. You feel that evolution is only one piece of the puzzle, and can't account for the known diversity on Earth.

Is that correct? Darwin, Plus?