Xref: utzoo alt.atheism:8283 alt.censorship:1345 sci.electronics:18200 talk.religion.misc:36492 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!mit-eddie!bbn.com!mips2!bubba!sje From: sje@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards) Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.censorship,sci.electronics,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Forrest Mimms fired by Scientific American Message-ID: Date: 5 Mar 91 17:30:34 GMT References: <17200@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> Sender: @mips2.cr.bull.com Followup-To: alt.censorship Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA Lines: 53 In-Reply-To: jshaw@sdcc13.ucsd.edu's message of 5 Mar 91 05:06:51 GMT The termination of Forrest Mimms by Scientific American was totally unjustified. As long as a creationist slant does not show up in _The Amateur Scientist_, Piel (SA's Publisher) had no good reason whatsoever to terminate Mimms. Religious belief should not be a litmus test for mainstream science of the type seen in the column. I, like most scientists, do not believe in creationist "theory". Furthermore, I am not a Christian and so have little alliance with people like Mimms with respect to religion. However, because I am quite sure of my beliefs, I find it highly objectionable that Scientific American finds it necessary to act as a religious policeman. Do they think that their readership is so easily swayed that an occasional reference to something outside mainstream science is going to topple a reader's world model? I read Mimms' Amateur Scientist columns and found nothing objectionable or religious in nature. Other than the occasional anthropological article, the only references to religion in Scientific American are the use of Christmas symbols and figures in their holiday subscription advertising. Someone should ask Piel why a belief in Genesis is so awful while the use of Santa Claus is perfectly justified. I did write to Scientific American back in mid 1990 with my disapproval of the frequency shift of the math and science columns from monthly to semi-monthly. I pointed out that I hade been a faithful reader since 1969 and had been a big fan of both C. L. Stong and Jearl Walker. No reply was ever received. I let my subscription lapse. I just don't think that Scientific American cares much about it traditional readership any longer; it seems only concerned about selling a demographic model of intelligent, high-earning readers to its non-science advertisers. Being a libertarian, I can understand that Scientific American should be able to hire and fire as they choose. Also by being a libertarian, I just can't see ever sending them any more money until they can demonstrate a greater respect for authors' rights. I recommend that current or former readers of Scientific American consider joining the American Association for the Advancemnet of Science. I believe that their number can be found in the Washington DC phone book. Although somewhat more expensive than other science publications (~US$80/year), it offers a weekly (not monthly) journal (Science) and various professional activites. They have also reported on Mimms' situation. == Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. == == (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A == == sje@bubba.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA == "That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson