Scientific American threatens AiG

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Wed Jul 10 2002 - 17:04:43 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "RE: Supernova 1987A"

    To the Forum:

    The following item of news (deriving from an email distributed by AiG)
    was recently passed on to me by a friend:


    Scientific American threatens AiG

    In our E-mail News, 3(7), we advised that Scientific American produced,
    on their Web site and in
    their journal, what was supposed to be a major damning essay on
    ëcreationist beliefsí called ë15
    Answers to Creationist Nonsenseí. The National Geographic TV/cable
    channel also rehashed the
    contents of this article on Wednesday evening, USA time. AiG scientist
    Dr Jonathan Sarfati has
    written a devastating point by point response to the Scientific American
    article which was posted on
    our AiG Web site at

    As part of our response, we chose to reproduce the text of SciAmís
    article in full, in portions
    preceding each response point, and carefully showing their text in a
    different colour to the response.
    This was so that we could not be accused of misrepresentation or
    misquoting. This is perfectly
    permissible under the copyright doctrine of ëfair useí, since we were
    commenting on the item we were

    Legal threat to Jonathan Sarfati

    In an e-mail personally addressed to Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Scientific
    American accused Jonathan and
    AiG of breaching copyright for reproducing the text of their article and
    for allegedly illegally
    reproducing an illustration from their magazine. They said they were
    prepared to ësettle the matter
    amicablyí provided that we immediately removed Jonathanís complete
    article from our Web site.

    SciAm illustration blunder

    The only illustration we can think they can be referring to is that of a
    bacterial flagellum. This was
    actually produced on computer by AiG-Australia staffer Brendon
    OíLoughlin some years ago, and
    AiG speakers have been using it since then. We had not even seen (and
    have still not yet seen) their
    hard copy journal where the illustration apparently appears that we are
    supposed to have ëliftedí.

    Why do they so desperately want the article removed?

    One can only presume that this ëdual prongedí offensive by Scientific
    American and National
    Geographic has had the ëwind taken out of its sailsí by Jonathanís
    article. Of course, if AiGís
    responses were not scientifically valid, one wonders why Scientific
    American would not wish them to
    remain in the public arena. We can only guess that the speed at which
    AiG was able to post a
    devastating critique of what was supposed to be the ëlatest and
    greatestí attack on Biblical
    Creationism and the Authority of Godís Word, was not part of the plan
    for the forces of humanism
    and evolutionism.

    AiG stands firm

    Our international copyright attorney has written to Scientific American,
    informing them of the
    legitimate nature of what we did, and that we will NOT be removing the
    article. Many hundreds of
    thousands of people will see the creationist response over the next few
    weeks. We are thrilled that,
    with the cooperation between various international AiG offices, we were
    able to have a high-tech fully
    formatted electronic response out to the world within some 72 hours of
    the first appearance of the
    attack. It appears that a telling blow has been struck.


    Dr Sarfati's response, "15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry", makes
    interesting reading.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 10 2002 - 17:29:36 EDT