• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Scientific American Editorial

Discussion in 'Christian Philosophy & Ethics' started by JackRT, Mar 30, 2018.

  1. JackRT

    JackRT Flat earther waking up ... Supporter

    +11,308
    Canada
    Freethinker
    Married
    Okay, We Give Up --- We Feel So Ashamed
    by The Editors of Scientific American
    March 2005

    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.

    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.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. xpower

    xpower Newbie Supporter

    437
    +146
    Christian
    Private
    Are these people so clueless. That they think everyone that doubts Darwinism and Darwin's evolution does not understand science or the Scientific method and not everyone that doubts is even religious.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2018
  3. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    We can thus see how inevitable it would be that a lot of "science" has become politics.

    Only EVER permitting one side of a story, and that story being the VAST SPECULATION of "evolution" or the total scam that is "climate change."

    No lack of derision for anyone who thinks science should pursue the entire story - especially dealing with some the questions when certain disciplines are SO QUESTIONABLE.
     
  4. JackRT

    JackRT Flat earther waking up ... Supporter

    +11,308
    Canada
    Freethinker
    Married
    Au contraire mon ami. What the editorial bemoans is a lot of religion and politics masquerading as science.
     
Loading...