Amanda Gefter
The New Scientist had a story by their book editor Amanda Gefter called "How to Spot a Hidden Religious Agenda". Today, it was pulled from their web site; the explanation being that they "received a complaint about the contents of the story."
You can still find a copy here, and we've copied the text until we find out what caused them to pull the story. Here's the opening:
As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing.
Here's some of the code words Gefter says give away a book's closeted ID agenda.
- Scientific Materialism
- The invocation of Cartesian dualism
- Misguided interpretations of quantum physics (also a "New Age" giveaway)
- The terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" (scientists refer to "evolution" and "biologists")
- Referring to natural selection as "blind", "random" or an "undirected process"
Gafter concludes by saying, "It is crucial to the public's intellectual health to know when science really is science. Those with a religious agenda will continue to disguise their true views in their effort to win supporters, so please read between the lines."
We have no idea what caused this story to be pulled, and we can provide the full text if it becomes newsworthy.
Click Here to get this from FreeFlashToys.com!
Comments
MAYBE IT'S OFFENSIVE!!! HELLO!!!
The title says it all, tard.
yeah... but only to half retarded people, and they don't read anything but 3000 year old books.
I do not see anything offensive about it. Religious nuts can berate Atheist and no one says a word.
Amanda points out just how religion is attempting to undermine real science and New Scientist pulls the article over a few complaints. Where is their spine??
I say let them complain, they can disagree but it is no reason to pull the article.
If the shoe was on the other foot, do you think those people would pull an article we were to complain about? not a chance.
Please stop caving in to the nonsense of religious zealots. It does no one any favors.
It's only offensive to those who are offended by science.
That creationists can object to an article in a supposedly scientific journal is laughable. A message to New Scientist; where are your cohones? Your publication is about science, not the dogma of religion.
@ H.P. Smith
'Cojones' is the proper spelling in Spanish. No biggie, but thought you might like to know for future reference.
Title: How to Spot a Hidden Religious Agenda
That title isn't offensive, it is necessary to the future of life on earth. The christian mythology gives bonus points for failure of society. The christian god idea calls for destruction. The christians are way to eager to comply with that call. Finding and getting rid of sympathy for mythology is essential to our future well being.
It's very sad that an article like this was pulled off the site. A shameful act from shameful people. Atheism is the natural state of being. It's what you were when you were born. Before the pollution of superstitions clouded the mind.
well at least all the comments appended to the removed article remain! :-)
Truly, there's nothing intrinsically offensive in the title, unless someone has something to hide and becomes offended that their secret agenda is revealed. Tough nuts.
The link to the copy of the story is not working...
<i>New Scientist</i> really needs to have their feet held to the fire until they cough up the identity of this anonymous complainer, or at the very least reveal whether he or she is affiliated with, or is launching this complaint on behalf of, any religious institution, lobbyist, or activist group.
The magazine may try to hide behind some sort of privacy or confidentiality excuse, so we should be ready to pummel them until they articulate their policy, and then tear it apart. We could also demand that they print the complaint as they would any other letter to the editor (and none of this "Name and Address withheld by request" nonsense, either).
The worst thing we can do is let these self-appointed Thought Police snipe from the shadows unmolested. If they have complaints, fine, but let them stand up in the spotlight so everyone can see.
LIBEL LAWS
In the UK there are Libel Laws. The NS can't keep the article up legally UNTIL the court case is over. Sucks, but that's the law of the land.
The current article:
"STORY TEMPORARILY NOT AVAILABLE
New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience."
They obviously expect this to be temporary, but it would likely put them in much more legal trouble if they left it up while investigating. You're making a controversy out of a responsible move for a company in a hard economic time.
I wonder how well this formula will work on spotting the global warming religions fanatics ?
So..North of 49 wants 'none of this "Name and Address withheld by request" nonsense, either'
No contradiction there then!
BTW just have a look at the educated language of the Darwinists -'half retarded'...'religious nuts'...'needs to have their feet held to the fire until they cough up' Isn't education wonderful?
Is pulling the article potentially a violation of freedom of expression? Does New Scientist magazine need a legal reason to pull the article? Couldn't the magazine pull the article just because some people found the article to be offensive?
--Here's some of the code words Gefter says give away a book's closeted ID agenda.
Scientific Materialism
The invocation of Cartesian dualism
Misguided interpretations of quantum physics (also a "New Age" giveaway)
The terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" (scientists refer to "evolution" and "biologists")
Referring to natural selection as "blind", "random" or an "undirected process" --
IMO it might be libelous to claim that a book has a "closeted ID agenda" just because the book contains any of those terms and ideas. By Gefter's standards, her own New Scientist article has a closeted ID agenda because it contains those terms and ideas.
The article is back, now with a response from the author of the book - although I don't have a subscription and so can read neither.
I remember reading that article and enjoying it. It didn't attack any specific person or organization. The fact that some asshate could just say that he/she is offended by it and get NS to pull it off bothers me.
In fact, I would say it offends me. :P
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!