tgamble

My response is now online at:

<a href="http://creationcrap.batcave.net" target="_blank">http://creationcrap.batcave.net</a>

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Coragyps

Thanks, tg! Well done!

tgamble

Thanks. I also posted in on the talk.origins newsgroup so maybe it'll end up as a article there.

I'd like to have it more comprehensive through. ie. specific responses to the claims on thermodynamics (Through their claims on thermodynamics especially seems to be the same tired nonsense already refuted at talkorigins.), chemical evolution, censorship concerning Phillip Johnson and SA, increaseing genetic information etc.

I still can't figure out why new traits don't count as evolution.

Oh wait, evolution is false and a satanic lie by definition and a so it can't be evolution. This is a sacred conclusion that can never be questioned. And they have the nerve to bitch about scientists presumptions! Crazy!

Given AIG's reputation, I'm quite sure there's more to that story than what's being told.

I notice that a lot of their responses are simply "we don't use that anymore"! Never mind that there are dozens of creationist pages that do. Maybe next time SA should get arguments that AIG still uses. Maybe 5 of em next time so a more complete debunking would be possible. Maybe get a Nobel prize winner in physics to comment on their use of thermodynamics?

Anyway, I think I've made a nice start on it. The more comprehensive and complete it gets the better.

Valentine Pontifex

I hardly think that it is "obvious" that Mims was not qualified. You have failed to make a case that he was unqualified. Indeed, that claim is rather iffy. Indeed the very fact that SA published several of his pieces in the column in question would suggest that SA did not think that Mims was unqualified.

tgamble

Well, he wasn't qualified enough to be hired. Or maybe he was but there were others more qualified.

It's hard to know what happened.

Duvenoy

Echoing the, "Well done!" semtiment. Hope talkorigins picks it up. It'd be an excellent addition to their site.

doov

tgamble

Thanks. I'd like to get some feedback first and have more specific crisisms of Sarfati's claims that I didn' cover but as I said, it's a start.

About Mimms, I've seen two versions of his sob story. One is that he was fired, the other is that he was refused the job based on his creationist beliefs. How this latter could be established since (in my experience anyway) people are rarely told why they didn't get the job is a mystery.

As for the first story, he was a freelance writer so he couldn't be fired from a job he didn't have. I guess SA would know but they get so many letters, it doesn't seem likely they would respond to a letter asking them. Maybe someone on talkorigins knows the editor personally.

Here's another interesting piece on the subject.
<a href="http://www.alternativescience.com/scientific-american.htm" target="_blank">http://www.alternativescience.com/scientific-american.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1991/feb/opin3_910218.html" target="_blank">http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1991/feb/opin3_910218.html</a>

"Forrest Mims does not need me to toss encomiums in his path. Ever since he was fired, he has received an outpouring of unqualified support. Everyone from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Association for the Advancement of Science apparently believes that dropping Mims as a columnist is nothing short of invidious religious discrimination."

Funny how Sarfati never mentions that even the Atheist commi liars union supported Mimms.

Funny how he assumes that the new editor would censor him because of the actions of a former editor.

Lenny Flank's page states:

"The most recent creationist martyr is Forrest Mims, who was, as the creationists tell it, fired from a position at "Scientific American" because of his creationist beliefs. Unfortunately for the creationists, the truth is a bit different. Mims was a freelance writer who had sold several articles concerning electronics to "Scientific American". He was not an employee or a staff writer. When the magazine decided to find a new writer for its "Amateur Scientist" column, Mims applied for the job and was turned down--the job went to someone else. He was not "fired", since he had never been hired. Apparently, the creationists are of the opinion that anytime a creationist is turned down for a job, then religious bigotry must be involved."

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/discrim.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/discrim.htm</a>

I'm a bit confused here. Was he fired or was he refused the job? They can't both be true! So what's the real story?

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Bubba

Wonderful!!! You just made a rather long Monday worthwhile with a very good read. Thanks for all of your hard work. I hope T.O. publishes it online.

Bubba <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Or maybe even Douglas J Bender will read it and start to understand how weak his case really is... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Valentine Pontifex

Then don't say what happened. Not being hired is never enough to say someone was not qualified. It is enough to say that SA was well within its rights and did no wrong doing. That alone debunks what AiG says. Unnecessary attacks on Mims or circular logic (Mims was not hired since he was unqualified and we know that since he was not hired) do not help.

Valentine Pontifex

Merely posting in the newsgroup is not suffient to become an FAQ. Generally if you are proposing an article to be an FAQ then you need to clearly mark it as such or else no one will know that is what it was intended for. If there is interest for it to be in the Archive people will start making suggestions and make criticisms. Then you write version two and the cycle continues until the problems are worked out.

Here is something that will come up in the review process. It is a statement that needs to be edited for tone: