Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by 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.)
I have no interest in a rehash of the reformation. The Pope's most recent statement of evolution is here. Read it for yourself, and be sure to tell us all how John Paul II is not a Christian.
192 posted on 7/11/02 1:49 PM Pacific by Right Wing Professor
Quacks!
So why is it that science reevaluates it's hypotheses so often? Science seems riddled with mistakes imho. In the last week here at FR:
Is the Universe older than expected?
"One possible explanation is that something is wrong with the way astronomers measure the age of objects in the Universe."
Missing-link fossil wasn't a fish -- it has a pelvis
"A fossil previously mistaken for the remains of an extinct fish turns out to . . ."
I've read the Nag Hammadi scrolls and all that you use as "evidence" that you know what you are talking about. I'll answer all your questions about thrology as soon as you admit that science is what actually evolves as new knowledge proves old "facts" wrong, time and time again.
I've always lacked the intellect to be able to rule evolution totally out or totally in. I do believe in God, but I don't presume to know what his creative capacity or proclivity is. And I certainly cannot put my faith in interpreters of the Word. Most especially as they interpret in a language twice removed from the orginal text. My total lack of faith in their intellect spans the entire denominational network.
A little spark started, it spread, became intelligent, and will eventually just burn out.
This is the analogy that a few of my atheist friends feel comfortable with… we discuss it while I beat them in darts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.