Scientific American Gives Up

IvyMike writes "The April issue Scientific American opens with a Perspectives column titled Okay, We Give Up. It opens, '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.'"

Comments

Nice.

[windex]

But they're still trying to make a buck charging for the article.

How American.

Now that's laziness

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't even get a full joke!

Paris

[datadriven]

THEY need to hire Paris Hilton

Giggles.

[mpathetiq]

This one actually made me giggle like a little schoolgirl. Giggle with joy that they finally admit that creationism is a valid theory.*




*Parts of this statement may be false.

Scientific Amercian Gives Up

[Dorf on Perl]

Me too.

OMG

[lildogie]

They're changing their name to "Christian Scientific American."

Best Line in the article:

[wolfemi1]

Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.

I laughed out loud, even though I'm alone in the room. No joke.

Re:Sure it's a joke...

[EvilSuggestions]

We need to fix our educational system by covering all of these types of topics equally as well:

• The theory of the universe being composed of 4 elements, earth, fire, wind, and water needs to get equal time with this so called chemistry theory. I mean when's the chemistry theory going to stop adding elements to that silly periodic table of theirs. It's just further proof that they didn't get it right the first time!
• Heliocentrism is just a theory, just like geocentrism. In our astronomy classes, if we can't spend equal time discussing a universe that revolves around the earth, then we're just promoting one group's beliefs.
• Everywhere I've travelled the earth still looks basically flat to me, and I know quite a few people who support that theory. Geography classes are also just promoting a theory when they show kids a globe. There are holes in their theory too. For example, how can people stick to both sides of a round object? Wouldn't the people on the other side just fall off? It's very hypocritical to teach the round earth theory while denying the flat earth theory!

P.S. It's turtles all the way down.

Re:sigh

[justins]

I noticed, too, that the Clinton administration could do no wrong, whereas the Bush administration can do no right. In actuality, there is little, if any, difference between their policies.

I hope you're enjoying your vacation on Mars, or wherever the fuck it is you've been for the last few years.