I recently received my first copy of The Scientist (the May 13, 1991, issue), in which I read the article about Forrest Mims III [page 12]. There were a lot of points raised about his raising false issues, being a religious fundamentalist, controlling the content of Scientific American, compromising his knowledge of science in favor of his religious beliefs, and not being able to communicate about science.
From the same article, I gathered that Mims has a track record that speaks for itself. It seems to me that the issues about his unsuitability for the job should never have come up once Scientific American had proof of his writing. I'm sure Scientific American reviewed his previous work before commissioning him. If they think his writing is suddenly going to change, why not lay down some ground rules and give him a chance?