This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz
by Curt Hibbs.
Original Post: Great Scientific American Editorial
Feed Title: Curt's Comments
Feed URL: http://www.contegix.com/rss/feed.xml
Feed Description: Nothing fancy... just a place to say stuff.
Just to show that they are not all that stuffy, Scientific American published great April Fools editorial
in which they apologise for biased towards "Charles Drawin and his
cronies" and for "shamefully mistreating" Creationists and Intilligent
Design theorists.
I love it! Here's a snippet to pique your interest, but use the link
above to read the whole thing (read it soon, before Scientific American
makes the poster remove it, as SciAm has a policy against this).
Okay, We Give Up
By
The Editors
There's no easy way to admit this. For
years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed
out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more
balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile
defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not
to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican.
But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf,
so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this mag-azine's coverage of so-called evolution has
been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every
issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True,
the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called
the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest
scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics
about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful
case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest
that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved
the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their
fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of
peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being
persuaded by mountains of evidence....continued at Scientific American Digital
Previous Topic
