New Scientist is included in the appropriate section in Non-standard cosmologies, it doesn't make any sense to include it here because none of the people who signed it had a creationist POV. Creationists using aging steady-staters to declare there is a "controversy" is like creationists using punctuated equilibrium to advocate that no animals evolved on Earth.

There may indeed be "blatant POV" in the article that needs to be removed. Please try to illustrate some of these here for consideration.  14:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)