To the Forum:
The following item of news (deriving from an email distributed by AiG)
was recently passed on to me by a friend:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific American threatens AiG
In our E-mail News, 3(7), we advised that Scientific American produced,
on their Web site and in
their journal, what was supposed to be a major damning essay on
ëcreationist beliefsí called ë15
Answers to Creationist Nonsenseí. The National Geographic TV/cable
channel also rehashed the
contents of this article on Wednesday evening, USA time. AiG scientist
Dr Jonathan Sarfati has
written a devastating point by point response to the Scientific American
article which was posted on
our AiG Web site at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#intro.
As part of our response, we chose to reproduce the text of SciAmís
article in full, in portions
preceding each response point, and carefully showing their text in a
different colour to the response.
This was so that we could not be accused of misrepresentation or
misquoting. This is perfectly
permissible under the copyright doctrine of ëfair useí, since we were
commenting on the item we were
reproducing.
Legal threat to Jonathan Sarfati
In an e-mail personally addressed to Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Scientific
American accused Jonathan and
AiG of breaching copyright for reproducing the text of their article and
for allegedly illegally
reproducing an illustration from their magazine. They said they were
prepared to ësettle the matter
amicablyí provided that we immediately removed Jonathanís complete
article from our Web site.
SciAm illustration blunder
The only illustration we can think they can be referring to is that of a
bacterial flagellum. This was
actually produced on computer by AiG-Australia staffer Brendon
OíLoughlin some years ago, and
AiG speakers have been using it since then. We had not even seen (and
have still not yet seen) their
hard copy journal where the illustration apparently appears that we are
supposed to have ëliftedí.
Why do they so desperately want the article removed?
One can only presume that this ëdual prongedí offensive by Scientific
American and National
Geographic has had the ëwind taken out of its sailsí by Jonathanís
article. Of course, if AiGís
responses were not scientifically valid, one wonders why Scientific
American would not wish them to
remain in the public arena. We can only guess that the speed at which
AiG was able to post a
devastating critique of what was supposed to be the ëlatest and
greatestí attack on Biblical
Creationism and the Authority of Godís Word, was not part of the plan
for the forces of humanism
and evolutionism.
AiG stands firm
Our international copyright attorney has written to Scientific American,
informing them of the
legitimate nature of what we did, and that we will NOT be removing the
article. Many hundreds of
thousands of people will see the creationist response over the next few
weeks. We are thrilled that,
with the cooperation between various international AiG offices, we were
able to have a high-tech fully
formatted electronic response out to the world within some 72 hours of
the first appearance of the
attack. It appears that a telling blow has been struck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Sarfati's response, "15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry", makes
interesting reading.
Sincerely,
Vernon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 10 2002 - 17:29:36 EDT