Home | Feedback | Links | Books

Scientific American

Invokes Sophomoric Scholarship and
Bigotry to ‘Refute’ the Creationary Model

© 2024 TrueOrigin Archive.  All Rights Reserved.

Ahat an embarrassment it must have been to knowledgeable readers of Scientific American magazine, when they were faced with the article by John Rennie (editor) in the popular-level magazine’s July 2002 issue!  Grossly mistitled “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense,” the article was an unwitting demonstration of the half-baked scholarship and obfuscational tactics inherent in much anti-creation writing.

One couldn’t be faulted for wondering whether Mr. Rennie bothered to have his staff check his ‘facts’ or sought peer review from persons actually familiar with the contemporary creationary literature and paradigm (as opposed to the popular caricature so often ‘slayed’ by quixotic zealots of evolutionism).  On the contrary, it would seem that Mr. Rennie was more eager to drag Scientific American down to the level of ill-informed, propaganda-style creationism-bashing than to understand and respond to the coherent and empirically supported creationary model.

The questionable scholarship, bad science, and faulty logic of Mr. Rennie and (therefore) Scientific American are laid bare in the two fine articles linked below.  Readers interested in more than another issue of the standard evolutionist propaganda will recognize the logical soundness, critical thinking skills, and empirical viability of each article, both of which were written by fully credentialed and qualified PhD scientists...

  • 15 Ways to Refute Materialistic Bigotry
    A point by point response to Scientific American by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

  • 15 Answers to Rennie & Scientific American’s Nonsense
    by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

  • Home | Feedback | Links | Books | Donate | Back to Top

    © 2024 TrueOrigin Archive.  All Rights Reserved.
      powered by Webhandlung