Creationist Wisdom #173: “Scientific American” Lies

We present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Questioning the ‘scientific community’, which appears in the Marshall Independent of Marshall, Minnesota. We’ll give you a few choice excerpts from this letter, and we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go, with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:

I’ve just subscribed to “Scientific American.” So far, my first three issues are very interesting, both scientifically and philosophically because I have always had a strong interest in science, and in my later years, the “science of sciences” – theology.

This should be interesting. What does someone think of Scientific American if he subscribes out of an interest in theology? Let’s read on:

I have found that interwoven in all the neat science stuff there is a constant philosophical under-current in support of macro-evolution, old-age of the earth and universe, etc.

Egad! How profoundly disappointing that must be. We continue, as the letter-writer gives some examples:

[T]here is the December 2010 p. 62 in which they cannot understand why 67 million year old T Rex dinosaur bones should still have soft tissue like blood vessels and blood cells in it after such a long period. On p. 69 they note that science operates on a principle of parsimony – the simplest explanation for the data is assumed to be the correct one. So why not apply the principle and come to terms with the reality that the 67 million year radiometric generated figure is totally erroneous?

Good point! That paragraph continues:

And since they are dealing with carbon based organic material, I find it very strange they did not even mention use of carbon 14 dating methods on those parts. (What an embarrassment that could be to find out that T-Rex is far less than a million years old.)

Hey, yeah — they never use radiocarbon dating on dinosaurs! This letter-writer is truly astute. We’ll skip some other examples and give you one more excerpt from near the letter’s end:

We now know beyond a doubt that a segment of the “scientific community” has been lying to us about macro-evolution; which brings up the next question: What else are they lying to us about? A future letter may deal with the heliocentric vs. geocentric universe …

Your Curmudgeon can’t wait for that one! We’ve only copied a small portion of today’s letter, so click over to the Marshall Independent to read the whole thing.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

11 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #173: “Scientific American” Lies

  1. The letter also says, “…[I]n a recent survey of 900 high school biology teachers, only 28 percent were found to be teaching mainstream evolution effectively…” I don’t know if that statisitic is accurate. But if it is, it would help to explain why U.S. students on average know less about science than their peers in other developed countries.
    It’s disturbing to realize that many Americans are surrounded by and dependent upon technology that is based on scientific knowledge which they themselves lack.

  2. OMG, interwoven with science is…biological science. Which, for the prejudiced, is “just a philosophy.”

    To be fair, there is a philosophical desire to actually include life within the rest of the sciences. Didn’t happen, though, until there was a meaningful explanatory theory with real evidence that several people independently hit upon (Darwin, Wallace, Mathew).

    What’s really bizarre is the notion that life should operate outside of the physcial laws, the idea that drives creationism.

    I always laugh at the concept that soft tissue preservation for 4000 years or so is reasonably, but for 60 or 70 millions of years it is not. If it somehow manages to survive for thousands of years, why not millions, at least if the same conditions prevail? Besides which, the preservation of soft tissues for millions of years is hardly new, it just showed up in specimens where it was less expected–and with a dinosaur, the popular fossils.

    I’m afraid that there’s never been a single reason given for why soft tissues cannot be preserved for millions of years. Apparently, exclamations from creationists that “It couldn’t have happened” is supposed to carry the day in that area just as it’s supposed to win out over the voluminous evidence that evolution occurred.

  3. I find it truly amazing how many believe that those involved in research relating directly or indirectly to Evolution would devote many many years to their education for the purpose of supporting a lie!

    Why spend all that time in school then additional time in the field often under harsh conditions when one could take the DI route and just make the stuff up from the comfort of their office/cube?

    Who coordinates this grand conspiracy anyway?

    How do they communicate to the rest of the members of this conspiracy?

    Why have there never been any whistleblowers who expose this conspiracy?

    Why can’t DI or ICR or AIG answer these questions?

  4. NDaBoonies says:

    I find it truly amazing how many believe that those involved in research relating directly or indirectly to Evolution would devote many many years to their education for the purpose of supporting a lie!

    Creationists do it, so why shouldn’t they assume that their behavior is universal?

    Why have there never been any whistleblowers who expose this conspiracy?

    But there are — the Expelled!

  5. I understood that the soft tissue was fossilised, ie “rock”, not still soft. Am I wrong?

  6. I learned something from this letter. There’s a Dehli in Minnesota!

    That’s about it, nothing new.

  7. Creationists do it, so why shouldn’t they assume that their behavior is universal?
    Good point and for the average Cretinist I would agree. But Behe and others like him have to know the effort that is put in.

    But there are — the Expelled!
    LOL The Expelled Bunch were already converts.

    Speaking of “Expelled” has anyone but me ever wished someone would have taken ALL of Ben Stein’s money?

  8. Gabriel Hanna

    has anyone but me ever wished someone would have taken ALL of Ben Stein’s money?

    If you read the fine print, it wasn’t Stein’s money until he was paid at the end of the show. He got whatever you didn’t win.

    That money was, at least, earned honestly.

  9. Let’s be honest, Scientific American is no longer a reliable source; it’s become very politicized. That’s never good for science. So, our Marshallite is in some sense right to go there for his information.

  10. Why does he bother to subscribe if he it not open to the possibility of learning something new? I’ve been reading SciAm off-and-on for almost 40 years (my Dad subscribed). While it is not a definitive source for anything, it has a lot of great general information for the non-expert.

    @SY: Not sure I agree with you. Politicized? Yes, but in today’s climate of political attacks on science, I think I want my science to bite back, just a little.

  11. Haha, what an idiot!! It’s always funny to hear the “radiocarbon-dating-of- dinosaurs” argument from creationists! Their lack of understanding of basic geology/geochronology is hilarious! Thanks for the laugh, Curmudgeon!

    On a more serious note, it is disturbing how people with NO scientific knowledge claim to understand what goes on in the labs of scientists, and have the nerve to criticize the science being produced. It’s like if an intelligent person tried to make sense of an IDiot.