Just a note so you’ll know: the Nautilus online magazine is partly supported by the John Templeton Foundation. I wasn’t aware of that (correction: see below), and I’ve seen articles on the site by people who, like me, won’t take Templeton dosh; they might not have been aware of who’s behind it all. From the site:
Maybe that’s why they didn’t answer my emails about the apparently plagiarized article they published.
In fact, someone just told me I posted about it before: here. And I was also informed that Templeton started Nautilus with a big grant.
I guess I forgot. I’m growing old: no more peaches for me.
Nautilus logo is a give-away.
Circles arranged into … something. It looks like an apical view of some extreme heteromorph ammonites of the mid- to upper Cretaceous. Which are about as closely related to Nautilus as we are to sharks. Maybe … no sharks are about right. The “AWACS shark”.
Given that were talking about journalists and graphics designers, that’s not too bad a miss.
I don’t see how the logo gives it away.
Precisely, they don’t care about nature, rather they imagine some ideal of Nature that the benevolent creator dreamt.
Some of the articles I’ve read on Nautilus have made me a bit uncomfortable, as if the author was a woo-sympathizer. So this connection makes sense.
Looked at the page to find the logo. Even before seeing the Templeton connection, I’d have given it a swerve.
But do you wear the bottoms of your trousers rolled?