Scientific American has realized the error of its ways and apologized for its horrible, one-sided coverage of the evolution/creationism/intelligent design debate.
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.
For one, I'm relieved and gratified by this. It's nice to see such a prestigious publication correct itself in this manner.
Posted by Barb at April 8, 2005 09:11 AM | TrackBack