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]

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.

Oh, I agree completely.

I'm just rambling on about the point that our other friend "misunderstood" the point of that experiment, mistakenly claiming the experiment "disproved" Darwin.

I'm just amazed at this truth -- these folks agree with Darwin, yet are so vitriolic about Darwin.

There's a deep, interesting truth in there.

[Dominic Harr]

no.

You do *not* believe in micro-evolution?

[Aric2000]

Give me scientific proof of a creator and I will take a close look at it. From what I have seen on my own, and found on my own, has proven to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Evolution is a process that continues to this day. If you wish to ignore the facts that disagree with your creationism myth, be my guest. But to argue science with religion is like mixing water and oil. They don't go together, one is physical science, the other is supernatural, and spiritual. You cannot prove the supernatural, at least not yet. Until you can PROVE the existence of god, it will not be science, it will be religion.

[Aric2000]

Do you know what an Essene was?Do you know who simon Bar Kochba is?

Correction, "is", should be, "was".

[Terriergal]

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).

SURPRISE, SURPRISE!

Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible's account of Creation

They probably were.

[Terriergal]

Creationist's 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.

Then you haven't been listening, at least not with an open mind. It's very easy to say "Oh hogwash" immediately when something starts to disagree with your point of view, and then miss the rest of the explanation.

[Terriergal]

Creationist's tactics remind me of the Democrats.

I also find it interesting that this lawsuit by the evolutionists is what is quite reminiscent of the tactics of the Democraps.

[f.Christian]

To: Right Wing Professor


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.



487 posted on 7/12/02 10:31 AM Pacific by f.Christian

[Aric2000]

The cut and paste king is back. Where is that orderlie with your med's?

[F.J. Mitchell]

The creation it's self is proof positive that there was a creator. The order, precision, technical details that makes everything work very well and the beauty of the whole thing, to the observant person, rules out the idea that it came about over time through a series of brainless, accidental, unconnected incidences. Common sense reveals the truth, and exposes the lies of the junk science called evolution, aka survival of the fittest.

[f.Christian]

Were you always a dead...thoughtless---noncomprehending thing?

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH!

[Aric2000]

After studying religion, science, etc, I found that common sense tells me that science, grounded in facts, is much more reliable then religion based on ancient writings.

The facts that have so far been unearthed has added much to the credibility of evolution, and subtracted from the credibility of the literal translation of the book of genesis. You wish to believe in Intelligent design/creationism, hey, be my guest, but the facts back me up, not you.

Prove that there is a creator and we will talk, otherwise, we will disagree forever.

Circular logic was never something that I have taken very seriously.

[Aric2000]

Cut and paste, cut and paste, your notebook file must be full up, because you haven't said anything new in the last 40 posts or so.

[medved]

You clearly dispise Mr. Darwin, yet you agree with him and his theory.

Not really. Chuck's theory was that you can get macroevolution out of microevolution. I simply don't believe that.

[Aric2000]

I see, so if I take a bunch of steel girders and put them up, you won't believe that there is a buidling there, how about when I put in windows, will you believe then? How about when I decide to put the walls on, will you believe then? OK, how about when I get the electrical wiring put in, would you believe in my building then? How about when I put the interior walls in, will you believe then? How about when I move into the building, will you then believe in my building, or will you believe that it just magically appeared out of nothing?

Those are the steps it takes to create a building, Microevolution, each step that it took to create the building, and Macroevolution when it is up and complete.

To believe one, is to believe the other, they are NOT exclusive.

[f.Christian]

Brain stones-farts...you----stink!

No substance/thought...all rhetoric---knee jerk---stone throwers evo moonies!

Fossil...chest thumpers---schoolyard punks-hoodlums!

Psychos!

[Aric2000]

Where is that orderlie with your hourly med's? You are way below your required prescription.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is an abortion...vodoo doll on a stick--pole!

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 === to evolution/voodoo 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!!

[f.Christian]

Public school/religion evo moonie vodoo...arts---craft--aids---pharisees/zealots and witch doctors!

[f.Christian]

Maybe you can help the 'professor'?

To: Right Wing Professor

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.

487 posted on 7/12/02 10:31 AM Pacific by f.Christian

Mensa---maniacs!