Creationists at the CWM Web Site

Christian Witness Ministries
Archives	SEARCH the CWM Web Site	Site Map	Resources

*Evolution is but a theory- not fact*
UAiG EMAIL NEWS June 2002 -- From Answers in Genesis Ministries
	In their E-mail News, 3(12), they advised that Scientific American produced, on their Web site and in their journal, what was supposed to be a major damning essay on 'creationist beliefs' called '15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense'. The National Geographic TV/cable channel also rehashed the contents of this article on Wednesday evening, USA time. Resident AiG scientist Dr Jonathan Sarfati has written a devastating point by point response to the Scientific American article which was posted on our AiG Web site at http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#intro. As part of our response, we chose to reproduce the text of SciAm's article in full, in portions preceding each response point, and carefully showing their text in a different format to the response. This was so that we could not be accused of misrepresentation or misquoting. This is perfectly permissible under the copyright doctrine of 'fair use', since we were commenting on the item we were reproducing. Legal threat to Jonathan Sarfati In an e-mail personally addressed to Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Scientific American accused Jonathan and AiG of breaching copyright for reproducing the text of their article and for allegedly illegally reproducing an illustration from their magazine. They said they were prepared to 'settle the matter amicably' provided that we immediately removed Jonathan's complete article from our Web site. SciAm illustration blunder The only illustration we can think they can be referring to is that of a bacterial flagellum. This was actually produced on computer by AiG staffer Brendon O'Loughlin some years ago, and AiG speakers have been using it since then. We had not even seen (and have still not yet seen) their hard copy journal where the illustration apparently appears that we are supposed to have 'lifted'. Why do they so desperately want the article removed? One can only presume that this 'dual pronged' offensive by Scientific American and National Geographic has had the 'wind taken out of its sails' by Jonathan's article. Of course, if AiG's responses were not scientifically valid, one wonders why Scientific American would not wish them to remain in the public arena. We can only guess that the speed at which AiG was able to post a devastating critique of what was supposed to be the 'latest and greatest' attack on Biblical Creationism and the Authority of God's Word, was not part of the plan for the forces of humanism and evolutionism. AiG stands firm Our international copyright attorney has written to Scientific American, informing them of the legitimate nature of what we did, and that we will NOT be removing the article. Many hundreds of thousands of people will see the creationist response over the next few weeks. We are thrilled that, with the co-operation between this office and the AiG-US Web programmers, etc we were able to have a high-tech fully formatted electronic response out to the world within some 72 hours of the first appearance of the attack. It appears that a telling blow has been struck. Other Answers in Genesis articles: Click HERE... Suggest you read: "the LIE: Evolution" -- Ken Ham "CREATION Evangelism for the New MILLENIUM" --Ken Ham [ TOP ]

In their E-mail News, 3(12), they advised that Scientific American produced, on their Web site and in their journal, what was supposed to be a major damning essay on 'creationist beliefs' called '15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense'.
The National Geographic TV/cable channel also rehashed the contents of this article on Wednesday evening, USA time. Resident AiG scientist Dr Jonathan Sarfati has written a devastating point by point response to the Scientific American article which was posted on our AiG Web site at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#intro.

As part of our response, we chose to reproduce the text of SciAm's article in full, in portions preceding each response point, and carefully showing their text in a different format to the response. This was so that we could not be accused of misrepresentation or misquoting. This is perfectly permissible under the copyright doctrine of 'fair use', since we were commenting on the item we were reproducing.
Legal threat to Jonathan Sarfati In an e-mail personally addressed to Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Scientific American accused Jonathan and AiG of breaching copyright for reproducing the text of their article and for allegedly illegally reproducing an illustration from their magazine. They said they were prepared to 'settle the matter amicably' provided that we immediately removed Jonathan's complete article from our Web site.

SciAm illustration blunder
The only illustration we can think they can be referring to is that of a bacterial flagellum. This was actually produced on computer by AiG staffer Brendon O'Loughlin some years ago, and AiG speakers have been using it since then. We had not even seen (and have still not yet seen) their hard copy journal where the illustration apparently appears that we are supposed to have 'lifted'.

Why do they so desperately want the article removed?

One can only presume that this 'dual pronged' offensive by Scientific American and National Geographic has had the 'wind taken out of its sails' by Jonathan's article. Of course, if AiG's responses were not scientifically valid, one wonders why Scientific American would not wish them to remain in the public arena. We can only guess that the speed at which AiG was able to post a devastating critique of what was supposed to be the 'latest and greatest' attack on Biblical Creationism and the Authority of God's Word, was not part of the plan for the forces of humanism and evolutionism.

AiG stands firm Our international copyright attorney has written to Scientific American, informing them of the legitimate nature of what we did, and that we will NOT be removing the article. Many hundreds of thousands of people will see the creationist response over the next few weeks. We are thrilled that, with the co-operation between this office and the AiG-US Web programmers, etc we were able to have a high-tech fully formatted electronic response out to the world within some 72 hours of the first appearance of the attack. It appears that a telling blow has been struck.

Other Answers in Genesis articles:

Creationist Beliefs