General is better

From the April 2005 issue of Scientific American:

In retrospect, this magazine’s coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies...

...Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists.  Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that’s a somewhat religious idea.  But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells.  That’s what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn’t get bogged down in details...

...Get ready for a new Scientific American.  …  This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, not just the science that scientists say is science...

...And it will start on April Fools' Day.

Yes, I too have been accused of lumping intelligent design in with creationism. But now it's clear that they are two completely separate concepts with absolutely no similarities! [wink]