The June 18, 2002, Scientific American article by editor in chief John =
Rennie started out in a confrontational, condescending manner worthy of =
the op/ed pages: "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense-Opponents of =
evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real =
science, but their arguments don't hold up"
His opening goes on in a pretty supercilious tone when he says,=20
"Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically =
advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still =
persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a =
flawed, poorly supported fantasy."
So "politicians, judges and ordinary citizens" are still rubes devoid of =
understanding of the true mysteries they can find only with the guidance =
of scientists? =20
No wonder some have called psychiatrists the "new clergy". =20
Also calls to mind the technocrats who rule a Marxist landscape.=20
No wonder it has set off a firestorm of commentary. This is good.
SA and National Geographic's reported copyright infringement threats =
against creationist published replies simply fuels the fires. Sells =
magazines.
Some of the counter-arguments of folks like Bill Hoesch at =
http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html are pretty good, at least as =
good as some of Rennie's.
Let the debate rage on!
Jay
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 17 2002 - 03:08:42 EDT