New message
By: Fredric Rice
To: All
Re: Scientific American covers Creationist Lunatics
St: Local
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1:218/890@FidoNet 7210e080
@PID: FM 2.02
The January issue of Scientific American took a look at the Creationist
lunatics among us in an article called "Science versus Antiscience."
Since it covered the typical Creationist dishonesty, self-deceptions,
lies, willful-ignorance, errors, misconceptions, mistakes, myths,
stupidities et al. I won't bother to cover what SA did.  We've all seen
it a thousand times before and in any event Laurie Appleton shows us
all we need to know about this cult.

The head master at the Institute for Creation Research (sic) cult John
Morris, it seems, was told about the issue of Scientific American and
decided he would confirm what he and fellow Creationist nuts stand for
in a letter-to-the-editor in the May issue.  It's almost certain that
the head nut employed the traditional Creationist methodology and didn't
even bother reading the article itself before opening his yap:  since in
his bizarre complaint to SA (within which he stated EIGHT obvious lies)
he got the name of the author who enumerated Creationist lunacy in the
January issue completely wrong.

The SA editor handled the crackpot's bizarre complaint nicely with this
grossly understated comment:

    With all respect, Morris seems to have an exaggerated
    impression of how many mainstream scientists are persuaded
    that creationism is a convincing or even valid alternative
    to evolution.  (Incidentally, our writer's name is Gary
    Stix, not George Styx.)

Indeed.  There can be no 'alternative' to a directly observed phenomena.