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.)

[OBAFGKM]

"You're not too bright are you?"

Oh my! Can this be from the same poster? Ad Hominem Attacks Are Bad Learn some manners.

Now, if I were to assert that evolution evolution is a natural process, I suppose that would be faith, but I don't. However, if I assert that physical evidence appears to be consistent with evolution being a natural process, that's science. If you don't understand the difference, then you have a weak grip on the philosophy of science.

[Blood of Tyrants]

So you are admitting that your belief in evolution is based on faith?

[Right Wing Professor]

The more we know about molecular biology and DNA, the shakier and more dubious "evolution" looks. Why?

I've been doing research on DNA for nearly 20 years. The more I learn about gene sequences, the more insight it gives me into evolution. There are *no* problems with the theory of evolution sufficient to in any way cause one to question its validity. There is *no*alternative theory which allows working scientists to analyse genetic data in an intelligent fashion. The tinyy minority of scientists who question evolution are in general not working in any field of biology which directly involves genetic sequencing or DNA structure.

You guys have got to realize that creationism is strictly tin-foil-hat stuff. Lie to each other all you want about how there are major flaws in evolution, how creationiism is picking up adherents every day, whatever. It's delusion.

[balrog666]

Looks like the monkeys are scurrying again for your amusement.

[PatrickHenry]

There's a thread which is over 2,400 posts long on the original article in Scientific American, right here
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING] .

[That Subliminal Kid]

It may well keep invidiuals from learning certain versions of scientific information, but it doesn't "hold us back". You are free to move forward, as am I, but if someone wants to be a Creationist, more power to them.

[f.Christian]

Introduction
Scientific American’s foundation
Scientific American is a semi-popular journal which publishes attractively illustrated and fairly detailed, but not overly technical, articles, mostly on science. It is not a peer-reviewed journal like Nature or TJ, but many of its articles are very useful. Scientific American was founded by the artist and inventor Rufus Porter (1792–1884), who thought that science glorified the creator God. In the very first issue, his editorial stated:

‘We shall advocate the pure Christian religion, without favouring any particular sect …’

And he wrote an article ‘Rational Religion’, where he wrote:

‘First, then, let us, as rational creatures, be ever ready to acknowledge God as our Creator and daily Preserver; and that we are each of us individually dependant on his special care and good will towards us, in supporting the wonderful action of nature which constitutes our existence; and in preserving us from the casualties, to which our complicated and delicate structure is liable. Let us also, knowing our entire dependence on Divine Benevolence, as rational creatures, do ourselves the honor to express personally and frequently, our thanks to him for his goodness; and to present our petitions to Him for the favours which we constantly require. This course is rational, even without the aid of revelation: but being specially invited to this course, by the divine word, and assured of the readiness of our Creator to answer our prayers and recognize our thanks, it is truly surprising that any rational being, who has ever read the inspired writings should willingly forego this privilege, or should be ashamed to be seen engaged in this rational employment, or to have it known that he practices it.’

Since Porter, Scientific American has had only six editors in chief, and the most recent two have diametrically opposed their founder’s original vision. Now, as will be explained further in this article, Scientific American works to push an atheistic world view in the guise of ‘science’, and a number of corollaries such as a radical pro-abortion,1 human cloning2 and population control agenda.3 The previous editor, Jonathan Piel, refused to hire Forrest Mims III when Mims admitted he was a creationist, and when Piel asked Mims whether he was pro-life, Mims replied, ‘Of course—aren’t you glad your mother was?’ Piel admitted that Mims’ work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’ and ‘first rate’, and ‘should be published somewhere’.4 Scientific American subsequently published an article about his revolutionary atmospheric haze detector (see Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination).

Return to contents
Current editor
Now the current editor since late 1994, one John Rennie (b. 1959), has also fervently promoted the anti-God evolution agenda. Like many anti-creationist propagandists, he often launches into attacks with a poor understanding, and he has only a bachelor’s degree in science, so is far less qualified than the leading creationist scientists at AiG and ICR. Under his editorship, an article was published in the March 2002 issue, vociferously attacking creationists and misrepresenting the Kansas curriculum controversy.5 It illustrated the vitriol that can result when there is any attempt to mildly de-emphasize the treating of evolution from goo-to-you-via-the-zoo as fact—see Errors in Scientific American and What really happened in Kansas? Earlier, at the height of this controversy, Rennie himself urged scientists on university admissions committees to adopt bully-boy tactics in notifying the Kansas governor and the state board of education that ‘in light of the newly lowered education standards in Kansas, the qualifications of any students applying from that state in the future will have to be considered very carefully.’6

Now Rennie has become more actively involved in the fray, taking on the role of the valiant B.S. (B.Sc.) scientist trying to stem the creationist tide. He wrote the object of this rebuttal, namely ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’, subtitled, ‘Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don’t hold up’. Even the magazine’s cover had splashed on the top, ‘15 ways to expose creationist nonsense’.

But as will be shown, Rennie has only the vaguest ideas about real creationist arguments. Many of the ‘creationist arguments’ are ‘straw man’ arguments, which AiG has also rejected. But Rennie’s arguments for evolution are also nothing new, and have been mostly answered on our Web site. We have also pointed out many of the logical fallacies common among evolutionists, including inconsistent definitions of the word evolution—equivocation, and failing to differentiate between origins and operational science. We have also pointed out that evolutionary belief is largely a deduction from materialistic axioms, which as we will show, Rennie actually agrees with, and he lamely tries to defend this bias.

[DaveyB]

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.

May it never be. The Psalms tell us to consider the heavens the moon the stars etc. to glory in the work of creation. Christians are to take dominion over creation, and this is best done first studying it. Creationism doesn’t lead to ignorance, but it is the path to wisdom.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Again you display your ignorance. Science presupposes naturalism. Science as science is defined will never conclude that any phenomena is not natural. I find it amazingly ironic that you'd follow this display by asserting that I may not have a "grip on the philosophy of science". Did you even read what you posted? I doubt anyone is surprised at the findings of science, but of course wise people realize science does not have a monopoly on the whole of truth. They have a monopoly on the truth about physical systems, but they do not and cannot define empirically where this boundary lies.

[That Subliminal Kid]

WOOHOO!!

[OBAFGKM]

"Okay, is there ANYTHING about the UNPROVEABLE theory of evolution that bothers you?"

You may have a different understanding of "proveable" and "experiment" than a well-trained scientist. In the theory of evolution and many other branches of science, "experiments" frequently consist of accumulating observations of natural phenomena and comparing those with deductions made from past observations. "Proof" doesn't enter into the process -- the scientist is looking for "inconsistency." When enough inconsistencies accumulate, he changes the theory. That doesn't happen with faith.

[That Subliminal Kid]

I can always tell when you're pasting something from someone else because I can understand it. It isn't incoherant babble splattered with dashes and slashes.

[That Subliminal Kid]

I thought you "didn't have time" a while ago? What's up with that?

[DaveyB]

...well-trained scientist...

You mean one who agrees with you I presume.

[been_lurking]

To state as much shows ignorance of the scientific method.

Would this be the same "scientific method" that showed how that the earth was flat? Or maybe it was the improved "scientific method" that showed how the sun rotated around the earth? Or maybe it's the "scientific method" that discovered malaria was caused by "bad air."

The history of science teaches us that scientists can be wrong just as often as they are right.

I wonder which of the great scientific discoveries of our time will be viewed by future generations as the foolish superstitions of a naive culture.

[f.Christian]

Your so smart...what about the dots!

[Phaedrus]

There are *no* problems with the theory of evolution sufficient to in any way cause one to question its validity.

Nonsense. Baloney. We are supposed to accept these ex cathedra pronouncements on the basis of your authority? Why? And for the record, I am not a literal Biblical Creationist. The world doesn't divide quite so neatly, wishful thinking to the contrary by the Darwinists notwithstanding.

[berned]

There are *no* problems with the theory of evolution sufficient to in any way cause one to question its validity

Then why are more and more scientists every year questioning it's validity? Why does the theory fail to persuade over 60 per cent of the public, even after they have been force-brainwashed it in public schools? Why is evolution the only major theory that cannot stand up to scrutiny? That has no answers for countless questions about it? That continually loses in public debates, so much so that Creationist debate societies can no longer find evolutionist volunteers to debate them in public forums?

Evolution is tinfoil-hat stuff. It's the Dreyfus Affair of science. You cling to your religious belief in evolution because the thought of a moral God who will one day judge us all, frightens you.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Of course the scientist will never find something inconsistent with natural phenomena. Any phenomena he cannot explain is still assumed to have a natural albeit unknown cause. Thus, scientists, and the laity who follow them like starved dogs, have *faith* in something for which there is no empirical evidence. Like you said "When enough inconsistencies accumulate, he changes the theory. That doesn't happen with faith." I couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks!

[OBAFGKM]

"Nobody is still, today, hotly debating Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or Newton's Theories about gravity,..."

Actually that's not true. There are some very fundamental problems with relativity, and in fact, NASA is about to spend a bundle launching "Gravity Probe B" to test some aspects of it. Do a search on "Alain Aspect" to get some perspective. By the way, did you know that Newton's theory of gravitation is inconsistent with relativity?