April Fool's At Sci-Am?

April Fool's At Sci-Am? "Ok, We Give Up" April Scientific American
No Kidding! Darwin dummies incurable (text below)

For one breathtaking moment I thought we were making progress in the Darwin debate. Not until the last horrid line were my hopes against hope for signs of intelligence at Scientific American cruelly dashed.
Their self-diagnosis is exceeding honest! Nice going. Their coverage of evolution has been completely one-sided, science propaganda at its best, the top dollar Darwinian boilerplate needed to keep smart people in line. You know, it's all those 'Brights' who are too smart to be wrong. Darwinists have a tough brainwashing job with such Brights. The trick is to make them seem smart as they embrace something stupid. That was the technique pioneered by Dawkins, who has made a bundle over the years making smart people stupid about evolution. Maybe he should retire with his bundle so we can get onto something Intelligent.

Darwin's theory is one of the dumbest pieces of dangerous theory ever proposed, and it seems to appeal to jocks, brainwashed science technicians with no power of thought, and ideologists of economic mayhem. A short list.
It would take an organization like Sci Am less than a week of honest investigative journalism to find the flaws in Darwin's theory, be honest with the public, propose a more balanced and non-committal understanding based on our ignorance. That would be science.
And honesty might have spared us the assault on the schools by the Intelligent Design movement. But everyone is too stuck in the rut to face the obvious. Big Science is actually losing the Darwin debate. That's unbelievable, and no April Fool's Joke.

Darwin idiots have a lot of explaining to do.
Check out "Botched Theories and the Coefficient of Murder" at
http://eonix.8m.com/2nd/intro1_2_3.htm


Not too funny, and no joke for an April's Fool.
__________________________________________________________________

From April Issue of Scientific American

OK, We Give Up
----------------------

"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 socalled 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. "

Okay, We Give Up

MATT COLLINS THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC