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.)

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Why do you equate Intelligent Design and "Creationism"?

I, also, don't understand why some people equate the theory of Intelligent Design with creationism. Perhaps they are too stupid to see the difference. The two theories are not necessarily one and the same.

I happen to believe in the theory of Intelligent Design, but I am not a creationist nor a Bible believer.

[Aric2000]

It is a part of science to be reevaluated, each new discovery or theory starts a whole new set of questions to be answered. Science will never find all the answers, but it gives us a clue of how nature works and is working.

Evolution has lasted for quite a while, for a theory to last that long is quite remarkable. The fact of the matter is that the basic tenets are correct, it is the specifics that are not quite there yet. They will get there, it is just a matter of time.

Every time there is a dig, or a reassessment of some fossil, our knowledge grows.

That is the other big difference between science and religion, science will admit if something else has come up to replace a theory or some fact, but religion is never wrong, and when proven to be wrong will fight tooth and nail that it is still not wrong.

[Aric2000]

I am not an athiest, never have been, but I am not a christian, nor a muslim, nor any of those others. I am not religious, but I am not anti religious either.

Your analogy is interesting, but not how I see it.

[Aric2000]

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 have never said otherwise, and it would be outright idiocy and stupidity to say otherwise. Each old fact thatis disproved, is replaced with a new set of facts, that creates a whole new set of questions etc, etc.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I don't know if the journal is online for free. A university library should have access.

The author's point is that most consistent but randomly formed universes are suitable for life. A universe similar the the actual one is almost impossible to avoid.

Why did you inflate the number of "parameters" from 22 to 47?

[Elsie]

You do *not* believe in micro-evolution?

---

yes

[Elsie]

Come on Elsie, you know exactly what I am asking you for, and you have decided to play word games with me.

---

Oh no, resourseful one, I am not playing games with you. You are the one throwing out the challenges, and then wanting your OPPONENTS to answer them. If you are going to tilt at the windmills, be aware that the proof is with you.

I've studied this:
I've learned that:
I've pondered those:
therefore I'm right, is NOT an argument that carries much weight, except to the easily intimidated.

[Elsie]

Most especially as they interpret in a language twice removed from the orginal text.

What do you mean by "twice removed"?

[Aric2000]

Bring it on then, it will be fun to play with you for a while, but be warned, I tire of closed minds rather quickly. Oh, and no circular logic, doesn't fly with me. There is life, therefore it proves the existence of god, the bible says so, therefore the bible is right, that kind of thing.

Bring me historical facts and papers that prove your stance, and I will listen, bring me facts that show your argument to be true. Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are correct, WITHOUT using the bible, unless it is helped by independent facts and historical documents. You will not show me anything that I do not already know, but if by chance you do, I will freely admit it.

So, go forth and give it your best shot. I'll be waiting with great anticipation.

[Elsie]

My total lack of faith in their intellect spans the entire denominational network.

---

Would you rather have someone translate the
Hebrew,
Babylonian,
Aramaic and
Greek for you

that was a

Muslim,
Hindu,
Bhuddist,
Wiccan,
Animist,
Astrologer,
Agnostic, or
Atheist?

---

Just what mechanism would you have in place to keep THEIR bias' from creeping in?

[f.Christian]

"Gatto’s thesis is one of those “big ideas” that takes a little time to wrap the mind around. The public schools cannot be reformed because they’re not failing, he argues. They’re succeeding beyond all expectations at precisely what they’re supposed to be—not only a huge make-work jobs program, but also the incubators of a dependent class of conscienceless sociopaths, their emotional development... purposely stunted---a generation (by now two or three) with little knowledge of “the narrative of American history connecting the arguments of the founding fathers to historical events, defining what makes Americans different from others besides wealth.”

[Elsie]

So, go forth and give it your best shot. I'll be waiting with great anticipation.

Sorry, but the best minds have ALREADY given it to you. You've made a choice, based on what you know, and you are happy with it. Your lifestyle revolves around it: you are comfortable with it. My words, or anyone else's on the subject will not make a dent in it.

You are a long way from dead, and there will be experiences in your life that may make YOU do a re-evaluation of the available data.

---

All of what I just wrote to you, also applies to me and to the rest of the readers, writers and lurkers on this thread. There ain't ONE of us that don't sincerely think WE are right and wish that other could have the clarity of mind to see the 'truth' as we do. (if there is, he's (she?) one sick puppy!)

[f.Christian]

"Gatto’s thesis is one of those “big ideas” that takes a little time to wrap the mind around. The public schools cannot be reformed because they’re not failing, he argues. They’re succeeding beyond all expectations at precisely what they’re supposed to be—not only a huge make-work jobs program, but also the incubators of a dependent class of conscienceless sociopaths, their emotional development... purposely stunted---a generation (by now two or three) with little knowledge of “the narrative of American history connecting the arguments of the founding fathers to historical events, defining what makes Americans different from others besides wealth.”

[Aric2000]

My goodness, my respect for you just went through the roof. No sarcasm intended, I am dead serious.

[balrog666]

I, also, don't understand why some people equate the theory of Intelligent Design with creationism. Perhaps they are too stupid to see the difference.

You mean they don't overlap at all? So one is design without creation and the other is creation without design?

Wow, I hadn't thought about it that way!

[balrog666]

Would you rather have someone translate the ...

So all translated texts are biased? And only some are biased your way?

[f.Christian]

"Gatto’s thesis is one of those “big ideas” that takes a little time to wrap the mind around. The public schools cannot be reformed because they’re not failing, he argues. They’re succeeding beyond all expectations at precisely what they’re supposed to be—not only a huge make-work jobs program, but also the incubators of a dependent class of conscienceless sociopaths, their emotional development... purposely stunted---a generation (by now two or three) with little knowledge of “the narrative of American history connecting the arguments of the founding fathers to historical events, defining what makes Americans different from others besides wealth.”

[gore3000]

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.

Garbage. Give me proof of ONE (1) species that has transformed itself into another species. There are none. However, here are two species that did not descend from any other species and thus disprove evolution: the platypus and euglena.

[gore3000]

Prove that there is a creator

LIFE

Science has definitely shown that there is absolutely no way that life arose from non-living matter.

[Aric2000]

You keep harping on those 2 species and I have seen quite a few links and posts that refute you.

You are just too funny!! I don't like the results, so I will ignore it. sorry Gore, thanks for playing, but you are the weakest link, GOODBYE!! better luck next time.