Change of Heart
I used to think scientists held a special place in the world when it came to discovering the truth, but now I realize they are just another special interest, protecting their turf by promoting whatever lies make it easier for them to get money. But really, scientists just believe that Christianity must be wiped off the face of the Earth, and they must convince everyone that God doesn't exists and the Bible is all wrong. Galileo lead the way and all scientists since have followed.
It's strange, but the same day I realized this Scientific American comes to a similar conclusion. Check out this month's editorial:
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.The rest of the editorial can be read here. The editorial concludes, "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." Good for them. I'll try to maintain the same level of fairness in this blog as well. Say goodbye to the Moderate Liberal and hello to the Balanced Centrist. I'll report, you decide.
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.
UPDATE: Now that I've had this change of heart I've found Michelle Maklin's blog much more informative than I used to. Check her out.