hbg6@citek.mcdphx.mot.com (02/18/91)
In article <1991Feb17.054158.17772@swbatl.sbc.com> adams@swbatl.sbc.com (Tom Adams - 235-7459) writes: >There is some reference in this months Modern Electronics to some >controversy regarding Forest Mims and Scientific American. >The letter refers to Mims' religous beliefs, editorial >policy at Scientific American, and an earlier editorial in >Modern Electronics. Is someone familar with this matter and >willing to provide more details? >-- I seem to remember something about his belief in creation ( as opposed to evolution ) causing some major league conflict. I'll try to look up the exact article. BTW: I have never really understood this debate. I always figured the 'Big Guy' just created evolution. Works for me. John
mh2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Hahn) (02/18/91)
no biggie. SciAm wanted a columnist for Ameteur Scientist. Mims wanted to do it, even wrote some material for it. SciAm found out Mims was a Creationist, said "get lost." I think SciAm is right, since an axiom of Creationism is the existence of God, and therefore it conflicts with the epistemology of science. but PLEASE, let's not have any Creationism flames here! regards, mark
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (02/19/91)
This is not a creationism flame, but if they fired him because of a religious belief that was never going to affect the way he did his job, it's improper and quite possibly illegal.
newton@ils.nwu.edu (David Newton) (02/19/91)
I agree, no flame wars. but I'm not sure how Mims being a creationist reduces his scientific value in any way, that's pretty short-sighted. -- David L. Newton | Work: (708) 467-1015 | newton@ils.nwu.edu -or- ILS, Room 135 | Home: (708) 332-2321 | dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu, but 1890 Maple St. |------------------------| this just is forwarded to the Evanston, IL 60201 |__Dr. Seuss is a god.___| top address, so don't bother.
kranich@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Karl Kranich ) (02/19/91)
What I know about Forest Mims' situation with Scientific American I read in an interview that he had with Focus on the Family, as published in the January 21, 1991 edition of _Focus_on_the_Family_Citizen_. It seems that Mims was not employed by _Scientific_American_, but "received an offer from the editor of _Scientific_American_ to be the new author of 'The Amateur Scientist' column." However, upon interviewing Mims and learning that he does not accept the Darwinian theory of evolution, _Scientific_American_ decided not to hire him. I find it amazing that _Scientific_American_ would descriminate against an accomplished scientist's personal philosophy, especially in an area that is unrelated to the job for which he is being considered.
kranich@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Karl Kranich ) (02/19/91)
In message <AbjtPFq00VpcE151V6@andrew.cmu.edu>, Mark Hahn writes: > I think SciAm is right, since an axiom of Creationism > is the existence of God, and therefore it conflicts with > the epistemology of science. > but PLEASE, let's not have any Creationism flames here! No flames, Mark, but I don't understand why you think Creationism is opposed to science--unless you think that science can explain everything. Science describes the orderly processes of nature, but can't say whether there is anything outside or above nature which needs to be explained. Since this newsgroup isn't the place for such a discussion, write me directly if you would like to talk more. Karl. (kranich@eniac.seas.upenn.edu)