Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!unmvax!nmt.edu!wgpsy471
From: wgpsy471@nmt.edu (Bill Grother)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Forrest Mimms fired by Scientific American
Summary: Unorthodox...
Message-ID: <1991Mar5.170535.10966@nmt.edu>
Date: 5 Mar 91 17:05:35 GMT
References: <17200@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Followup-To: sci.bio
Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Lines: 61

In article <17200@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> jshaw@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (James and Colleen) writes:
>
>About four months ago I heard a short piece on NPR about Scientific
>American firing Forrest Mimms.  I hadn't heard any more about it
>until (fortunately) my new issue of Harper's (March 1991) came.  It
>published a telephone conversation with Mimms and the editor of SA.
>
>Mimms was fired because he didn't believe in evolution and was a
>creationist.  For those of you who do not read SA, Mimms' articles
>have nothing to do with biology and the issue of evolution or
>creationism never come up.  He was fired strickly for his religious
>beliefs (he is a christian) not for any articles that 
>he wrote.  He was in fact complemented by the editor for his work.
>
>Mimms wrote the Ametuer Scientist articles in SA.  He has also
>written a number of electronics books, as well as writing many
>columns for electronics magazines including Modern Electronics.
>
>For the record, I am an atheist and I don't agree with Forrest
>Mimms' religious views, but I am also a scientist and agree with 
>Scientific American even less.  
>
>I have a number of questions for everyone out there:
>A.  Is everyone as offended by this very unscientific, and
>fundamentally marketing, decision of SA?  Is there anyone out there
>who can defend SA's decision?
>
	Yes and no. SA has gained a reputation for scientific excellence over
a wide range (even though they have printed some schlock in the past). For the
most part, SA has tried to maintain scientific credibility; creationism (says
the skeptic) hardly applies. When I first learned of it, early in my scientific
training, I was appalled that such a badly constructed set of premises could be
so popular...and while it has a basis in religion, it has become known as
scientific creationism, as more so-called scientists have jumped on the
bandwagon.
	But despite its shaky reputation in the scientific community, I hardly
see where that justifies firing someone, especially if this view does not
conflict with his work. F. Mims has proven to have a good grasp of many things
and there was not much fault to found in his work. I think SA has done him a
terrible wrong.

>B.  What can I do about it.  I could cancel my subscription to SA,
>but I do happen to like the other articles in it.  I could write
>them a letter, but I doubt they will publish it on their letters
>page.  (They have made no mention of their dropping of Mimms in
>their magazine).  I could also write to companies 
>advertising in their magazine.  I'm not sure how effective this is.
>Any suggestions on this will help.
>
	Canceling your subscription would probably not have the desired effect.
What you must do is get a group of concerned people together, and take on some
of the other ideas you mentioned...if enough people speak, then someone may be
forced to listen.



-- 
###############################################################################
   wgpsy471@titan.nmt.edu	| It is one thing to offer a woman the Moon
   wrgsnsr@titan.nmt.edu	|   and the  stars...it is quite another to
   The Man from S.O.C.O.R.R.O.	|   offer her your heart...