Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

something fast (and funny)

Busy, busy, busy, but somone just brought this recent Scientific American editorial to my attention (thanks, Jada), and I wanted to spread the joy. You may read it at the SA website by following the link below, but, I've also pasted the full text of the editorial below the link:

"Okay, We Give Up

Okay, We Give Up
We feel so ashamed

By The Editors

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.


( 6 comments — Have your say! )
Apr. 7th, 2005 08:02 pm (UTC)
Very good. Thanks for posting that.
Apr. 7th, 2005 08:33 pm (UTC)
Actually, I agree with the sentiment that Gould and Dawkins were seeking to express in a joint open letter (never published because of Gould's death), in which they said scientists shouldn't debate creationists (ID "theorists" or otherwise), because what creationists really want isn't to win debates but to be taken seriously -- and no one would waste time debating a flat-Earth proponent. Scientific American should simply ignore them.
Apr. 8th, 2005 05:05 pm (UTC)
because what creationists really want isn't to win debates but to be taken seriously

I hear Bozo had the same problem.

Anyway, I honestly can't imagine why a creationist would bother to read Scientific American. Same as I can't imagine why they bother to read National Geographic. I mean, unless it's just the whole Xtian masochism thing. Of course, I know the answer. So they can write stupid letters and get attention and, as you say, hope that someone will take them seriously.
Apr. 7th, 2005 08:43 pm (UTC)
I think I just did a dance of joy over that.
Apr. 8th, 2005 05:53 am (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks!

This reminds me of the spread National Geographic did recently. The cover asked "Was Darwin Wrong" and the on the inside is a double page spread (with, I think, dinosaurs) that said "NO!"
Apr. 8th, 2005 04:59 pm (UTC)
The cover asked "Was Darwin Wrong" and the on the inside is a double page spread (with, I think, dinosaurs) that said "NO!"

Yep. That was quite fine of them. I was pleased.
( 6 comments — Have your say! )