New Scientist pulls anti-creationist article after a "legal complaint"

[Oolon Colluphid]

If you try to go to the New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html) 'How to Spot a Hidden Religious Agenda' by their book reviews editor Amanda Gefter, you'll find on its page:
STORY TEMPORARILY NOT AVAILABLE

28 February 2009
Magazine issue 2697. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience.
Meanwhile, it has been archived here (https://www.sott.net/articles/show/177635-How-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda).
As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing.
She goes on to namecheck James Le Fanu, Denyse O'Leary and Expelled.

I wonder who complained...?

ETA: PZ on the matter (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/come_on_new_scientist.php)

[Ray Moscow]

Time to move that article to their front page.

[DMB]

New Scientist isn't what it was. There's a lot less hard science and a lot more waffle. A few weeks back there was a cover that proclaimed "Darwin was wrong". This elicited a letter from Dennett, Coyne, Dawkins and Myers:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126961.200-darwin-was-right.html

What on earth were you thinking when you produced a garish cover proclaiming that "Darwin was wrong" (24 January)?

First, it's false, and second, it's inflammatory. The subtitle, "cutting down the tree of life", made matters worse. The cover story is about recent discoveries of horizontal gene transfer, chimeras, and endosymbiosis: but since Darwin knew nothing of genes, he could hardly have been wrong on any of those topics. (Would you title a story about microwaves "Newton was wrong"?)

Besides, as you surely know, many readers will interpret the cover not as being about Darwin, the historical figure - but about evolution.

[Ray Moscow]

Yeah, that "Darwin was wrong" title was crap.

I was going to subscribe to them, but lately they put me off. Come to think of it, I've met one of their junior editors and will probably see him next weekend for a writing do. I'll give him an earful about this crap.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Newton was wrong? Oh cr...

*suddenly falls off the planet*

[Oolon Colluphid]

I was going to subscribe to them,
You don't need to. You can get it online via the Open University library :)

[DMB]

I've been a subscriber for over 20 years. Don't know if that makes me an idiot.

[Ray Moscow]

Well, one has to be a paying OU student to get the "free" online version, so it's not necessarily any cheaper than just signing up directly.

I'm still trying to get my mind back into "student" mode after all these years.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Well, one has to be a paying OU student to get the "free" online version, so it's not necessarily any cheaper than just signing up directly.
While I wouldn't recommend it just to get at the library, the science short courses are a fairly cheap way (c. £115) to access just about every journal, and a heap of databases (searchable versions of every newspaper via Lexis; the Naxos audio library; the OED...). And you get a course thrown in.