Bias in the 'Scientific American' magazine:

One would think that a magazine with such a title would be open minded and relatively unbiased.  Sadly, that is often not the case.   The editors would claim that they are only biased against pseudo science, but the reality is that they too often ridicule other viewpoints than their own.  This is not representative of what science is supposed to be; which is an unbiased open contest of ideas put to the test in a laboratory.

We still recommend the magazine as an excellent source of scientific information (for discerning adults), one must read it, however, knowing that even assuming that the publisher is not excessively biased (either they really are or they are quite careless in reviewing what they publish), the publisher almost exclusively only prints articles which are extremely biased in favor of the beliefs of the scientific institutions which hold the purse strings to science research and which indirectly provide most of the articles for the magazine.

The December 2001 issue is a good example of the bad attitude towards unconventional science that you will sadly often find in this magazine.  In the subject issue, there is an article on page 34 called "More Baloney Detection".  The article makes some good points on differentiating science from pseudoscience, but then in paragraph 8 attacks the mathematical science of "Intelligent Design" which in reality is as scientific as Darwinian macroevolution theory.

Certainly some scientists question "Intelligent Design", but the same is true for Darwinian macroevolution.  "Intelligent Design" theory is a mathematical process being worked out by a man with a Ph.D. in mathematics.  (Mathematicians will argue with some merit, that mathematics is the purest of the sciences.)   The Scientific American magazine articles author apparently rejects anything as science which clearly points towards the existence of a designer (possibly God) as the most probable explanation for something.  Such rejection is not on the basis of any actual science but is an injection of personal bias.

"Intelligent Design" theory simply says that there are certain fairly objective criteria (a lot of "science" is not purely objective) which one can use to make calculations of probability that the structure that is being analyzed is a chance occurrence or, if with a probability that can be calculated rationally if not perfectly, is probably designed by some intelligent agent.  Paleontologists do this all the time in finding "artifacts."

Ironically, in the same article (supposedly about detecting bad scientific reasoning), the author defends the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project as being valid science.  He seems not to realize that the criteria being used to analyze the radio noise from space, to determine if any radio signals are of intelligent origin, are using essentially the same approach as "Intelligent Design" theory.  The Scientific American article author clearly is not focusing on the scientific method, but on what the method might say about his biased beliefs.

In the February 2002 issue of Scientific American, page 35, there is an article titled "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind" by the same author.  The subtitle is "The advance of science, not the demotion of religion will best counter the influence of creationism."  That statement is clearly biased, but is not as bad as that in the article in question in this essay in which his atheistic bias comes out even more strongly.

In that same issue, however, on page 97 there is a review of a book by Ernst Mayr, a leading proponent of Darwinian evolution.  They chose to quote him as saying that evolution "is a fact so overwhelmingly established that is has become irrational to call it a theory."  First of all, what his definition of evolution may not be what most people would  think it is, and any such statement is certainly philosophy or dogma and not science at all.  It is supposed to be "Scientific American", not "Science Dogma of America."  Apparently the magazine has no problem publishing comments by people who consider anyone who does not agree with them as "irrational".  That is not science, just pure closed minded bias.

Actually, the magazine is so poor in editing articles that it is a good source (for a thinking and questioning adult) to see the bias and dangers and arrogance of some scientists, those whose financial concerns and ego are dominant.

There are others who make more serious claims of bias against the magazine.  The claims at the following URL specifically charge the magazine with being biased against anyone who believes in God.

Alleged S.A. bias.

Creationists fight back against S.A. non scientific arrogance and vitriol.

Argument against thesis that: Evolution is true science, not ‘just a theory’ which references S.A. bias.