[Ninong]

...from the 21st. century, I thought it might be appropriate to post one of my favorite Scientific American editorials, the one from April 1, 2005:


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 scienfically 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. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...CB83414B7FFE9F

[Ninong]

The religious crackpots in Kansas are trotting out all the crazies to attack evil evolution. They managed to find a Moonie with a Ph.D. in theology and biology to support their view that evolution is an "act of faith."

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., who believes that Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the messiah, is their latest expert witness. "Father's words, my studies and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinisn." (Note: Sun Myung Moon has taken the title of "Great Father.")

I'm sure the Washington Times will be covering every word of this expert witness.

[Ninong]

Maybe I was a bit hasty in saying that Kansas wanted to secede from the 21st. century.

According to this latest news bit from that slowly evolving state, it seems they want to secede from the 20th. century! State Sen. Kay O'Connor has announced that she will be a candidate for the Republican Party's nomination for secretary of state. That's the job that oversees elections.

What's so remarkable about that?

Only that Sen. O'Connor is against the 19th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!!! She doesn't believe women should have been given the right to vote! She thinks that's a man's job!

Yep, I was definitely wrong about Kansas. They long for the good old days of the 19th. century.




P.S. -- Maybe Sen. O'Connor should move here.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

P.S. -- Maybe Sen. O'Connor should move here.

...or at least consider wearing the veil.

http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-...te.do?rep=2359

(ever see an episode of "Dog the Bounty Hunter?"...same haircut! The Dog Doo!)

[Ninong]

Obviously Sen. O'Connor is a sinful woman who deserves to be punished by her husband. Either that or she abstains every time a vote comes up in the Kansas state senate.

I wish all the religious wingnuts would really practice what they claim to believe. In no time at all they would have stoned each other to death.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Obviously Sen. O'Connor is a sinful woman who deserves to be punished by her husband. Either that or she abstains every time a vote comes up in the Kansas state senate.

I wish all the religious wingnuts would really practice what they claim to believe. In no time at all they would have stoned each other to death.

She hasn't sinned yet!!!
Kay has stated she would quit her constituents at the drop of a hat if her husband disapproved of her responsibilities...or if she didn't have vittles on the table by 5:30pm.
So far no commitee obligations have tread on Mr. O'Connors Onion cup o' soup crock pot beef roast...therefore no sin!
However, she does show a lot of wrist with some of her blouse selections, that should be addressed IMO.