Scientific American "give up"
Author
Don't know if you 'all have read it, but in the latest editorial in Scientific American, they fess up and agree that they should have published the opinions of Christian Creation all though "they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts".
The editorial (which of course is marvelous satire) is a bloody brilliant piece of work.
Excerpts here: Scientific American Gets Snarky.
why would they do that? It's a scientific paper, that obeys to scientific principles. They have the same rights to not publish such rubbish as a religious pamphlet to not publish about Darwin's theory of evolution, because it doesn't fit with their principles and ethic.
And if they did talk about creationism, they would probably do more damage than good to the zealots. They'll rip their arguments apart, and put them back in the cave they came from, in a good old scientific fashion.
And if they did talk about creationism, they would probably do more damage than good to the zealots. They'll rip their arguments apart, and put them back in the cave they came from, in a good old scientific fashion.
Quote:Original post by oliii
why would they do that? It's a scientific paper, that obeys to scientific principles. They have the same rights to not publish such rubbish as a religious pamphlet to not publish about Darwin's theory of evolution, because it doesn't fit with their principles and ethic.
And if they did talk about creationism, they would probably do more damage than good to the zealots. They'll rip their arguments apart, and put them back in the cave they came from, in a good old scientific fashion.
Its a joke, they like to do this kind of thing in their April issue. The further you get along, the more obvious it is its a joke.
Its a hilariously sarcastic piece.
Unfortunately, I think creationists will quote this for years to come and not realize it.
(Trying to be careful here, as I don't want to turn this into anything like a religious flame-war)
Wow. There's some pretty loaded and biased language being thrown around. I'm not an extremist, but I am a creationist. I'm so glad my opinions (along with many other perfectly intelligent people) are being described as "ludicrous" and "rubbish"... :S
I can understand Scientific American's frustration, but responding as they have with sarcasm just seems immature.
Whether or not creation is scientifically ill-supported (I disagree with the article, but we probably shouldn't go there), let's not forget that it works the other way: the opinion held by the majority of scientists probably doesn't make a lot of sense religiously. i.e. assuming there is a God, He probably wouldn't have done things that way.
The last thing we want is for all the scientists to turn into raving zealots as well. As scientists, I'd hope they're still open to new theories, so that *if* strong evidence for creation appeared, they wouldn't just dismiss it.
Wow. There's some pretty loaded and biased language being thrown around. I'm not an extremist, but I am a creationist. I'm so glad my opinions (along with many other perfectly intelligent people) are being described as "ludicrous" and "rubbish"... :S
I can understand Scientific American's frustration, but responding as they have with sarcasm just seems immature.
Whether or not creation is scientifically ill-supported (I disagree with the article, but we probably shouldn't go there), let's not forget that it works the other way: the opinion held by the majority of scientists probably doesn't make a lot of sense religiously. i.e. assuming there is a God, He probably wouldn't have done things that way.
The last thing we want is for all the scientists to turn into raving zealots as well. As scientists, I'd hope they're still open to new theories, so that *if* strong evidence for creation appeared, they wouldn't just dismiss it.
Now imagine that. Hordes of beardy scientists grumpily sending rant emails to "Crazy Saints Monthly" over that creationist issue.
brrr.... I wouldn't like to be standing in the middle.
The ironic tone didn't escaped me. I just don't understand why these people bother mailing to the 'enemy' in the hope he is gonna change his mind. Five centuries ago, they would have probably send the Spanish Inquisition, but that's another matter.
ok, I'm sorry for the harsh comments, I just can't understand how this 'truth' written in a book survived the past two centuries. As an allegory, I can stand it, but that's going as far as my reason allows me.
To be fair, if God had it his way, he would probably not have made the earth round. More like a pancake, so sinners and scientists can fall of the edge.
crap, my irony implant is overloading again.
brrr.... I wouldn't like to be standing in the middle.
The ironic tone didn't escaped me. I just don't understand why these people bother mailing to the 'enemy' in the hope he is gonna change his mind. Five centuries ago, they would have probably send the Spanish Inquisition, but that's another matter.
ok, I'm sorry for the harsh comments, I just can't understand how this 'truth' written in a book survived the past two centuries. As an allegory, I can stand it, but that's going as far as my reason allows me.
To be fair, if God had it his way, he would probably not have made the earth round. More like a pancake, so sinners and scientists can fall of the edge.
crap, my irony implant is overloading again.
Quote:Original post by Neexet's not forget that it works the other way: the opinion held by the majority of scientists probably doesn't make a lot of sense religiously. i.e. assuming there is a God, He probably wouldn't have done things that way.Neither you nor I are in a position to judge what God would have done. The "opinion held my the majority of scientists" probably will change dramatically over the next few years, and be unrecognizable in decades.
The majority of science is no more than a best guess. Only a few results are taken as undisputable. Bell's Theorem, which logically restricts the class of theories that can possibly be true, is one, evolution is another. Logically, evolution MUST take place, the part open to debate is the source of life itself.
Creation is one of many answers to that point, no answer to which has ANY evidence in fabour of it AFAIK. I look upon the "bacteria on a meteorite" answer with equal scepticism. If supporters of the meteorite solution lobbied just as hard as the creationists do, I daresay they would be publicly ridiculed too.
Relax and watch "God Fellas" - a very nice Futurama episode. Quote from god: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...".
It's an amusing read, and Scientific American is a great publication (and I am a loyal subscriber). But this is a rather dumb piece of satire in its excessive and immature use of sarcasm, as Neex noted. Leave the religious commentary for The Onion ("Christ Returns To NBA", "Vatican Rescinds 'Blessed' Status Of World’s Meek: 'Screw The Meek', Says Pope", "Paleontology Class Winces Whenever Fundamentalist Kid Raises Hand").
Quote:Original post by kSquared
Leave the religious commentary for The Onion ("Christ Returns To NBA", "Vatican Rescinds 'Blessed' Status Of World’s Meek: 'Screw The Meek', Says Pope", "Paleontology Class Winces Whenever Fundamentalist Kid Raises Hand").
The SA article is not religious commentary. They in fact said squat about religion.
Quote:Original post by Neex
...
Whether or not creation is scientifically ill-supported (I disagree with the article, but we probably shouldn't go there), let's not forget that it works the other way: the opinion held by the majority of scientists probably doesn't make a lot of sense religiously. i.e. assuming there is a God, He probably wouldn't have done things that way.
...
Why not? Why couldn't God have used evolution to create us? Unless you take Genesis literally word for word, we don't know how God did it, and taking Genisis literally raises new questions like "Why would God create the dinosaur bones and make them look like they're millions of years old? Just to confuse us?" [grin]
I personally don't claim to know how God created life. He's God; He's all-powerful. He could have snapped his fingers and had the first living creatures appear, or He could have used evolution over millions of years. I don't see God and evolution as mutually exclusive, but I also don't see evolution as an absolute truth that is no matter what. I just see plenty of evidence suggesting that evolution happened.
I do think that science is getting too hostile to religion, just like some religion has been to hostile to science for a long time. Science zealots are as bad as religious zealots. (By zealot I don't just mean someone who is passionate about religion or science; that's a good thing. I mean someone who takes it to a level of insulting other things because they're different.)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement