Editorial from latest Scientific American (April)-pretty funny

Scientific American wrote:

Quote:
Okay, We Give Up

. . . 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong.
________________________________________________
These are just snippets from the full editorial. It's not available officially online yet, but you can access the full text here-just scroll down some:

http://www.alfrankenweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21449

Thanks for posting.

This is fantastic!!

Thanks for posting!

Shoulda thunk of it sooner, what a great replacement for my cancelled Times subscription! It's only $25.00 for a year/12 issues at Scientific American.

Another link.