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.)

[That Subliminal Kid]

I wasn't speaking about origins, your point is moot.

[berned]

Evolution is the only "widely accepted" scientific theory that continually falls apart under scrutiny. Nobody is still, today, hotly debating Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or Newton's Theories about gravity, or many, many other theories, for the simple reason that they WORK. The math WORKS OUT. The numbers ARE THERE.

Evolution, is a very different matter. Every year, more and more scientists express grave doubts about the validity of it. More and more states are passing legislation to teach students that it is far from proven. The more we know about molecular biology and DNA, the shakier and more dubious "evolution" looks. Why?

Because it's a BOGUS THEORY. It doesn't work. It never did. If evolution was sound science, it wouldn't fall apart at the seams the minute somebody starts asking the hard questions that evolutionists CANNOT answer.

Evolution is the "Dreyfus Affair" of science.

[DaveyB]

Evolutionists extrapolate from scientific findings

Science has never made life - has never once shown inter speices evolution despite a myraid of attempts --so it would be fair to extrapolate the theory is wrong!

[That Subliminal Kid]

Excellent points about Einstein and Newton vs. Darwin.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Dave, to be a "Free Thinker" you must have FAITH that science will eventually provide us with answers, even if we are ignorant of them right now. Keep the faith brother! Our parishoners and clergy in the cathedrals of science will show us the light- some day! Patience!

[f.Christian]

bttt

[Seeking the truth]

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

Are you referring to the Piltdown Man extrapolation or the birds are/were dinosaurs extrapolation?

[DaveyB]

Faith is believing in the absence of physical evidence.

If this is the new definition, then my religion does not qualify as faith based -- there is gobs of physical evidence for Christianity.

[That Subliminal Kid]

No, no, no.. not THOSE findings.. those OTHER findings.. you know.. those ones that actually agree with his preconceived notions of truth.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Now it is YOU who ignore the accepted practices of science. You can both observe and repeat a test of gravity. You can do neither with evolution.

I tire of this thread. It is a never ending battle here.

[Dimensio]

Are you referring to the Piltdown Man extrapolation

Piltdown Man was not an extrapolation, it was a fraud. It was exposed once it was subjected to scientific scrutiny.

[Dimensio]

You can both observe and repeat a test of gravity.

And no matter how often you test the theory of gravity and acheive results within the predictions of the theory you still have not "proven" the theory.

[foolish-one]

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.

Well, isn't that just a real Liberal method of debate? Throw out a provocative statement in a deliberate, intelectual-sounding monotone, act surprised that anyone would question the validity of your statement, slander the opposing school of thought, feign disinterest in any further discussion on the topic of your original statement then turn and slowly walk.

My, aren't you sophisticated!

[Nebullis]

This is a pathetic move on the part of SCIAM.

The magazine used to be quite good. In recent years the science has been dumbed down (sometimes to the point of incoherence) and political/philosophical motivations have led to poor editorial decisions.

Alternative sources for collections of the latest advances in science can be found at numerous science web portals that link to original articles and bypass the SCIAM premastication.

[1L]

I hate defending SciAm because they're so off the deep end lately, but due to the way copyright law works, they're compelled to threaten anyone who uses anything of theirs in any way. This is why Disney goes after mom & pop day care centers that use a drawing of, say, Snow White based on the Disney design.

You are confusing copyrights with trademarks. One doesn't have to work to keep copyright enfringment ripe. And if there was ever a better example of fair use -- using the copyrighted text only to demonstrate the argument, so one can rebut it -- I've never heard of it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. Both gravity and thermodynamics are LAWS, long proven by often repeated experiments. I'm sure you have heard of them, the LAW of gravity and the LAWS of thermodynamics.

[Dimensio]

Both gravity and thermodynamics are LAWS, long proven by often repeated experiments.

Laws are mathematical constructs, but they are built upon theory and become meaningless if the theories are refuted.

Scientific theories are never proven. Repeated experimentation can strongly support the validity of a theory but it is impossible to "prove" any theory in science, no matter how often you do the experiment.

[lews]

-- I have better things to do than expound on subtle differences between two versions of the same quackery --

So what you are saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but, you are sure you believe it.

I'm not sure what rules you use to decide what quackery is, but, you might want to try applying them your own viewpoint first. It just might stop you from making foolish posts like your previous on.

[balrog666]

Hey, take it to court where only the strongest survive.

Yeah, like OJ.

[WyldKard]

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.

TSK,

I'm not interesting in joining the Evo/Cre debate, because it results in a bunch of people convincing no one of each others side. I came only to support AiG in their fight to have a voice. But I felt you deserved more than me just ignoring you :)

I do feel Creationism keeps people from trying to continue to understand the world around them, and as a meme inhibits people from being more scientifically minded in general. I am not a big believer in something that I personally feel is PURELY based on faith, as opposed to something that, while still theoretical in many respects, is more based in fact.

And I know you don't agree with me, and we can go back and forth and back and forth, and nothing constructive will happen. So sorry...I believe in what I believe, but I do hope AiG wins this fight against S.A.

And thats pretty much that. Anyone else want to respond, great...just dont' expect an answer from me. Thanks :)