The New Scientific American: Okay, We Give Up

[Oreo]

You have to read this from the editors of Scientific American.
Note the date of the editorial.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F&colID=2
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 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.

--MORE--

[ET Awful]

1. LMFAO

I especially like the emphasis by italics on "fair and balanced" science :).

[progressoid]

10. Yeah, nice touch at the end!

[BlueEyedSon]

2. thx kick

[Jim__]

3. Great article - n/t

[mopaul]

4. & God said to Noah, 'no dinosaurs on the boat'

there wasn't enough room for even two brontosaurs

[Cooley Hurd]

5. This was referenced in Paul Krugman's last column...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/05krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

<snip>
In its April Fools' Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it's "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time," saying that "as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence." And it conceded that it had succumbed "to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do."

The editorial was titled "O.K., We Give Up." But it could just as well have been called "Why So Few Scientists Are Republicans These Days." Thirty years ago, attacks on science came mostly from the left; these days, they come overwhelmingly from the right, and have the backing of leading Republicans.

Scientific American may think that evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, but President Bush declares that "the jury is still out." Senator James Inhofe dismisses the vast body of research supporting the scientific consensus on climate change as a "gigantic hoax." And conservative pundits like George Will write approvingly about Michael Crichton's anti-environmentalist fantasies.
</snip>

This from the same people (fundies, not SA) who called Galileo a heretic...:eyes:

[leveymg]

8. But, Chimpo Disproves Evolution. Just look at Your Icon!

See, natural selection moves both ways.

:bounce: :evilgrin: :bounce:

[Cooley Hurd]

9. The theory of De-evolution...

Are we not men?;)

[SidDithers]

6. Great editorial...

thanks for posting.

:toast:

Sid

On Edit: too bad they didn't mention Chemtrails too!

[MARALE]

7. Love it

I am going to send this to my partner, he will love it too.
:rofl: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[spindoctor]

11. Thanks for sharing nt

:rofl:

[wabranty]

12. This is why one of the first things Newt did . . .

was kill of the Office of Technology Assessment. Republicans don't want scientific facts and rationality contradicting their fantasies with actual facts and research. The same group that believes that evolution is still undecided even after mountains of evidence is the same group that fervently proclaims that SDI is proven technological possibility even though they haven't proved it with any experiments based on a real wartime situation. Science is just another political tool to the neo-cons.

[JHB]

13. ...And Considering Newt Was a "Futurist"...

..., a Toffler-influenced technologist, who'd been in the main contender with Al Gore for "(Legislative) Father of the Internet", getting rid of the OTA REALLY tells you where his priorities lay.

Loathsome, loathsome man.

[RethugAssKicker]

14. Great Post

Unbelievalbe how this country is going huh??

[paineinthearse]

15. Skinner had this on the home page 4/1

but thanks again.

[MetaTrope]

16. No worries, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN will be allowed to continue publication

So long as they change their name to THE AMERICAN EUGENICIST.