(no subject)

[geekchick]

Scientific American issues an apology for their biased reporting:

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.

Comments

[broken-gizmo.livejournal.com]

Oh, oooh.

That's just beautiful. :)

[zuggy9.livejournal.com]

you've... got... to... be... kidding!

*orders one handbasket for the trip to hell... to avoid the rush*

[geekchick]

Please note that this is the April issue of the magazine. =)

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

*giggle*

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Indeed - how DARE they? :P Nice to see that the bastion of scientific seriousness isn't above and is infinitely capable of pulling out the snark when they need to! :D

[luridprovidence.livejournal.com]

I love that last little sarcastic touch

for the record: I personally believe in it, but it's hard to defend w/ so many morons trying to do the job for you

*smacks head on desk*

but neways, I just added you for the sheer geekiness and the fact that you're about as entertaining as BoingBoing

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

The last sentence gives it away. But still, it's brilliant.