Scientific American apologises for not endorsing creationism

Via Boing Boing I learned that Scientific American caved in. They apologise for not featuring articles about creationism, missile shields and the idea that global warming is a hoax.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.

I must say this is a very interesting turn of things in their April Fools edition. ;-)

Since I'm talking about what's real and what not: check out Still-Lovers. Elena Dorfman makes photographs of Real Doll sex toys, that look much more realistic than those creepy inflatable dolls. When you look at the pictures with a quick glance you don't even notice one of the characters portrayed is very much not alive. (Again via Boing Boing)

Edit: More from Boing Boing: Loretta Lux makes photographs of children and photoshops them into something that isn't a drawing, but isn't a picture either. The expressions on the children's faces are all very serious. It reminds me of the drawings by Norman Rockwell. And it's a great relief from Anne Geddes.

The Hunger

( 222 words )