We are the gods..

It might just be me, but I have a lot of trouble reading huge, monolithic paragraphs. There's an edit button at the bottom of each message, and if you feel like it you can edit your message to be readable by those like myself who are large-paragraph challenged. --Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 08-12-2002]

I started reading your post and would like to finish it, but I had to stop because I kept losing track of who said what. If you get a chance to make it more clear I'd like to come back and read this some time.--Percy

You guys have *got* to stop believing everything you read at Creationist websites. Here's a link to an online version of the first issue of Scientific American from 1845 - it was *not* a Creationist journal. The evangelical movement did not even develop Creationism as a scientific response to evolution until more than a century later. Just like today, many of those who produced Scientific American then believed that God created the heaven and the earth, but that does not by any means imply they would have found acceptable any of the claims of Creationism in light of modern scientific evidence and understanding. Like John I find this hard to accept. Good science is good science, regardless of the beliefs of those who produced it. But beyond that this is a little hard to accept because Scientific American is a magazine, not a research lab. Scientists write and review many of the articles and sit on the various review committees, and depending on their role some probably receive some form of remuneration, but SciAm probably has extremely few if any practicing scientists on its full-time staff. Unless you can attach a name to this claim, and especially if this information comes from the same source that told you SciAm was originally a Creationist journal, it's probably a good idea to drop this.--Percy

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Just noticed your reply today... I don't fault SciAm for backing out of their offer to Mims of The Amateur Scientist position after they discovered he was a Creationist. The possibility of embarrassment is too great. The primary risk is that since Creationists value revelation above evidence, which is unscientific, that this might come out in some way in the monthly column Mims would write. Many, many scientists believe God is the creator and get published in the technical literature, but any scientist would find his publishing opportunities curtailed if his work did not have a solid evidentiary base. I am biased in favor of God's word as expressed in the world around us, rather than as captured in a book written by men.--Percy