[lelio]

While I'm on SA's side on this (article was pretty good) the magazine doesn't take criticism well. Did you see their slam piece on Lomborg's book Skeptical Environmentalist? Just nitpicking on minor points, and then they didn't want to print a rebuttal. They eventually did and then tried to attack it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think they can claim copyright infringement when you only reprint sections and then give them full credit.

[Bonaparte]

SA can't go 5 years without making a fool of itself. Back when Roebling released his proposal for the Brooklyn Bridge, complete with drawings and specs, SA wrote a lengthy feature article purporting to show why the bridge would collapse soon after construction. Still standing today.

[hinckley buzzard]

SA has long since ceased to be a trustworthy or reputable journal. Due to infestation by PC pathogens it has been irretrievably Lysenko-ized.

I don't much care about the creationism v. evolution debate myself. But I find SA's Stalinist tactics contemptible.

They are civil and collegial with crackpot "social scientists" and global warmers and such, whose theories have no more credibility or supporting empirical data than creationism.

They can afford to act at least as decently to creationists, who in fact cause much less harm than the above mentioned miscreants.

[bvw]

I used to be a regular reader and dearly appreciated Scientific American. But it fell over to the dark side, political correctness and into the religion "scientficism" as an axtremist zealot (that is a zealot except when being too scientific would shatter some PC idol.)

Never even glance at it anymore, it is so propagandized.

[Godel]

While I'm on SA's side on this (article was pretty good) the magazine doesn't take criticism well. Did you see their slam piece on Lomborg's book Skeptical Environmentalist? Just nitpicking on minor points, and then they didn't want to print a rebuttal. They eventually did and then tried to attack it.

It seems like Scientific American has taken a huge turn to the left recently. Now they want to start preaching on liberal social issues under the guise of reporting on "social sciences".