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.)

[Dominic Harr]

I've only found "controlled" experiments.

And that makes sense, to a point.

But since 'Darwinism' is as much about environment as it is about species, I'm afraid those don't help the debate much.

But what is certain is that the 'fruit fly' experiments in no way disagree with Darwin.

[Dominic Harr]

Thank you for looking, I really appreciate it.

[Dominic Harr]

Really funny...when are you going to start---thinking!

I wonder, why do you despise Darwin so much when you agree with his theory?

[That Subliminal Kid]

Don't mind Aric. He's a small-minded pseudo-intellectual who is under the mistaken impression that insulting everyone who disagrees with him, and pounding the table harder than his opponent, lofty rhetoric and asserting that his are "facts" while yours are "opinion" will win a debate, gain him respect, or otherwise cause people to regard him as something other than what I can only guess people who know him personally do. There are a few intelligent people on these threads on both sides of the debate. I'd consider myself one , though I'm not really on either side so to speak, and I'd consider people like Dimensio and Patrick Henry people you can actually discuss with. Aric2000 is a fraud and a charletan.

[EBUCK]

Never said they did....disagree that is. The only way for us to test the ToE is to experimant. And the only way to experiment without corrupt results is in a controlled environment. Scientists have to do their best, in a controlled way, to simulate environmental selective pressures and apply them to populations which will later be compared against a control population.

EBUCK

[foolish-one]

There is no indication that you will do anything else.

Not comprehending. Sorry.

[f.Christian]

I wonder, why do you despise Darwin so much when you agree with his theory?

583 posted on 7/12/02 1:10 PM Pacific by Dominic Harr

OK...let's play---you are Napolean and I'm one of your captains---generals!

What are my orders?

[balrog666]

Just passin' through placemarker.

[medved]

If they didn't put the flies in a controlled environment, and then change that environment, they didn't test Darwinism at all.

Sounds like all the experts on evolution needed you as an advisor back there. Basically, they set out to prove evolution by producing it experimentally. You suspect the problem might be that evolutionists are just too stupid to conduct experiments properly?

[Aric2000]

Ohh, calling names there are we? interesting, too bad kid, most liberals use the same tactic, if you can't refute them with facts then attack them personally. I have not attacked you personally, besides telling you that you can't think, but besides that.....

[Blood of Tyrants]

You people are just reaffirming what I have already stated. It takes as much FAITH to believe in evolution as it does in divine creation.

So why are you continually trying to make your faith more acceptable and "correct" than mine?

[atlaw]

I always seem to get to these threads too late to actually engage in the discussion. If you're still hanging around this thread, I'd like your synopsis of ID theory, if that is possible, and I'd like to know what you view the distinction to be between ID and Creationism.

Frankly, I don't know a thing about ID. Of Creationsism, it seems to me that it encompasses a great many different (and often conflicting) notions, some of which are apparently equated to ID by the posters here. Thanks in advance for any meaningful help you can provide.

[Lurking Libertarian]

You people are just reaffirming what I have already stated. It takes as much FAITH to believe in evolution as it does in divine creation. So why are you continually trying to make your faith more acceptable and "correct" than mine?

I have no idea how this reply has anything to do with what I said in my post. I also don't know who you mean by "you people" -- for what it's worth, I believe both in "divine creation" and in evolution. (God formed us from the "dust of the ground"; evolution is how He turned that dust into something capable of worshipping Him.)

[That Subliminal Kid]

You haven't attacked me personally? ROFL! Okay Aric. Hint: go bug someone else. I'm through wasting my time on an intellectual lightweight such as yourself. Good day sir!

[That Subliminal Kid]

I would be happy too, but I've hashed out the obvious differences between the two one too many times. No fault of yours though, I don't expect you'd know that. Here's a link. If you go here and read my posts you will know in detail what I have to say about Creationism vs. ID Theory. Look specifically for my discussion with Patrick Henry. Thanks for asking.

[f.Christian]

God formed us from the "dust of the ground"; evolution is how you turned that god into some idol capable of worshipping self!

[Aric2000]

You have yet to state one fact, just one, in any of your posts. Look who's calling who an intellectual lightweight. Now I know that you are an arrogant little punk.

When you have facts to back up your "arguments" (which are in fact opinions with no facts to back them up), then we will talk about who is a lightweight and who isn't.

Geez, you are a joke aren't you....

[That Subliminal Kid]

ZZZzzzz....

[Right Wing Professor]

Mmm, do think so. Most bacterial cultures are grown from a single cell. Allow a score or so doublings, treat with a mutagen, apply antibiotics at a moderate level, and let the culture double a few more score times, and you come up with strains that are far more resistant to the antibiotic that the original bug. It was an undergraduate lab. experiment when I was in college.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Is that what you'd call evolution? To my mind, when a population is killed off, for whatever reason, those who survive already possessed the genetic traits required to survive. That's why they were able to pass those traits on to progeny. That seems to me a poor example of true evolution. It's a great example of natural selection at work, but I'm not sure that there's any new genetic information being added to the pool.