Re: Scientific American 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Tue Jul 16 2002 - 19:12:47 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "RE: Challenge #2"

    >"... the below referenced article. Do you have any comments on this
    >article? It tends to show a rather "hard " anti religious bent.
    >Should a prestigious journal like SA intervene in this way?"<

    I have also received mention of this from a friend not on the list
    and am working on a more detailed commentary. The occasional
    antireligious comments in the Sci Am article only fuel the fire,
    giving AiG "proof" of the atheistic nature of evolution. However,
    Sci Am is generally more or less accurate as far as the science goes.
    #8 was one of the refutations that left a good deal to be desired, as
    Burgy noted.

         Dr. David Campbell
         Old Seashells
         University of Alabama
         Biodiversity & Systematics
         Dept. Biological Sciences
         Box 870345
         Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
         bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
    Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
    Droitgate Spa



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 16 2002 - 23:20:03 EDT