# Scientific American apologises to its readers . . .



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 2, 2005)

In its latest (April) issue, Scientific American publishes the following _mea culpa_:




> *Okay, We Give Up*
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


 An audio version can be heard on the Saturday April 2 2005 edition of _ABC Radio National_'s "The Science Show."


----------



## Hammersmith (Apr 2, 2005)

*Drowns in sarcasm*


----------



## e.Blackstar (Apr 2, 2005)

I'm right behind you, hammersmith.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 2, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> In its latest (April) issue, Scientific American publishes the following _mea culpa_...



My kind of apology! Very clever way of taking April Fool's Day to point up the disastrous foolishness of the present administration's treatment of science and scientists.

Barley


----------



## Walter (Apr 3, 2005)

Oh my...  

For a moment I thought I would soon have to expect to read articles about creationism in _Scientific American_. Or maybe special issues about each of the seven days... 

Well it wouldn't be impossible in the States, these days, would it?


----------



## Snaga (Apr 3, 2005)

Congratulations to Scientific American for sticking to its guns. It infuriates me that some parts of America seem to want to purge any rational scientific voices from the mainstream. SA is a reminder of all the good things America has given to the world, which more than balances out the bad.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 3, 2005)

Walter said:


> Oh my...
> 
> For a moment I thought I would soon have to expect to read articles about creationism in _Scientific American_. Or maybe special issues about each of the seven days...
> 
> Well it wouldn't be impossible in the States, these days, would it?



Don't wink. I absolutely believe that if the religious right has its way, this is exactly what would be: the whole body of local, state, and federal law and the Constitution itself would be replaced by the New Testament as interpreted by the religious extremists who are getting more and more control by the day. They'll do it, too, if the rest of us don't counteract them.

Barley


----------



## Varda35 (Apr 25, 2005)

Wow, I had one gut-wrenching moment where I almost thought they were being serious. Almost scared me half to death. I thought the religous right had finally succeeded in erasing all forms of logic from the planet. WHEW! That has to be the most brilliant april fool's articles I have seen in a very long time. Cheers to SA!


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 25, 2005)

TTFers interested in this issue should pay a visit to The Panda's Thumb. 

Also from _Scientific American_: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.


----------



## Varda35 (Apr 26, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> TTFers interested in this issue should pay a visit to The Panda's Thumb.
> 
> Also from _Scientific American_: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.


 
Thanks Arthur for the great links! The 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense is a great article. It's been distirbuted to my email list and has been bookmarked for further use


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 27, 2005)

This may be a little cruel, but it's funny . . .




From _Panda's Thumb_:


> *An Interview With Courtney Kangaroo, Part I*
> 
> 
> Posted by Prof. Steve Steve on April 27, 2005 01:36 PM
> ...


----------

