I was pleasantly surprised to see that John Rennie, editor-in-chief of Scientific American, noticed my posts about Paul Nelson's dishonest treatment of Keith Miller and linked to them.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Tomrrow I'm heading down to New York to take part in the "Inside Out" speaker series at New York University's Department of Journalism. John Rennie, editor-in-chief at Scientific American, and I will try to answer the question, "Can two prominent magazine journalists find happiness blogging?" The…
The W. M. Keck Center for Behavioral Biology at North Carolina State University (which includes students, faculty and staff from Departments of Biology (formerly Zoology, my own Department), Genetics and Entomology) is a group I called home for a large chunk of my own graduate experience. Every…
At the end of February I joined John Rennie, editor in chief of Scientific American, to talk to students at the New York University journalism program about blogging about science. There's a post about the talk now up, including some podcast excerpts, on the the Scienceline blog from the NYU…
There is a long history of creationist misrepresentation of the views of scientists, going back to the time of Darwin himself. As the creationist movement has grown and gone through its various phases over the last century, such misrepresentations have been a powerful weapon in their arsenal. In…
Gettin' noticed in the world!
John Rennie makes a really excellent point in the comments,
Nelson's gedanken experiment was rigged from the start as a false choice. His after the fact dancing on a philosophical pin and half-hearted apologia justifies nothing. The audience certainly did not join him in this in any case.
There's also the obligatory 'I can't believe they think ID and Creationism are the same thing' kind of comments. But that's expected.
That's awesome! Congrats! You're getting into all my favorite magazines. First Skeptic, now SciAm.
As Bruce Campbell would say, "Groovy!"