We Give Up


Excerpt from an entry that ran in this month's Scientific American_

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.
Freaking hilarious. The full text is posted in this Slashdot comment. (I'd like to link to the article on the SciAm website, but it's registration-only.)

Comments

Written by Ed Floyd -

I am looking for a good INTP that can understand my theory of adaptation at http://www.floydspeaking.com/Theory.html . What do you think? If you can understand it, then I would like to discuss my theory on cancer with you. Advise.

comments powered by Disqus