Posted on 04/05/2005 8:56:03 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
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.
Sci Am's April Fools jokes are well known ;-)
|
So, SA has a sense of humor? Who knew?
Dood, April fools.
Strange, I thought science was supposed to be completely objective.
::::sarcasm off::::
The nicest thing I can say is that SA is starting to rival the New York Times for bottom-of-bird-cage status -- wouldn't use either for fish-wrap, some of the type might bleed off onto dinner.
Perfect editorial for April Fools Day: "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God'..." -- Ps. 14:1
This is their lame-ass attempt at clever way of diffusing the very accurate charge that their magazine has grown unbearably political over the last few years. (Did you miss their tribute to congress's non-partisan champion of science - Henry Waxman a few months ago? Or their "strictly science" article that dismissed missle defense as an utterly unworkable system designed only to enrich the supporters of the Republican corruption machine.)
Instead of responding with this insulting misdirection, they should answer the question many of their readers want to know - Do they intend to be a science publication or a political publication?
Actually, in their snitty way, I guess they did answer it. I'll not be renewing my subscription.
Not that it comes as a surprise, but it's good to see them show, all in one nice neat little paragraph, what their true political bent is.
Especially the bit about missle defense.
I suppose their 1890 equivalent thought the Wright Brothers were are wet; the French flying wing designs were superior.
However, I agree with dead who said:
Yup. I have almost all the issues from the 80's and early 90's.
But they changed quite a bit, for the worse, and I haven't picked one up in years.
You nailed it, dead.
I'll call your 160 scientists and raise you 500 Steves.
160? There are more scientists who support evolution where I work.
National Geographic answered that one for me last year, too. That's why I dumped them after 31 years.
I read two sentences and had to check the date:
April 1st.
Need I say more...
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.