MrSpooky Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 from their editorial Okay, We Give Up 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Oh, that is funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celsus Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I hope you understand this was a satirical article published on April Fools Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles7268 Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 it's fairly obvious that's satire, now why didn't i notice that when I read through the issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 What is worse is that Hovind looks like he took it seriously... Hovinds reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchu Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 HOVIND: "I’d be honored to debate them in front of any university with half of my brain tied behind my back." I'd attend!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Is he really that stupid? I just read his response and it really does appear that the fact that the article was parody was lost on him. Maybe he is just that dishonest. My favorite was this one: "Who cares if some people think it is the greatest scientific idea of all time. Nearly all polls show the majority of America (somewhere between 55 and 60%) does not believe it is a legitimate idea, and think there’s probably nothing scientific about it." The problem with the scientific method all along is that it fails to account for popularity. It is pretty impressive that the guy built a website all by his very self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchu Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Is he really that stupid? I just read his response and it really does appear that the fact that the article was parody was lost on him. Maybe he is just that dishonest. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Or maybe he is just that humor-free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Broke Free Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Is he really that stupid? I just read his response and it really does appear that the fact that the article was parody was lost on him. Maybe he is just that dishonest. No, Hovind is not that stupid, but he is trusting that his readers will be. How many of them will actually understand that Hovind is responding to satire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 There’s actually overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans. We simply called them dragons. Man killed most of them, and there may be a few still alive today. The editors of Scientific American need to watch our video number three (Dinosaurs and the Bible) for more about this topic. Yup, I got those videos too: Jurassic Park I, II and III The evidence is irrefutable! Bow down your knees for Holy Bob and Jebuz Crispus immediately! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 There’s actually overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans. We simply called them dragons. Kent Hovind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 HOVIND: "I’d be honored to debate them in front of any university with half of my brain tied behind my back." I'd attend!! I'll volunteer to do the tying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I'd bloody well buy tickets and give them away just to have a crowd of folks actually listen to this... Who is the "Chosen One" to go tear a chunk out of Kenny's ass? n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 One only needs half a brain to present or believe Hovind's arguments. More brain than that is actually an impediment to appreciating his simplistic logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marktaylor Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Hovind wrote:" they only show evidence of rapid burial,(fossils) indicated(ing) the Biblical flood story is the most likely explanation for their existence." And if you don't like one story, there are two complete flood stories in the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchu Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I'll volunteer to do the tying. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I'll place the drip pan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I'll volunteer to do the tying. Sorry to burst your bubble, but what the fuck do you want to tie up there? The void between his ears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Dudes and Dudette's, you just need Video #7. It's pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bdp Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Hovind said: I’ve had ninety debates now, and have won them easily every time. bdp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Also... The Bible says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” to... Not because I’m smarter; but because I’m right and they’re wrong. Ken, bite my shiny metal ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Light_of_Reason Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I just read all of Hovind's reply. I actually can't believe I made it through all of his stupidity, but it is just that stupidity that made his response all the funnier. If only people didn't buy into his dumbness, this would be the most laughable thing I have seen in quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I really have a problem with this article on his site, in which he "logically" assumes that the genetic identity of an organism is based on the number of chromosomes it has. No joke. He includes a table of organisms titled, "The Evolution of Species by Means of Increasing Number of Chromosomes." Chickens, dogs, and ducks are grouped together with 78 chromosomes each, with the annotation "Identital triplets." I find it so hard to believe that Hovind was even a high school biology teacher, if he can so totally screw up the significance of chromosome numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts