Some Days You Feel So Proud To Be Part of the Fourth Estate

In honor of Darwin’s birthday, Forbes publishes a piece by Young-Earth creationist Ken Ham. US News and World Report publishes another piece by another Young-Earth creationist, Henry Morris III.

Sorry guys, but I just can’t find the strength to link to your stunts.

Thanks to Pharyngula and Knight Science Journalism Tracker for spoiling my afternoon. (Huh, that’s funny–I was able to link to them.)

0 thoughts on “Some Days You Feel So Proud To Be Part of the Fourth Estate

  1. Yes, unfortunately the mission to quest to obfuscate a century and a half of scientific learning is still going strong, with the support of major media outlets. I guess their reasoning is that the public wants to be mis-informed.

  2. The Forbes people don’t seem to realise that in publicising the “young earth” view they are in fact rubbishing almost the entire body of Science – the physics that gives us the ages of the planet and the universe, the chemical analyses of DNA etc…

  3. This might be due to the journalists’ misguided notion of “fairness”, in which being “fair” means providing a platform for anyone to say anything at all, even if that person is lying through his or her teeth.

    Of course, if one proposed we be “fair” by providing a platform for Holocaust deniers on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, or we be “fair” to geocentric hypotheses on the anniversary of the condemnation of Galileo, these same journalists would immediately see the fallacy of such reasoning. Let the cranks say whatever they want, but nobody is obliged to provide them with a platform for saying it.

  4. Not to worry!
    the piece by Ham at Forbes is so funny and superficial that even business folk would see his lack of basis.
    I disagree with Ross here, and I rather have Ham disclose himself and his movement in a silly business mag, than on the classrooms of any public school.

  5. In this same issue, Forbes has an article explaining how the financial crisis can be “explained” in darwinist words. “Social darwinism”, hello?

  6. I think Jim Hu is right. The Safina article seemed silly. Lots of straw men and misconceptions. The final conclusion, getting rid of the term “Darwinism”, is an exceptionally bad idea.

  7. So let me get this straight: the same magazine allegedly read by the captains of industry is publishing the psuedoscientific ramblings of a group of charlatans on equal footing with sound science, and we have to wonder why the banking system has run itself off the rails?

  8. The US NEWS material was part of a debate with pros and cons, not to worry. NATURAL HISTORY magazine, absolutely no friend of Darwin-bashers, did pretty much the same thing a few years back. Cheers — MrG

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *