Editor’s note: This is a huge post. SciAm’s stupid article has, like seriously, 15 points(!), and I’ve interspersed my responses throughout it’s text (SciAm is in blue block quotes). So I’ve provided a contents page at the beginning of this post (with links to each section!), if you can’t bring yourself to read the whole thing… even if I think it’s awesome.
(Also what’s this green block quote? That’s fancy! After three years of blogging I’ve finally started dabbling in source code, so I’ve added some extra features to this post (like a contents page with links!), just as a taste.
So, just know the blue quotes are text taken from the Scientific American article. Green quotes are any other ordinary quotes from other sources, including my own little footnotes)
- Scientific American has fallen far from its staunchly Christian roots
- John Rennie has cowered away from answering actual creationist arguments, and has mostly resorted to tackling weak, outdated, even straw-man arguments such as ‘evolution is just a theory’
- SciAm’s cowardly refusal to even acknowledge Jonathan Sarfati’s stellar response to the original 2002 publication, proves my second point
- >15 years since it was originally published, the Scientific American’s article is still a huge pile of vitriolic hog wash