1. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    01 Apr '05 20:10
    The long debate over evolution vs creationism has finnally ended.

    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144551

    Taken from the April 2005 issue of scientific american.

    Nyxie
  2. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23634
    01 Apr '05 20:14
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    The long debate over evolution vs creationism has finnally ended.

    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144551

    Taken from the April 2005 issue of scientific american.

    Nyxie

    Could you please give one or two relevant quotes from the link you provided, so people know what this is all about ?
  3. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    01 Apr '05 20:16
    Originally posted by ivanhoe

    Could you please give one or two relevant quotes from the link you provided, so people know what this is all about ?
    Very well...


    The article :

    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 magazine's coverage of socalled 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.

    Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

    Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

    Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

    Okay, We Give Up

    MATT COLLINS
    THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com
    COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
  4. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    01 Apr '05 20:23
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    The long debate over evolution vs creationism has finnally ended.

    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144551

    Taken from the April 2005 issue of scientific american.

    Nyxie
    Ha ha. Very funny.

    No, really.
  5. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23634
    01 Apr '05 20:25

    One or two relevant quotes ..... 🙄
  6. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    01 Apr '05 20:53
    Originally posted by ivanhoe

    One or two relevant quotes ..... 🙄
    "There's no easy way to say this" and "Okay, We Give Up". 😀
  7. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    01 Apr '05 20:56
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    "There's no easy way to say this" and "Okay, We Give Up". 😀
    It's all about being fair and balanced.

    Nyxie
  8. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    01 Apr '05 21:21
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    It's all about being fair and balanced.

    Nyxie
    Wonderful bit of humor. I especially like these portions:

    This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science.

    That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

    Perfect!
  9. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23634
    01 Apr '05 21:23
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    It's all about being fair and balanced.

    Nyxie
    Quoting "And it will start on April Fools' Day."

    would be sufficient quoting

    😛
  10. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    01 Apr '05 21:24
    Originally posted by telerion
    Wonderful bit of humor. I especially like these portions:

    [b]This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science.


    That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

    Perfect![/b]
    If they stuck their tongues in their cheeks any more firmly, it would be coming out their ears. 😛😛😛😵
  11. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    01 Apr '05 21:28
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    The long debate over evolution vs creationism has finnally ended.

    http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=144551

    Taken from the April 2005 issue of scientific american.

    Nyxie
    LMAO the April Fool edition..
  12. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    02 Apr '05 02:53
    It is still 1 April 2005 in my timezone.
Back to Top