James Le Fanu admits getting New Scientist story pulled

[Memekiller]

Source: Examiner

There's been quite a bit of speculation about who got New Scientist to pull "How to Spot a Religious Agenda." I've just spoken with him, and he's confirmed he has complained to the magazine about what he sees as an unfair portrayal as a pseudo-scientist and part of a coordinated religious agenda, when he has "fought against pseudoscience my whole life."

What' s more, it looks like Le Fanu has sued the magazine before, resulting in the posting of this apology:

In New Scientist (29 April 1989) we published a reference to James Le Fanu the author of 'Eat Your Heart Out - The Fallacy Of The Healthy Diet' which could be read to mean that the thesis of the book was 'high-fat diets are good for you'. The reference to Dr Le Fanu was defamatory in that it suggested that the book was not one of scholarship but was misleading and had been published solely with a view to trading on the controversy it would generate.

We accept that there is no truth in any of these allegations and we apologize unreservedly to him for any distress which publication may have caused.

He says these are the only two times he has used libel laws to remove articles, and that there is no feud between him and the magazine. (See why UK libel law sucks.)

There's much, much more, but I wanted to let my readers know as soon as I did who had brought the suit.

Here's another review of Why Us.

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m4d23-New-Scientist-mystery-solved-Its-James-Le-Fanu

---

The anti-creationist story "How to Spot a Religious Agenda" was removed from the New Scientist website after a legal complaint. The editors have been silenced, and the complainant has, until now, remained anonymous.

[Mithreal]

1. Link to "How to Spot a Religious Agenda"

http://vodyanoj.blogspot.com/2009/03/for-shame-new-scientist.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Talk about thin-skinned

The 2 references to Le Fanu (see the link in reply #1) were mild, more or less in passing, and all they do is claim he has a 'religious motivation'. They don't accuse him of being a 'pseudo-scientist', just of (a) making a 'staid', 'shameless appeal to common sense', and of making a point with 'no bearing on the scientific merits of evolution'.

It's a pity the New Scientist caved in so easily. I don't think those could have been said to libel Le Fanu, even in British courts.

[Memekiller]

3. I don't blame New Scientist

I think libel law in the UK is that bad, and with the print industry the way it is, I'm not bothered by editors heeding lawyers' advice.

It's stupid UK law and people willing to shut down offensive stories.

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. Is that lad, Jorgon Gorgon, a high-school student? He and the other Darwinian nuts

not only clearly believe that they are smarter than Einstein (not to speak of Descartes*), who was an unapologetic believer in the intelligent design of the cosmos by an intelligence immeasurably superior to man's, but they wilfully fail to grasp the meaning of such a simple, monosyllabic word as "design" - which clearly implies both "intelligence" and "purpose".

Secular "fundies"! What can you do with them? Other than deride them mercilessly.

*Not that Descates could hold a candle to neurologist, Antonio R Damasio, in terms of understanding the relationship between body and mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error

Some of our more benighted judges should take heed, and refrain from admonishing juries that they shouldn't allow their emotions to affect their judgements. Once the law is unmoved by the moral sentiments of its protagonists, it is the end for all of us. In the UK, it's already occurring. In the US, on the other hand, sentences for non-violent crimes are sometimes quite surreal in their ferocity. There has to be some restoration of good Christian common sense on both sides of the pond.

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Maybe our scientismificist chums should set up colleges of art and evolution,

to combat the "religious" propaganda of the of the authors of colleges of art and design. Now there's a worthy enterprise for Master Dawkins to promote, if ever there was one.

[cosmik debris]

7. You're funny

Your first paragraph starts with two ad hominem attacks, followed by dual appeals to authority and a non sequitur.

But the funny part is where you call the word design "a simple, monosyllabic word"

Maybe it is not simple enough for you, but there are TWO syllables in "design".

[RainDog]

8. I couldn't tell if this was a joke or not

because it is so incredibly misinformed and stupid - I thought you were doing some pretend creationist bullshit rant.

Creationism (intelligent design, as was proven in a court of law, is creationism in drag) has been absolutely and totally debunked in both the scientific and legal community.

Do we really have to waste time on this bullshit here?

[and-justice-for-all]

6. Creationism/ID is bullshit, as it has been confirmed by the Scientic community

so whats the problem wit his article?

[Hugin]

9. Frankly, I'm dying to ask an ID advocate what part intestinal parasites play in Gawd's Grand Scheme.

I really want to know...

Or what about Malaria? Ticks?

[and-justice-for-all]

10. I watched a UC Beerkely lecture on why ID/Creationism is bullshit

and the guy laid it out very nicely.

[Hugin]

11. That would have been an interesting lecture.

There is still so much to be learned... Yet, these people insist on closing off discussion by invoking, "It's Gawd's Will."

[harun]

12. What part do you think they play in God's creation?

I really want to know...

[Hugin]

13. I don't know.

That's why I asked.

[Memekiller]

14. There's a difference...

...between saying science shows evolution happened, but we still don't know {whatever we still don't know} and rejecting evolution because it does know.

[and-justice-for-all]

15. No, the fossil record DOES show evolution happens...

there is no "well, maybe, perhaps" about it. The mountains of evidence makes it quite clear.