AIG and Their Lies About Scientific American

As professing Christians Ken Ham and his writers do not have a very good track record on honesty.  A good case in point is the 22 August article by Troy Lacey, "Popular Science Is Now Popular Spin?" .

My grandfather bought me a subscription to Popular science for my birthday every year for six years (12-18 years old) so AIG has stepped into deep do-do trying to tell me what you find in the pages of that august publication.  Lacey proclaims::

"Popular Science’s September 2014 issue has jumped into an arena that it is unprepared for...."

PS has indeed featured not only newest inventions, but also many articles on possible future technology which they would showcase on the cover as attention grabbers.  But they also featured, as their masthead states, articles by prominent scientists on "Gadgets, Cars, Science, Technology and DIY."  Indeed, after 140 years of continuous publication, SI is far more prepared to publish articles on valid science than any writer at AIG. 

Then this:

"..., and this particular issue should be renamed Popular Spin magazine. Popular Science has long been known for featuring the newest inventions and the latest electronic gadgets, and for looking at potential breakthroughs in technology."

Ahhhh,,,,,no.  That is bullshit.  PS has been publishing articles on evolution since 1884, and also publishing articles on pseudo science since it's first publication 140 years ago.

And finally Lacey bloviates:

"But, in recent years, they have been diving into more and more religious topics by pushing the religion of secular humanism."

Only in recent years, eh?  .

April 1876:

"only an evolution of the individual from the moment when it became more heterogeneous by the differentiation of parts and functions, but also an evolution of the ensemble of living beings, from the first appearance of life in its least ..."

October 1877,

"The important truth that it has been sought to reach by these considerations is, that organic evolution is but one of the minor manifestations of universal evolution. It occurs at a stage of the process when the struggle between the contending...."

March 1904,

"physical barriers in the work of subdividing species, this would mean that evolution sometimes results in segregation, not that segregation results in evolution. Evolution is a process of change in species; it is the journey of which individual......"

December 1897,

"the general public, and also of the majority of medical men, who, " while observing the effects of disease on man the individual, have signally failed to observe its effects on man the species." While he accepts evolution in its widest and most .."

January 1888,

"EVOLUTION AND RELIGIOUS THOUGHT. BY PROFESSOR JOSEPH LE CONTE. FROM what has preceded, the reader will perceive that we regard the law of evolution as thoroughly established ..."

September 1889,

"THIS periodical has been established as a medium for the publication of essays and lectures presenting the modern scientific or evolutionary aspect of various subjects. Each number contains one essay."

Ham's Idea of materialism inspiring evolution was debunked in this article......FROM 1878!

May 1878,

"I think I can show you that materialism is not the necessary outcome of scientific studies and the scientific spirit. For this purpose, I will select that scientific theory which is supposed to be par excellence materialistic, viz.: the theory of evolution"

Even worse for Ham are countless articles since the late 1800s debunking the flood myth:

May 1894, page 5

"...naming "every living creature" ; or to reconcile the dimensions of Noah's ark with the space required for preserving all of them, and the food of all sorts necessary for their sustenance, whether they were admitted by twos, as stated in one .."

November 1909,

"A Noah's ark was built at Toulouse, but the year was distinguished for its drought. Ridicule is sometimes more efficacious than argument in overthrowing false theories."

The list goes on and on, along with many articles critical of the Bible itself:

From Scientific American, July 1893:

May 1875, page 91

"........speak the language of science; and the other attempts to falsify science to meet the supposed requirements of the Bible."  Yeah, Ham has been doing this for decades.  Ham is just another crackpot in a very long line of religious crack pots.

It only takes a simple search of he Scientific American archives to see that the claim that they have only recently started criticizing anti science religionists is bogus and most often they are on solid scientific ground.

It is not the mission of SI to regularly criticize religious superstitions, but rather to publish articles on the hot topics of the day, which they do here and have been doing for 140 years.

Froggie