Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
He went against everyone's beliefs and had radical ideas. Doesn't that make him a terrorist? About time Scientific American disassociated from him.
> But they're still trying to make a buck charging for the article.
How American.
And how scientific.
Must-not-watch TV!
So if I thought this was a good thing, does this make me a fundamentalist? =)
)o(3
What about SciAm, why did they have tro politize their joke that much ?
It's April fools, not April jesters... humor is supposed not to be seriously take-able.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The pope stated that he wants his life terminated today. He wants euthanasia and he does not believe in God anymore. He also stated that he visited Michael Jackson's house and actively participated in child rapings along with Michael in several ocations. He listened to Motorhead while doing it to those childs, a band he enjoys so much. Here's the full text.. Oh mmm...just forgot where I got that from...but it's true!
There is not one legit news story on the front page. If I wanted to read Fark I would have gone there.
Editors, take your medicine and back away from the keyboards.
I'm not saying that evolution is a bady theory, it's just that it shouldn't be treated as some sort of basic truth like "two points make a line". People used to think that space was filled with "aether", too, and you would be stupid to disagree.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The surest indicator that the excesses of liberalism have been knocked back on their heels is when its practitioners start whining about theology overtaking science.
Since they cannot imagine themselves to be wrong, they cast any disagreement with them as ignorance or evil.
That the theory of evolution is obviously right and its opponents transparent fools does little to hide the fact that those fools are being used as a proxy for other, more substantive disagreements.
In short, this article could be summarized as: "Waaaah!! The sheeple don't agree with their betters!"
Unpretty, to say the least. Even for an April Fools' joke.
But don't get me wrong. I find it quite amusing.
I don't claim to know it all...but I know how God changed my life over 12 years ago for the better. Was I there when all this took place? No....but I can trust what He says. Why should I believe parts of the Bible and not others? That would be quite neurotic now wouldn't it? In the end...literally...of our lives...we will all find out who was right or not about all this stuff. Not that I am scared or anything, but I'd rather be going into it with the assurance that I am fully on God's side...not what some scientist or teacher thought.
"With God All Things Are Possible" State of Ohio Motto
>The problem with evolution is that there is fossil evidence in conflict with it
I wouldn't say so much that the fossil evidence is in conflict with evolution so much as the fossil evidence just doesn't provide sufficient evidence to prove it. There are just too many gaps that we suppose were filled with some intermediate creature that we just haven't found any fossils for. But the scientific community has faith that such intermediary creatures must have existed, otherwise the ToE would be wrong.
I don't personally believe in a 6,000 year old earth, but I also find fault with the ToE. I am currently reading Darwin's Origin of Species to try to figure out if he has any suggestions for certain questions I have. For example, I can believe that natural selection would statistically favor rhinos with 13" horns over rhinos with 12" horns. But how could those horns have developed? Did natural selection find that little 1/4" nubs at the end of the nose caused a species to be more viable? And then they gre from there? Or did some hideous genetic mutation occur to a set of pre-rhinos, causing them to grow a big ugly horn on their nose. And somehow it occurred simultaneously on a large enough set of prerhinos that the ones with horns managed to find each other and mate? Doubtful.
How about eyes? The lens, the retina, the rods and cones, all work together. Developing any one of those is useless. They all have to develop together. But why would they? Unless by some accident they all formed at the same time and in, again, a large enough segment of the population to be reproducible, then they would never develop at all. I have heard some theories of evolutionary leaps that supposedly anticipate this. However, I figure that in order for these complex structures to form randomly, it would take a lot longer than a few billion years.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Haha. Now that's an (April) Fool's joke! While mIcroevolution is demonstrably true, mAcroevolution's conclusive proof continues to elude scientists...
jason
Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
Um, huh? How do you get that from my post? Did you see the part where I said, "Anyone who rejects evidence on the basis of their 'faith' to the contrary is an unmitigated idiot, and they're not using a Christian definition of faith."