Article #1 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: About the National Center for Science Education
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 06:30:33 1992
Welcome to the offical computer bulletin-board of The National
Center for Science Education (NCSE).
About the N.C.S.E.
-------------------
The National Center for Science Education, Inc., publisher of the
CREATION/EVOLUTION journal and the newsletter, NCSE REPORTS, is a
membership organization of scientists, teachers, clergy, and
interested citizens who are concerned about sectarian attacks on
science education. The NCSE is the national clearinghouse for
information on the creation-evolution controversy, providing
information to citizens, the media, and scholars.
Membership in the National Center for Science Edcuation brings
you:
* One year's subscription to NCSE Reports: 4 issues
* One year's subscription to CREATION/EVOLUTION: 2 issues
* 15-20% discount on selected books
* Participation in NCSE's diverse efforts to prmote and defend
the integrity of science education
A one year US membership costs $20.00 US. A foreign membership
costs $25.00 US. And a Foreign Air Mail membership costs $28.00
US.
Checks should be sent to NCSE PO Box 9477, Berkeley CA 94709.
NCSE is a nonprofit tax-exempt corporation affiliated with the
American Association for the Advancement of Science and the
National Science Teachers Association.
About the N.C.S.E. Bulletin-Board
---------------------------------
This bulletin board is operated for N.C.S.E. by:
Jim Kutz and Page Stephens
(aa387@cleveland.freenet.edu) (aa325@cleveland.freenet.edu)
In addition, the following people will be working on the board:
Cynthia Bell-Moores (aa470@cleveland.freenet.edu)
Ron Hopkins-Lutz (aa747@cleveland.freenet.edu)
Dr.D.A. Rickards (aa354@cleveland.freenet.edu)
Since the board is for official N.C.S.E. use only, feedback
should be sent via email to our mail room address, which is
(xx029@cleveland.freenet.edu). We will then forward your letters
to NCSE.
This board will contain current information on science education
topics, and also occasional articles from NCSE publications.
We hope you will enjoy reading the uploads to this board, and
find them both useful and educational.
--
Article #2 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: N.C.S.E. Needs Your Help.
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 06:34:35 1992
Is evolution under attack in a school near you?
Is creationism being taught, formally or informally?
Is a local teacher or editor or politician under attack for
supporting evolution? Are any of these people promoting
anti-evolutionism or "equal time for "scientific" creationism?
NCSE needs your help--let us know about local developments which we
simply cannot monitor from OUR office. We try to help whenever we
can, but we need information. What's happening, and where?
NCSE has grown from a loose network of "Committees of
Correspondence" exchanging information about threats to science
education in the 1970s and 80s into a national resource center.
NCSE hopes this BB will be a healthy update of that grassroots
network.
HELP!
send info to this BB or to:
NCSE, P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709-0477. (510) 843-3393.
--
Article #3 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Scientific Creationism" & Anti-Evolutionism Not Dead Issues.
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 06:41:32 1992
Is "scientific" creationism an oxymoron? (YES--but "equal time for
the other side" still sounds good to most people, and creationists
still hold themselves up as "the other side.")
EVOLUTION IS STILL A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE BECAUSE OF A QUIET BUT
CHILLING COUNTER-ATTACK FROM ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS--IN THE US, CANADA,
AUSTRALIA, MANY AFRICAN AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES....
Too many people laugh it off and take modern science for granted,
but some of us have banded together to promote evolution and oppose
"scientific" creationism---and you're invited to join in.
The National Center for Science Education is the not-for-profit
(501(c)3) organization which promotes sound science education in
schools and the media, specializing in problems caused by
anti-evolutionism and "scientific" creationism.
For information, contact NCSE, P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA
94709---and tune in here.
With members in 50 states, most Canadian provinces, and 15
countries outside North America, NCSE is the recognized "resource
center" for people interested in what to make of anti-evolutionist
claims--journalists, students, teachers, researchers, lawyers,
school boards, textbook publishers, state and local education
agencies of all kinds can turn to NCSE for information. NCSE
consists of a network linking leading scientists with the public
via a national resource center and "Committees of Correspondence"
in every state and throughout Canada.
NCSE President is Robert Schadewald; Executive Director is Eugenie
C. Scott, Ph.D., and current Board members are John R. Cole,
Frederick Edwords, Jack Friedman, Laurie R. Godfrey, Ronnie
Hastings, Alvin G. Lazen, Kevin Padian, and Robert M. West (all
Ph.D.s except for Friedman who should be!).
NCSE urgently needs your input--information about---
creationist challenges to local teachers or schools, textbook or
library controversies, examples of antievolutionism in local
schools (or pressures in this vein), TV or radio campaigns by
creationists, newspaper policies tilting in favor of "equal time
for antievolutionism," etc.
NCSE can usually provide expert info to help in these
situations--usually from experts with local as well as national
credibilty.
The National Center for Science Education is the not-for-profit
(501(c)3) organization which works to promote sound science
education, in the schools and in the media, specializing in the
problems caused by anti-evolutionism and "scientific" creationism.
With members in 50 states, most Canadian provinces, and 15 foreign
countries outside North America, NCSE is the recognized "resource
center" for people interested in what to make of anti-evolutionist
claims--journalists, students, teachers, researchers, lawyers,
school boards, textbook publishers, state and local education
agencies of all kinds can turn to NCSE for information. NCSE
consists of a network linking leading scientists with the public
via a national resource center and "Committees of Correspondence"
in every state and throughout Canada.
If a school board needs to know what punctuated equilibrium or moon
dust or dinosaur tracks really means (and why it does NOT mean
Darwin is passe), NCSE is the place to call. NCSE has provided
expert advice to teachers, students, school boards, editors,
legislators, administrators, lawyers. It contributed to legal
briefs before the Supreme Court in 1987 and to other court and
administrative proceedings.
What follows is the text of NCSE Reports 12(1), Spring 1992--minus
a few business items, graphics, etc. NCSE publishes Reports, a
24-page newsletter, quarterly; Creation/Evolution, a journal of
48-56 pp, approx., is published twice yearly; member/subscribers
receive both publications.
--
Article #4 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Asimov Dies at 72.
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:03:41 1992
by John Cole
Isaac Asimov has died, not unexpectedly but too young, after a
brief but severe illness. He was one of our leading Supporters,
not only because he was alphabetized first. His career as an
ardent populizer of science will never be duplicated--unless by the
robots his science fiction work described (he invented the term
"robotics," although the term "robot" was coined by Czech writer
Karl Capek). Unlike most writers he kept producing more and
getting better as he aged.
You've probably seen the stats: He wrote nearly 500 books. Maybe
you thought this was some corporation or something--that the books
and articles and stories were produced by a stable of hacks like
Gothic romances. But no, he really did write endlessly. He really
did have the dedication to face a typewriter at 6:00 A.M. and leave
it at night with many pages written. Actually, he wrote at several
typewriters, I think, moving from one to another if he ran out of
what to write on a particular book or article. He was a late and
hesitant convert to computers who continued to produce first drafts
on a typewriter.
He joked about the sheer quantity of output and took pride in it.
The numbers obscure the quality, however. He said his favorite
book was Murder at the ABA, a detective novel featuring one Isaac
Asimov as a best-selling author caught up in a novel. His "Robot"
novels in the 1950s redefined both science fiction and automation
science, but his most prominent work was the "Foundation Trilogy"
(followed by a follow-up trilogy). He also wrote the first Star
Trek movie.
Asimov was jealous of his writing time (which seemed like ALL the
time), but he was also generous with his time on behalf of things
he valued. He eschewed secretaries and answered his own phone and
mail. He was happy to meet with people--as long as it was in
Manhattan--to advance his pet causes such as science education,
evolution, skepticism and humanism. Romancer of intergalactic
travel, he hated flying--indeed, any traveling at all. He cheered
on the conquest of space but felt that someone should stay home and
write about it.
Several years ago I hosted a roundtable meeting sponsored by the
American Humanist Association of which he was president. After a
day-long session in which Isaac talked about his hopes for the
future, his views on physics, chemistry, poetry, biology, religion,
cooking, politics, ecology, sex, and the experience of being an
immigrant Russian Jew, he left for home to get back to his writing.
One participant ventured the opinion that he was a "genius."
Another participant hastened to note that he was not a "genius,"
although he was pretty sharp, because he had not made breakthroughs
in his doctoral field of molecular biology.
This was a prejudice he faced continually and seemed to shrug off.
He was appointed to a job at Boston University soon after World War
II knowing nothing about biochemistry, he claimed, and then wrote a
definitive textbook on the subject because he wanted to know what
he was supposed to teach. This experience suggested to him that he
had a knack for explaining things, and he capitalized on it in
later years.
An immigrant from Russia at age 3, he earned a B.S. degree at
Columbia University and then a Ph.D. A Columbia B.A. in those days
was reserved mostly for non-Jews and others eligible for the Ivy
League imprint (I got a WASPy B.A. there and know the history). He
exhibited the serene view of a person who had won the argument, not
a resentment of the academics who sometimes disdained his work.
Perhaps he was affected--this isn't a psychohistory (a term he
originated!), but I remember him as a chuckling, literally gleeful
man who saw everything as fascinating--and wanted to show other
people why it was and to change the world as best he could.
--
Article #5 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Burglary Report
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:05:32 1992
by John Cole
David Duke, currently running rather invisibly for the Republican
Presidential nomination, formerly, he says, was a Ku Klux Klan
leader. Formerly, he was associated with a white supremacist
outfit calling itself the National Association for the Advancement
of White People (NAAWP), which he says is a nonracist organization
(although their newsletter says it is racist and proud of it; they
write that they are racists, not bigots--a point of pride unclear
to me).
The NAAWP has in the past spoken up for creationism, so I wrote
David to ask his stand on this issue. I have received no reply.
However, I have just received a letter from "Empire Publishing,"
the nonprofit, tax-exempt organization which publishes The
Klansman. They want my financial support, since they think I'm a
member of a "threatened race" in this country. (Hawaiian? They
aren't specific.)
The only logical explanation of my hearing from an organization he
has disavowed and has no connection with whatsoever is, of course,
that his office has been burglarized and his address database
stolen. This would also explain why I haven't heard from him in
answer to my question.
--
Article #6 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Calif. Educ. Chief Indicted, Says Antievolutionists To Blame
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:11:15 1992
California Education Chief Indicted
Says Antievolutionists to
Conservative Critics See Opportunity to Reverse Policies
by John Cole
(From AP, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, and
other news reports)
In March, 1992, Bill Honig, California Superintendent of Public
Instruction, was charged by California Attorney General Dan Lungren
with four counts of "conflict of interest" violation. The case was
initiated by several right-wing Honig critics, including opponents
on the State Board of Education who have opposed his education
reforms.
"Politics at its worst," said Honig at a news conference March 26th
reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. "I will be vindicated
because I have done nothing wrong." He accused state attorney
general Dan Lungren of witch-hunting. "It's a shoddy case, a phony
case."
In February, Lungren convened a grand jury to bring these charges
soon after a January agreement with the Institute for Creation
Research against Honig. Lungren had declined to defend Honig on
the grounds that he lacked time to do so.
Charges against Honig focus on his role, if any, in assignment of
four state employees to work with Quality Education Programs, a
private consulting operation directed by his wife, Nancy Honig.
QEP rented space in the Honigs' San Francisco home and received
non-state grants to develop curriculum projects. Four state
employees on leave were consultants to QEP. Honig maintains that
the employees were not on state payroll, that funding came from
Washington, not California, and that his wife's work was
independent of his office. QEP has been widely hailed for its
successful efforts to improve schools and reduce dropout rates
among disadvantaged students.
Honig said conservatives on the Board of Education wanted to
reverse his policies promoting evolution education and higher
standards for graduation. "There is obviously a political aspect
to this," he said. "The right wing does not like what I have done
as far as (the teaching of) evolution, as far as textbooks, as far
as fighting for public dollars. ... It's frightening how much power
they do have in this state."
State School Board president Joe Stein supported the grand jury's
work which he had helped bring about. According to the Chronicle,
he said he shares the concerns of antievolutionist Christian groups
while denying any vendetta. "My position is that evolution is
theory, not fact," Stein said.
Board vice-president Gerti Thomas complained that Honig has set
standards too high, forcing students to drop out of school.
However, the dropout rate has declined during Honig's term in
office. "[These high standards] are frightening many of the young
people for fear of failure."
Lou Sheldon, a long-time Honig opponent and head of "the
Traditional Values Coalition," hailed the Honig indictment but
denied responsibility for it. "The important thing in our view is
that Earth was not created by evolution but by God," he said.
Kathi Hudson, vice president of Citizens for Excellence in
Education, said, "He wants to teach that evolution is a fact. You
won't find any major scientist that will say it is a fact." She
also argues that "sex education curriculums (sic) are encouraging
children to have sex...."
"He's done more for California education than any other state
superintendent," said San Francisco superintendent Ramon Cortines.
"Its relatively rare to see a prosecution under this (law)," said
San Francisco attorney Jerrold Ladar. "This is among the type of
statutes that lend themselves to potential political misuse...."
According to Ladar, the issue is criminal intent.
"Usually, when an individual is accused of committing a crime...you
have to ask, what is the motive?" noted another attorney. In this
case, there seems to be no such motive.
Among those coming to Honig's defense were the president of the
state school employees association and the executive director of
the California Teachers Association. NCSE Executive Director
Eugenie Scott, interviewed by Science Magazine (April 10), noted
that, whatever the resolution of the case, it was bound to have a
negative impact. Coming just before the summer when a new round of
textbook selections will take place, Honig and his office will have
to divert a significant amount of time and energy to the legal case
rather than to education issues.
Honig has been a long-time advocate of textbook improvement an
opponent of California's creationist lobby and the Institute for
Creation Research, in particular. As reported on p. XX and in our
last issue, the ICR recently reached an out of court settlement
against Honig's attempt to deny a state license to their graduate
school and barred him from voting on future licensing procedures.
If convicted, Honig would be dismissed from office and legally
barred from ever holding public office again.
--
Article #7 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Still More About Eve (Mitochondrial D.N.A.)
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:13:33 1992
Still More about Eve
by Frank Sonleitner
Department of Zoology
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK
The "African Mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis based on the analysis of
mitochondrial DNA has raised a lot of controversy. Some
paleontologists claim that it is contradicted by fossil evidence
(see Thorne and Wolpoff, Resources). Now, technical comments
published in the February 7th Science criticize the statistical
procedures used by the original researchers, and Mark Stoneking,
one of the authors of the critique, was coauthor of the original
"Eve" articles.
"Maximum parsimony" phylogenetic trees were generated from
data--family trees traced back to a common female ancestor assuming
a minimum number of mutations. Such a path is argued to be the
most likely one followed by human evolution.
Alan Templeton of Washington University, with others, has now
reanalyzed the original data using the original computer program.
Depending on the nature of the data, the program can generate more
than one, sometimes a great many, different yet equally
parsimonious trees. Which subset of trees is actually generated
also depends on the sequence in which the data are entered into the
computer program. When more exhaustive computer runs were used,
critics found many trees slightly more parsimonious than that
presented originally, and they found that the data do not
necessarily require an African origin.
This does not mean that an African origin of modern humanity is
ruled out, just that the mtDNA data have other possible
interpretations. Some outspoken critics of the African Eve
hypothesis applaud the new findings, while supporters point out
that there is independent evidence to support it still, including
fossils. They also note that the African gene pool is the most
diverse on earth--genetic evidence which has long pointed to
African origins.
Creationists may gleefully claim this debate shows evolutionists
don't know what they are doing. However, it illustrates the
opposite--that science is (or tries to be) self-correcting. If
there are weak points in an approach, scientists will find
them--and sometimes the original proponents such as Stoneking find
the flaws.
Some references for further information:
Barinaga M. 1992. "African Eve" Backers Beat a Retreat. Science
255: 686-687, 7 Feb.
Brown, P. 1992. African Eve Theory Takes a Step Back. New
Scientist 133: 26, 15 Feb.
Gee, H. 1992. Statistical Cloud over African Eden. Nature 355:
583, 13 Feb.
Science News. 1992. African Eve Gets Lost in the 'Trees.'
141(8): 123, 22 Feb.
Templeton, A.R., et al. 1992. Human Origins and Analysis of
Mitochondrial DNA Sequences. Science 255: 737-739 (See Resources).
Thorne, A. and M. Wolpoff. 1992. The Multiple Origins of the
Genus Homo. Scientific American 266(4): 76-83. (see Resources).
Vigilant, L., et al. 1991. African Populations and the Evolution
of Human Mitochondrial DNA. Science 253: 1503-1507.
Wilson, A., and R. Cann. 1992. The Recent African Genesis of
Humans. Scientific American 266(4): 66-73. (See Resources)
--
Article #8 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Letters to the Editor
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:14:54 1992
Letters
I see [11(4):8] that the only planets that are not named for a god
or goddess are the Earth and the Moon. I would expect this from
the editor of The Old Farmer's Almanac but I like not to find it
from a university professor or the International Astronomical
Union.
The Greek name for our planet is Gaea, sometimes transliterated
Gaia. Her name in Roman mythology is Terra. She is the Earth
goddess whose children were Titans. The French name for Earth is
la terre (feminine), and the Spanish is la tierra (feminine). Both
the French and Spanish names...come from the Latin and retain the
gender. The German name is die Erde (feminine) [a goddess]. ...I
suspect that the English word Earth is etymologically related to
the German word Erde.
May I recall a couplet from Joyce Kilmer's poem Trees?
A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the Earth's sweet flowing breast!
Clearly the planet on which we live is named after a goddess, even
in English.
The same is true of the Moon. The Greeks identified the Moon with
the goddess Artemis. In Roman mythology the moon is associated
with the goddess Diana, sometimes called Cynthia, the goddess of
the moon and the hunt. In Latin, Luna is the Roman goddess of the
Moon. The French name for Moon is la lune. The Spanish is la
luna. Both names obviously come from the Latin.
The ignorance of language, including English but especially
languages other than English, is typical of the Politically Correct
intelligentsia who pullulate on American campuses today.
Multiculturalism is their buzz-word but they have little or no
learning. They flock like starlings from one in-thing to another.
The most important place to be is in the center of the flock. In
that position one cannot be accused of having original thoughts.
I am reminded of Alexander Pope's "A Little Learning."
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again. ...
Of course I realize that Alexander Pope, 1688-1744, is a dead white
European male and therefore...to be ignored.
Someone has said: "The world needs a more intelligent
intelligentsia."
Now for the last paragraph on that [article]. Why must the
womenwhose names are to be used on Venus be "worthy"? Those who
know their mythology are aware that Venus was a bit of a whore.
Venereal diseases are named after her. Therefore, why not include
Rahab (Joshua 6:17), Wallis Warfield Simpson, Madame Pompadour and
others?
Your exposure of creationism is most praiseworthy. Keep the light
on. Cockroaches don't like it.
Hubert P. Yockey
Bel Air, MD
Ed: Sorry! I should have credited my source (and thought about the
details!): it was a news item in Science. I'll put on a record of
Das Lied von die Erde and keep the light on.
As always, I enjoyed the latest issue of NCSE Reports. ... The
article about The Old Farmer's Almanac surprised me [for most of
the reasons noted above].
Another computer network with evolution/creation discussions is the
Commodore-specific QuantumLink. The menu path News and Information
->Express Yourself! -> Theological Debate Board lands you in a
message board where evolution comes up often. Another path is Just
for Fun -> The Interchange -> Religious Realms/Philosophical
Viewpoint. I owe a huge debt to Creation/Evolution and NCSE
Reports for counterarguments and timely information to quickly and
thoroughly refute creationist claims, and several times I've noted
NCSE's address (printouts of most of these exchanges has made a 3.5
cm thick notebook!).
Keep up the good work.
Bert Watkins
Shreveport, LA
I hope that the proofreading of NCSE Reports will be improved.
On p. 17 [9(4)], I fail to see what is scientific about the concept
of "the age of the universe." To me, it implies that the universe
began at some time, and that therefore there was a time when it did
not exist. What term is used for the space and matter/energy that
existed before "the beginning of the universe," as the use of those
quoted words implies? The concept of "an even older universe" also
seems unscientific, to me, for the same reason. The concept of an
expanding universe implies that there is an unnamed "space" beyond
it, into which it could"expand." What is that space, if it is not
part of the universe? Isn't all space included in the universe, by
definition? What books answer these questions? Nearly 70 years
ago I was taught that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed,
that nature abhors a vacuum, that in time there is always minus one
and plus one, and that in space there is always plus one.
Apparently those concepts are no longer held to be valid by science
writers, but they don't explain what is wrong with them, and how
those concepts were proved to be wrong, by whom, and how.
M.K.Stone
Philadelphia, PA
Ed: In the words of J.B.S. Haldane, "the universe is not only
queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." I hope
I can recruit a lucid article for C/E on cosmogenesis (origin of
the cosmos). As a non-physicist, I'll just attempt a couple of
notes here. First, Dalrymple's article reflects the consensus of
scientists today in accepting the idea of a "Big Bang" origin of
the universe which has expanded like a balloon from an initial
"singularity" or infinitely small point of near-infinite mass;
second, there's nothing outside the balloon, and since time is
slowed by great mass, the concept of "before the bang" is very
unclear speculation. These ideas come out of relativity theory and
observations which have supported it, plus later physics and math.
Some astrophysicists now propose that there is probably something
outside the universe--such as other universes! A couple of good
references, both supposedly "popular" but fairly heavy going:
Steven Weinberg's The First Three Minutes, and Stephen Hawking's A
Brief History of Time. Both writers are scientists instrumental in
developing modern cosmogenesis theory. Of course, the final
verdict is not in.
In NCSE Reports 11(4): p.1..."The ICR is currently licensed to
grant degrees by the state of California...." Then, p. 5: "...ICR
must still seek approval from the state of California to grant
degrees." [Which do you mean?]
Howard F. Young
La Crosse, WI
Ed: Good (terse!) question. The latter meant to explain that ICR
is still subject to regulation and must have and continues to need
approval, although the rules have been changed. Permission must be
renewed in 1997.
Scientists should demand of creationists answers to these
questions: 1) What are the creation theories (models)? Name them.
2) What are the basic premises, the postulates, of each theory? 3)
What are some examples of lines of reasoning in each
theory--reasoning used a) for support of postulates, b) for
explanations of known facts, and c) for prediction of possible new
facts? 4) What are the ranges applicability and the limitations,
the boundaries, of each theory?
If answers to these questions were given, honest citizens, in the
light of real science, might readily agree with Darwin: "On the
ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we
gain no scientific explanation of any one of these facts [geologic
succession, geographic distribution and mutual affinities and
homologies]. We can only say that it has so pleased the Creator to
command that the past and present inhabitants of the world should
appear in a certain order and in certain areas; that He has
impressed on them the most extraordinary resemblances, and has
classed them in groups subordinate to groups. But by such
statements we gain no new knowledge; we do not connect together
facts and laws; we explain nothing." (Darwin, Variation of Plants
and Animals Under Domestication, Orange Judd, London, 1868, p. 20)
Ralph W. Lewis
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Ed: Too few read Darwin--evolutionists or opponents. I don't view
his arguments as any "last word," but many of them are surprisingly
fresh today.
Your uncritical publication of Jonathan Marks' self-serving account
of Phillip Johnson's visit to Yale lowered your publication's
credibility in my eyes. I have heard Johnson lecture and debate,
and I respect his ability to field sincere questions on both the
scientific and philosophical aspects of evolution. If he, perhaps
wrongly, judged Mr. Marks as a heckler and hence recognized another
questioner, that is certainly within his privilege as the speaker
on the floor.
Marks' ad hominem caricature of Johnson as hawking his book for
monetary reasons is ludicrous. Johnson has an endowed chair in the
Berkeley Law School and clearly is involved in this debate for
intellectual and religious reasons. I urge you to print an apology
to Dr. Johnson. I urge your readers to read Johnson's book and see
if he's the "mountebank" described by Marks.
J. R. Cogdell
Austin, TX
Ed: A book review is planned.
[cc of letter sent to Mr. Cogdell] I wouldn't take this sort of
thing [ie, Marks' critique] too seriously. The folks at NCSE seem
to consider themselves to have a mission to protect Darwinism from
criticism of any kind. Their style in dealing with dissenters is
reminiscent of that employed by the Soviet press in the
pre-Glasnost days: Cover them with ridicule and abuse and refuse to
acknowledge that the ruling ideology is having any problems
whatever. I am used to this treatment and have learned to turn it
to advantage. Intelligent and fair-minded people recognize that a
science education establishment that meets criticism with tactics
of this sort must not be confident of its case on the merits of the
argument.
Phillip E. Johnson
School of Law, UCB
Berkeley, CA
Ed: And we suppress all criticism, I hear.
...[T]hat the state which so greedily taxes me, a retired person on
a fixed and limited income, dares to use so much as one penny of
any tax dollar of mine to aid or foster the existence of any
pseudoscience--creationism, flat-earthism...or otherwise, [enrages
me]!
Who--what specific person in Sacramento, authorized that any check
comprised of California taxpayers' money in the amount of $225,000
be sent to cover expenses of the ICR (legal or otherwise), and when
was any such check sent???
George James
Crescent City, CA
ed: Articles in this issue by Jukes and Cole should partially
answer your questions about who did what when.
--
Article #9 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: More on the ICR-California Settlement
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:16:45 1992
by Thomas H. Jukes
University of California
Berkeley
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), in Santee, CA, has a
graduate school program "designed to prepare graduates for
productive careers...and also for significant service in the cause
of creation." It offers M.S. degrees in Astro/Geophysics, Biology,
Geology, and Science Education. In 1981, the State of California
Office of Private Postsecondary Education (OPPE) "gave the approval
rating" for these four M.S. programs. The ICR catalogue described
at length the commitment of the faculty to "both scientific
creationism and Biblical creationism." The latter states that the
creation story of Genesis 1:1-2:3 "is factual, historical and
perspicuous: thus all theories...which involve evolution in any
form are false." The program of ICR is therefore inescapably
religious. (Quotations above are from the ICR Graduate School
Catalogue, 1982-1983.)
In 1987, ICR applied for reapproval by OPPE of its graduate M.S.
programs. The application was made to the California State
Department of Education (CDE). A site visit to ICR for
consideration of this approval was made August 3-5, 1988, by a
committee of five, two of whom were creationists. The committee
made a lukewarm report, with criticisms of the teaching and the
labs and questions about the academic program, but it voted 3-2 to
recommend reapproval. On December 3, 1988, a member of the
majority, Dr. R. Kovach, changed his vote to disapproval. On
December 7, 1988, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill
Honig said that reapproval would be denied, and that "no one is
stopping the ICR from granting degrees in religion or creation, but
they are holding their people to have science degrees, which they
don't. The vast bulk of what they learn is not science"
(Blakeslee, 1988).
Following this, corrective measures were discussed as an
alternative to outright disapproval, and Honig decided that it
would be necessary to appoint another on-site review committee.
ICR agreed this should take place in summer 1989. This second
group was chaired by Richard Dickerson and also included Everett
Olson, Christopher Wills, Lawrence Lerner, and a member selected by
the ICR, Leroy Eimers. The group submitted its 48-page report in
January 1990. It was critical of the quality of education at ICR,
not of creationism, and the committee recommended denial of
reapproval. Eimers signed the report but was not in agreement with
its recommendation.
The report was widely publicized; a report in Nature (Buderi, 1990)
also noted that the denial of approval would be appealed.
ICR brought a lawsuit against Honig and two of his assistants. On
January 31, 1992, a judgement was made by a U.S. DistrictCourt,
declaring agreement by the ICR and the State to eight points.
Briefly summarized, these were "that defendants acknowledge" the
following:
a) that the 1989 Visiting Committee report [the Dickerson report]
should be rescinded and withdrawn by "physical removal or
notation;"
b) the 1988 favorable Visiting Committee report (prior to the
change in recommendation by Kovach) should be the last official
document in the file;
c) a private postsecondary educational institution (PPEI) may teach
anything it wants "except as provided by statute...";
d) Honig must abstain from voting on ICR's application until his
term of office expires in 1995;
e) ICR may specify statements of belief and purpose that comply
with a national association [the creationist Transnational
Association of Christian Schools (TRACS), led by ICR's Henry
Morris];
f) ICR has First Amendment rights of free speech, religious
freedom, and "academic freedom" [the last is not mentioned in the
Constitution, however];
g) PPEIs may teach the creation model as being correct provided
that instruction also includes evolution [see below];
h) A private K-12 school is not within the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Education "...except as provided by law."
Finally, the State of California agreed to pay ICR $225,000.
Ruling a) is an audacious rewriting of history, since ICR agreed to
the Dickerson Committee review. Ruling d) against Honig seems to
conflict with his statutory responsibilities. Ruling g) revives
the old campaign to teach creationism in schools by reviving the
"equal time" argument. It states that evolution will also be
taught, but this is unlikely given the ICR's statement (above) that
evolution is false.
The success of the creationist lawsuit was made possible by the
unwillingness of California's Attorney General to contest it on
behalf of the Department of Education.
References
Blakeslee, S. 1988. The New York Times p. A17, December 8.
Buderi, R. 1990. Nature 343: 501.
--
Article #10 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Attending a Creationist Seminar in Washington State
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:18:21 1992
by Carl Wigren
Maple Valley, WA
Thomas Hoyle flashed slide after slide before a wall-to-wall
audience packed in the Maple Valley Presbyterian parish hall. The
public had been invited to witness this dramatic rebuttal of
evolution, and Hoyle was touted as a man who could do it. The
newspaper ad said that this Ph.D. candidate had given his "clear
and understandable presentation one thousand times before," and
now, this Sunday evening in the Seattle suburb of Maple Valley, the
audience could choose between the "Word of God, or the world of
God."
Prior to this glib invalidation of scientific enterprise, I had
called assistant pastor Kathy Schwann to voice my consternation.
Was she aware that there was nothing scientific about creationism?
Was this church a fundamentalist sect? Affiliated with
Presbyterian USA, she explained that members "believe in the
absolute authority of the word of God." Sounded literalist to me,
but maybe the f-word is out of style. She asked that I come with
an open mind. Her invitation had the ring of an Amway spiel.
Despite my preparation, I had butterflies in my stomach as I walked
into church. This was my first creation seminar. I nervously
flipped through some books by Henry Morris in the vestibule and
then, clutching Voices for Evolution, the National Academy of
Sciences publication, and my questions, I took a folding chair.
Hoyle set the agenda. No questions until the end. Wouldn't want
an evolutionist to break the continuity of half-truths and out of
context quotations. Convenient. When he finished denigrating
evolution, I asked him if he equated the stand on evolution of the
Presbyterian Church USA with Godlessness. I was quickly censored
by Kathy Schwann from the back of the hall. "Are you Carl? ...We
already talked about this." She insisted that the issue was not
appropriate in this setting. I tried in vain to read a short
excerpt from Voices regarding the Presbyterian USA position.
At this point, a woman stood up on the opposite side of the hall.
Most knew this fellow parishioner as the organist, but fewer
probably knew she held a doctorate in social psychology and taught
at a local university. She voiced her disapproval of the
presentation. The room was hushed. Amazingly, Hoyle belittled her
comments, saying he believed "only half" of what she said.
Hoyle's unease was obvious, and audience discomfort was palpable.
He fielded a few more innocuous questions and quickly closed. My
new-found ally, the organist, said that this parish had gradually
become more literalist, and that this presentation was the
laststraw. Many had decided to leave the meeting, herself
included, and our conversation was cut short as swarms of
parishioners converged on us both.
One of the more revealing conversations that followed was with an
influential member of the congregation organizing a fledgling
parish in a nearby town. He was keenly aware of the "secular
humanist" conspiracy. Sensing my skepticism, he divulged that a
local school district had knowingly hired two witches for teaching
positions. Convincing! The folie a deux was complete when Hoyle,
who was busy packing his Henry Morris library, added that public
schools are indoctrinating children in secular humanism.
Apparently his antidote is to masquerade fundamentalist beliefs as
science. Remarkably, I learned, he is occasionally requested to
speak at public schools.
"The Word of God, or the World of God?" Or, Hoyle or Hell?
--
Article #11 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Secondary School Evolution
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:19:40 1992
by R. Steven Gumbay
Kent Denver School
4000 East Quincy Avenue
Englewood, CO 80110-4998
I would appreciate readers' assistance. I am teaching what I
believe is a unique course in Biological Anthropology at the
secondary level (juniors and seniors) at an independent school here
in Denver. Recently the ingredients fell into place for a new
elective science course, and the result is a college level course
and cooperative venture with the University of Denver Biological
Sciences faculty.
1991 was the first year of this course. It has been an outstanding
success, so far--one of the most popular courses in the school. To
me this is a unique opportunity to introduce students to the
science involved in the pursuit of the understanding of our
origins. I would like to explore sources of possible grant funding
to obtain teaching materials for this course.
I believe there is a tremendous need to help the large mass of
biological science teachers who feel caught in the middle of
challenges to today's science education. We cannot improve
biological science teaching unless there is a strong effort on the
part of the science and teaching communities to help each other
combat the forces that misinterpret and misrepresent science to our
children.
I am looking for support from NCSE members in pursuit of these
goals. I look forward to a dialogue on these issues and am willing
to do whatever I can to cooperate with others to achieve these
goals.
--
Article #12 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: RESOURCES (books)
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:21:20 1992
RESOURCES
Aiello, Leslie, and Christopher Dean. 1990. An Introduction to
Human Evolutionary Anatomy. San Diego: Academic Press. 596 pp.
$49.95 pb. Technical. Good reviews.
Bengtson, S. 1991. Oddballs from the Cambrian Start to Get Even.
Nature 351: 184-185. New views of Hallucigenia, early animals
which are as weird as the name implies.
Bjorklun, Eugene C. 1991. Evolution and Creationism in the Public
School Curriculum: The Academic Freedom Issue. Education Law
Reporter XXX. Discusses Webster case and legal issues. Available
for SASE + $.50 from NCSE
Bowlby, J. 1991. Charles Darwin: A New Life. NY: W.W. Norton.
xiv+511 pp. $24.95
Bowler, P.J. 1990. Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence.
Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. xii+250 pp. $21.95
Brewster, Rudi. 1992. Judgement Granting Declaratory Judgement by
Stipulation. The ICR v Bill Honig decision. SASE + $.50 from NCSE
Day, Lucille. 1992. Redefining the Tree of Life. Mosaic 22(4):
46-56. Latest competing ideas about the origin of life and the
evolution of life's major categories--treats the 5-kingdom theory
as an artifact of the 1960's--a good beginning. Written for the
public but fairly technical.
Desmond, A. 1989. The Politics of Evolution: Morphology,
Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. x+503 pp. $34.95. "Please read this book," writes
reviewer Gareth Nelson. "What you learn will illuminate the
present." 19th century London politics had a lot of parallels with
today's politics in the creation-evolution debate.
Desmond, A. and J. Moore. 1991. Darwin. NY: Warner. 832 pp.
$35.00. "Remarkable," says reviewer Gareth Nelson, who recommends
it as a landmark book which "leaves the myths behind."
Foner, Eric. 1992. The Education of Richard Hofstadter. The
Nation 254: 597-603 (4 May). Excellent essay about the author of
Social Darwinism in American Thought, Anti-intellectualism in
American Life, etc. and their place in social history.
Gibbons, Ann. 1992. Sorting the Hominid Bonepile. Science 256:
176-177. News report on a meeting at the American Museum of
Natural History, "Apes or Ancestors?" which tried to sort out
hominid-hominoid evolution.
Gribbin, J. 1992. Quasar Red Shifts under the Lens. NewScientist
133: 23, 8 Feb. Discussion of new info concluding that quasars are
indeed as far away as thought--and thus billions of years old.
Hambrey, M. 1992. Secrets of a Tropical Ice Age. New Scientist
133: 42-49, 1 Feb. Summaries of evidence for Precambrian ice ages.
Hillis, David M., J.J. Bull, M.E. White, M.R. Badgett, and I. K.
Molinoux. 1992. Experimental Phylogenetics: Generation of a Known
Phylogeny. Science 255: 589-592. Dramatic experiment introduced a
mutagen which proceeded unguided to produce 5 different phylogenies
or "histories" which were duplicates of known phylogenies.
Available from NCSE for SASE + $.50
Johnson, Phillip. 1992. Response to Jukes. Journal of Molecular
Evolution 34: 93-94. Nested hierarchies exist but evolution
doesn't? SASE + $1.50 for this & 2 Jukes & 1 Mims Articles below
Jukes, Thomas H. 1991. Creationism vs. Scientific American.
Journal of Molecular Evolution 33:1-2. Critique of F. Mims'
complaint that a magazine refused to hire him because of his
religion. (See Johnson above)
Jukes, Thomas H. 1991. The Persistent Conflict. Journal of
Molecular Evolution 33: 205-206. Critique of Phillip Johnson's
legalistic attack on evolution. (See Johnson above)
Lewin, R. 1992. Earth's Field Flips Flippin' Fast. New Scientist
133: 26, 25 Jan. Oregon lava flows reveal rapid magnetic field
reversals--bad news for creationists such as Thomas Barnes who deny
reversals occur, but good news, of sorts, for some others willing
to accept them and who want them rapid.
Mayr, Ernst. 1991. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the
Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press. xv + 195 pp. $19.95 (Avail. from NCSE at 20%
discount--See centerfold)
McCord, Robert S. 1992. 101-Year-Old-Woman not Pregnant. Daily
Hampshire Gazette, Northampton, MA 12 February. How supermarket
tabloids (try to) get away with it, by a real newspaper editor who
was an expert witness in a lawsuit against the Sun. SASE + $0.50
from NCSE.
McGowan, Christopher. 1991. Dinosaurs, Spitfires and Sea Dragons.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Good popular introduction to
dinosaurs, ichthyosaurs and pteranadons. Reviewed in next C/E.
Margulis, Lynn, and D. Sagan. 1991. Mystery Dance: On the
Evolution of Human Sexuality. 224 pp. QP Book Club $9.95; Publ.
ed. $20, pb. Controversial sociobiology.
Menendez, A.J, and Edd Doerr. 1991. Religion and Public
Education; Common Sense and the Law. Long Beach, CA: Centerline
Press. 112 pp, $12.95. Pb. One 10 pp chapter is "Creationism vs.
Evolution;" topics include teaching about religion and values. A
publication of Americans for Religious Liberty.
Mims, Forrest. 1992. A Response to Thomas H. Jukes. Journal of
Molecular Evolution 34: 1-2. Followed by a brief note from Jukes.
(See Johnson above)
Nielson, R.H. 1992. The Oldest Ice in the World. New Scientist
133: 34-38, 29 Feb. Greenland Ice Core Project will soon hit
bedrock, completing a continuous core climate record extending back
300,000-600,000 years--by far the oldest ice core ever.
Norell, M.A., and M.I. Novacek. 1992. The Fossil Record and
Evolution: Comparing Cladistic and Paleontologic Evidence for
Vertebrate History. Science 255: 1690-1691. Predictions about
evolution are tested, and it works.
Parks, William S. 1992. An Open Letter to the Journal
Creation/Evolution. Creation Research Society Quarterly 28:
177-178, March. Yet more on the old Walter Brown-Jim Lippard
debate.
Sereno, P.C. and R. Chenggang. 1992. Early Evolution of Avian
Flight and Perching. Science 255: 845-848, 14 Feb. Sparrow-sized
Chinese bird fossil intermediate in character between Archaeopteryx
and modern birds. SASE + $.50
Templeton, Alan R., S.B. Hedges, A. Kumar, K. Tamura and M.
Stoneking. 1992. Human Origins and Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA
Sequences. Science 255:737-739, 7 February. "Mitochondrial Eve"
argument was statistically flawed. SASE + $1.00 from NCSE.
Thorne, Alan G., and Milford H. Wolpoff. 1992. The Multiregional
Evolution of Humans. Scientific American 299(4): 76-83. The
extreme "anti-molecular clock" argument from two of the leading
proponents of the paper's title and of relying on features in "the
bone alone." SASE + $1.00 from NCSE
Wakefield, J. Richard. 1991. Biological Evolution: An Overview of
Mechanisms and Evidence. OASIS Supplementary Monograph #1, 39pp.
Second Edition. Illustrated, bound, with special reference to
creationist arguments. Order from OASIS, 385 Main St., Beaverton,
ON LOK 1A0 Canada. $15
Williams, George C., and R.N. Nesse. 1991. The Dawn of Darwinian
Medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66(1): 1-22. Evolution by
natural selection explains many aspects of diseases. More good
arguments for why we need to understand evolution. SASE + $2.20
from NCSE
Wilson, Allan, and R. Cann. 1992. The Recent African Genesis of
Humans. Scientific American 299(4): 66-73. An example of
howpublishing deadlines can be treacherous! Excellent illustrated
explanation of the "Mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis, the conclusions
of which have been called into serious question since this went to
press. (See Sonleitner, p. __) SASE + $1.00 from NCSE
Wood, B. 1992. Origin and Evolution of the Genus Homo. Nature
355: 783-790, 27 Feb. The article's title is a clue to content.
Zimmer, C. 1992. Ruffled Feathers Discover 13(5): 44-54 (May). A
fairly sober account of the controversy over "Protoavis" as early
bird; quotes NCSE's Kevin Padian and others. Protoavis remains are
fragmentary and mixed up and do not support the claim that it is a
clearer ancestor than Archaeopteryx. SASE + $1.00
[box]
FREE! From "Science As A Way Of Knowing" project, American Society
of Zoologists
Evolutionary Biology
Human Ecology
Genetics
Form and Function
Cell and Molecular Biology
Request single issues from: Dr. John A. Moore, Department of
Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521; single
copies are free, although postage contributions are invited.
Two reprints of monographs in this series are available for $2.50
each from the same address; make checks to Amer. Soc. of
Zoologists.
--
Article #13 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Clinton Not Governor When Arkansas Law Passed
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:22:27 1992
Clinton Not Governor When Arkansas Law Passed
by Eugenie C. Scott
We have received more than one request concerning whether Arkansas
Governor Bill Clinton (a Democratic Presidential contender) was the
Arkansas governor who signed the notorious "equal time" creationist
bill in 1981. This bill later became the basis for the Federal
District Court lawsuit, McLean v Arkansas. He was not.
Clinton was governor from 1979-1981, and was defeated by Frank
White, who signed Arkansas law 590. White was subsequently
defeated by Bill Clinton in 1983, and Clinton has held the
governor's seat ever since.
--
Article #14 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: NCSE's International Membership
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:24:01 1992
NCSE now has members in 15 foreign countries as well as the USA:
Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the United Kingdom,
France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Japan, New Zealand, Norway,
South Africa, Sweden, and Switzerland. "Scientific" creationism is
a world-wide movement, unfortunately, but it is good to know that
NCSE's message is getting out where it is needed.
--
Article #15 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Creationists No Longer Invited To Peoria Public Schools but...
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:26:53 1992
-- but the bad news is....
by Eugenie C. Scott
From mid-1989 through 1991, NCSE reported on extensive creationist
activity in central Illinois [Reports 9(3):p.21; 10(3):p.1;
10(4):p. 6;10(6):p. 1; 11(1):p. 1; 11(2):p. 4]. The Institute for
Creation Research had been invited to speak in Peoria, Morton and
other Illinois public school science classes for up to twelve
years, with little dissent. NCSE southern Illinois and Missouri
Liaison Ranse Traxler and other NCSE members brought considerable
publicity to this practice, resulting in widespread condemnation
from both the press and members of the state education hierarchy.
The question is, what is going on now in central Illinois?
According to a recent series of articles by Peoria Journal Star
reporter Elaine Hopkins (4/12/92, p. A12), "Speakers on creation
science have addressed science classes in the past. But teachers
are not encouraged to invite them now, Associate Superintendent
Melvin Hines wrote in a letter, after a 1990 inquiry from the
National Center for Science Education. A book, 'Scientific
Creationism,' once listed for teacher reference on the approved
list of high school science textbooks, no longer appears on the
current list."
That ICR faculty members are no longer lecturing to students in
science classes is the good news. Unfortunately, the four articles
by Hopkins go on to discuss how students in several districts in
central Illinois are systematically being denied the opportunity to
learn evolution. Officials at several districts, including
Metamora, East Peoria, and Germantown Hills, claimed students have
"enough to learn" without having to learn evolution. In Germantown
Hills, Doug Leman, Vice President of the school board, wrote a
heavily-referenced, 38 page document on creationism "for the
enlightenment of the teachers."
Leman wrote that neither evolution nor creationism was scientific,
and both were belief systems. "Implications of the theory of
evolution trouble Leman. The world cannot have developed by
chance, he said. 'There has to be a master designer. Without that
designer, there's no absolute moral code, only situation ethics.'"
Children can be taught both models when they are old enough to
understand them, but not at the elementary level. "Meanwhile, the
children should not be taught 'as fact' that 'dinosaurs were here
millions of years ago,' Leman said."
As Hopkins reported, "Teachers at Germantown Hills got the
message." Although the textbook used in the district discusses
evolution, the chapters are skipped, according to an unidentified
teacher. "As a result, some children say the world is only 6,000
years old, and that the dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve, the
teacher said. Instead of supplying accurate dates, teachers
tellthe children dinosaurs lived 'a long time ago,' the teacher
said."
Teachers who do bother to teach evolution apparently "believe they
need to 'balance' the scientific concepts of evolution with other
'theories,' namely the Bible's story of seven days of creation."
An example is the Morton district.
During the spring of 1991, Morton was the center of controversy
when the school district, dismayed over "too much evolution" in the
textbooks, directed the staff to develop a curriculum in
creationism to be taught alongside evolution (see Reports 11(1):p.
1.) NCSE and others publicized this dictum, which directly defied
the 1987 Supreme Court decision, Edwards v Aguillard. National
newspapers such as Education Week carried the story.
What was taught in the fall? According to the Journal Star
reporter, "Biology teachers spend one class period discussing all
the theories. They include life sent to earth from outer space and
religious stories, including the account in Genesis." It appears
as if the "creationism curriculum" was reduced from earlier
promises. Morton, apparently, does not like being the center of
controversy.
There are some bright spots, however. Pekin High School science
department head (and NCSE member) Jill Schimmelpfennig told the
reporter that evolution and only evolution is taught in the high
school biology classes. Similarly, teachers at Sterling Middle
school teach evolution "because it's part of a chapter in the
science book."
--
Article #16 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Mormon Church Stance on Evolution
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:28:13 1992
by Eugenie Scott
The four-volume Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Macmillan 1991)
summarizes the faith's history and doctrine. Written by lay
members under Church hierarchical direction, is described as
"authentic but not official."
Historically, Mormonism has encompassed believers ranging from a
unique form of creationism to theistic evolution. Officially, the
Church's ruling quorums have always left the matter open, except
for belief in an overarching divine plan and an historical Adam.
Refinements of the "Adam" concept have been variously developed,
repudiated, and ignored. Dates for the age of the Earth and the
development of life have ranged from short-term ones to those of
modern science. Officially, the issue has been left unresolved.
The encyclopedia continues the tradition of general openness. A
notably terse article on "Evolution," nominally written by Brigham
Young University physicist William E. Evenson, clearly had input
from the Church's highest authorities. While asserting their was
an "Adam," the article makes clear that the method of creation is
unknown. It cites official minutes of a 1931 meeting of the Church
hierarchy wherein officers are charged to "leave geology, biology,
archaeology, and anthropology...to scientific research, while we
(the officers) magnify our calling in the realm of the Church."
Republishing this statement today effectively updates the
endorsement of this hands-off approach.
Interesting stance. Mormons clearly seem to vary on the topic.
--
Article #17 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Back To Genesis in West Virginia
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:29:37 1992
by Karl D. Fezer
Concord College
Athens, WV
The ministry of the Institute for Creation Research reaches more
people now that it runs "Back to Genesis Seminars." These
typically two-day sessions sometimes attract thousands of people to
weekend meetings--the high-tech descendant of revival meetings.
They are held all over the country.
I attended one held October 25-26, 1991.
I first saw the event promoted the previous May at a weekend
seminar featuring Genesis Flood co-author John C. Whitcomb in a
church 90 miles from Charleston. Later, glossy fliers reached me
from various sources. Several weeks before the event, a Concord
College student invited me to another local church to see a
creation/evolution film. This film, with the service built around
it, served the dual purpose of generating interest in the
forthcoming Charleston event and edifying those who couldn't make
it to Charleston. Perhaps 200 people attended this local service.
The film shown, The Genesis Solution, was mostly a Ken Ham sermon,
augmented by diagrams and cartoons. Ham has become the ICR's most
ardent evangelist. His message: Evolution is the foundation of all
challenges to God's word, and those who know God's word should not
tolerate alternatives.
Later, at the end of the Charleston program, we were told that this
film had 106 similar showings in West Virginia.
The Charleston seminar was preceded by a "school assembly" Friday
morning for grades K-6. According to a page-one story in The
Charleston Gazette, 2500 children in the Municipal Auditorium heard
Ken Ham ask, "Did dinosaurs get on Noah's Ark?" and "Was the earth
formed millions of years ago?"--with the children shouting back
"Yes!" and "No!" respectively. ICR staffers said about 80% of the
children were home-schooled or from Christian private schools in
West Virginia. According to the Gazette, "some parents took their
children from public schools to attend the 90 minute seminar. A
few public school teachers may have taken their entire classes, but
neither county nor ICR spokesmen were sure."
The Seminar itself, also held in the Charleston Municipal
Auditorium, began Friday evening and continued through Saturday
evening. It consisted of nine 45-60 minute lectures--three each by
Ken Ham, John Morris, and Duane Gish--plus three films. Ham
lectured on "Genesis 1-11: An Overview," "Genesis and the Decay of
the Nations," and "Genesis Evangelism." The three
speakersscheduled 8 additional sermons or talks Sunday.
Ten days before the event, the Gazette published a critique by me
in which I gave specifics about a number of instances of dishonesty
and nonsense perpetrated by ICR. Apparently it made an impression,
because each of the three speakers referred to it at least twice.
John Morris told the crowd that Fezer attends creationist meetings
and disrupts them. Since the latter claim is false, I spoke to him
privately and asked him to retract his statement, which he did in
his next lecture.
All speakers kept promoting various books for sale on more than a
dozen tables in the lobby and on more tables behind curtains on the
auditorium stage. Ample time was allowed between lectures for the
perusal and purchase of books. The front page story in The
Charleston Gazette was accompanied by a full-color portrait of the
greenbacks in a book-table cashier's money-box. A subsequent
letter from ICR's Mark Looy complained about the erroneous
impression created by this picture and told of how little money
they make from book sales.
At the last lecture ICR's Ken Ham announced that costs had been
covered by prior church contributions and by a collection taken
Friday evening, and that no further collection was needed. He
claimed the event had reached 6000 people, including 3500 children,
and that the total for the weekend would rise to 7000. I estimated
peak Saturday attendance to have been about 1200.
--
Article #18 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Who Loves Insects? Orkin !!
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:30:30 1992
If you're the Smithsonian, and your budget is being cut, and you
need help with a new insect exhibit, who do you call? Orkin
Pesticide Co. ("We destroy them all"), that's who. Science reports
that the Smithsonian has received $500,000 from the company and
that the newly named O. Orkin Insect Zoo will re-open in September
1993. An Orkin spokesperson said, with probably unintended double
meaning, "We share the philosophy that insects are a vital part of
nature." No one at the company said, "Insects are my life."
--
Article #19 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Tracking: Can Earth Be Dated From Decay of Its Magnetic Field?
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:32:52 1992
by G. Brent Dalrymple
U.S. Geological Survey
Menlo Park, CA
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, "scientific"
creationists insist that the Earth is young. One of the most
frequently cited "proofs" of a young Earth is the decay of the
Earth's magnetic field--an argument developed by Thomas G. Barnes
(e.g., Barnes 1971, 1981, 1983), before his death Emeritus
Professor of Physics, University of Texas, El Paso, and, for
several years, Dean of the Graduate School at the Institute for
Creation Research.
Barnes' argument is based on the observation that the strength of
the Earth's dipole field (meaning 2 magnetic poles), called the
dipole moment, has decreased about 6% since scientists began
measuring the magnetic field and analyzing the data in the early
1800s. Barnes claims that the decrease in the dipole moment is due
to freely decaying electrical currents circulating in the fluid
iron-nickel core of the Earth. According to Barnes, these currents
originated by unknown processes when the Earth was formed and have
been decaying irreversibly and exponentially ever since with a
half-life of 1400 years. He uses this half-life to calculate the
value of Earth's dipole moment at various times in the past and
finds that the strength of the field would have been impossibly
large in 8000 B.C. Barnes concludes that the Earth must be less
than 10,000 years old.
To people unfamiliar with the current state of research on the
magnetic field, Barnes' argument may seem logical and
straightforward. In arguing his case, however, he has apparently
ignored or attempted to refute much of what scientists have learned
in this century about the genesis and behavior of the Earth's
field.
The primary objections to Barnes' thesis are three (Dalrymple
1983). First, there is no question that the dipole moment has been
decreasing in recent years, but over long periods of time the
change has not been exponential or even regular as Barnes assumes
(Merrill and McElhinny, 1983; Bloxham and Gibbins, 1989). Studies
of the magnetic field as recorded in dated rocks and pottery have
shown that the dipole moment actually fluctuates over periods of a
few thousand years and that decreases in field intensity are
eventually followed by increases. For example, the archaeomagnetic
data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker than the
present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the
present field about 3000 years ago (McElhinny and Senanayake,
1982). Occasionally, the dipole field virtually disappears only to
reappear with the north and south poleschanging places. These
polarity reversals, accompanied by a temporary decrease in the
dipole moment, have been occurring every half-million years or so
for millions of years. Thus, Barnes' exponential extrapolation
back in time of the Earth's dipole moment based on only 150 years
of data is obviously invalid; his conclusion that the Earth's
magnetic field is only a few thousand years old is directly
contradicted by voluminous data showing that the existence of the
field is recorded in rocks dated as more than three billion years
in age.
A second problem with Barnes' argument is that he has made the
mistake of equating the dipole moment with the total field
intensity and that, in turn, with the total field energy. To a
first approximation, Earth's magnetic field has the same overall
configuration as it would if the field were caused by a gigantic
bar magnet, with north and south poles, in the core and aligned
approximately along the Earth's rotational axes, i.e., the dipole
field. The Earth's field, however, is much more complex than a
simple dipole, and the concept of the Earth's dipole field is, in
reality, only a mathematical device used by scientists to help them
analyze the Earth's true magnetic field--it is the ideal and
symmetrical dipole field that comes closest to fitting observed
data. When the idealized dipole field is subtracted from the real
field, the remainder is called the nondipole field. Barnes
completely neglects the nondipole field. The same observatory
measurements that show that the dipole moment has decreased since
the early 1800s also show that this decrease has been almost
completely balanced by an increase in the strength of the total
observed field which has remained almost constant. In addition,
Barnes neglects the probability that a significant proportion of
the field energy may be contained in magnetic field components
internal to the Earth's core and unobservable from its surface. So
it is probably impossible to know exactly what the total field is
doing from measurements made on or above the surface of the Earth.
Finally, scientists have concluded that the Earth's magnetic field
is generated by the continuous fluid motion of material in its
liquid iron-nickel core (Bloxham and Gibbins, 1989). This flow
acts as a dynamo that generates electric currents that, in turn,
induce the magnetic field. The dynamo theory has gained
near-universal acceptance because it is the only proposed mechanism
that can explain all the observed features of the Earth's magnetic
field. In contrast, Barnes' hypothesis of a freely decaying field
cannot explain the existence, configuration, movement, or changes
in the nondipole field, the fluctuations in the dipole moment, the
reversals in field polarity, or the documentation in the geologic
record of the continued existence of the field for more than three
billion years.
References:
Barnes, T.G. 1971. Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Moment and
theGeochronological Implications. Creation Research Society
Quarterly 8(1): 24-29.
Barnes, T.G. 1981. Depletion of the Earth's Magnetic Field. ICR
Impact Series 100.
Barnes, T.G. 1983. Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic
Field. ICR Technical Monograph No. 4, 2nd Edition.
Bloxham, J., and D. Gibbins. 1989. The Evolution of the Earth's
Magnetic Field. Scientific American 261, pp. 68-75 (December).
Dalrymple, G.B. 1983. Can the Earth be Dated From the Decay of
Its Magnetic Field? Journal of Geological Education 31: 124-133.
McElhinny, M.W., and W.E. Senanayake. 1982. Variations in the
Geomagnetic Dipole I: The Past 50,000 Years. Journal of
Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity 34: 39-51.
Merrill, R.T., and M.W. McElhinny. 1983. The Earth's Magnetic
Field. London: Academic Press.
--
Article #20 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Twin-Cities Creation Conference
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:35:24 1992
by Robert J. Schadewald
The 1992 Twin-Cities Creation Conference will be held at
Northwestern College in Roseville, Minnesota, on Wednesday through
Saturday, July 29 through August 1. Conference registration is $75
before May 1, $85 before July 18, and $90 at the door. For
information, write to Twin-Cities Creation Conference, 6120 1st
Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55419 or phone (612) 869-0949.
Conference sponsors include the Twin Cities Creation-Science
Association (TCCSA), Northwestern College, and the Genesis
Institute. TCCSA is among the country's oldest, largest, and most
active local creationist groups. Northwestern College is a Bible
college founded in 1902 by Reverend William Bell Riley, who later
founded the World's Christian Fundamentals Association (1919).
From its origin in the halls of the First Baptist Church, it grew
into a 4-year, fully accredited school that now teaches a literal
six-day creation and worldwide flood. The Genesis Institute was
founded by Pastor Walter Lang after he was eased out of the
Bible-Science Association (which he also helped found).
The tone and content of the 1992 Twin Cities Creation Science
Conference will apparently be somewhere between the quadrennial
International Creation Conferences organized by the Pittsburgh
Creation Science Fellowship and the National Creation Conferences
the Bible-Science Association (BSA) formerly sponsored. That is,
the organizers intend it to be less technical and more religious
than the Pittsburgh conferences but more scientific than the old
BSA events.
The preliminary program lists about 50 speakers, at least half of
whom have presented at National Creation Conferences. Many of the
names are familiar to readers of NCSE Reports. Kurt Wise, a
Harvard-educated paleontologist now at Bryan College, will give
presentations in geology, paleontology, and evolution that should
be interesting. At the other end of the scientific spectrum, "Dr.
Carl Baugh, Ph.D." will show 3-D pictures of Noah's Ark taken from
a Russian helicopter in 1990. (For a discussion of Baugh's
scientific credentials, see NCSE Reports 9(6):15-18). Other names
familiar to creationist-watchers include Bill Overn, Pastor Walter
Lang, Gerardus Bouw, Jerry Bergman, Gary Parker, and David
Kaufmann.
Conspicuously absent from the conference program are current staff
members of the Institute for Creation Research and the
Bible-Science Association. The latter might seem surprising
because BSA headquarters is only about 10 miles from the conference
site. Perhaps it is because TCCSA and BSA are barely on speaking
terms (several of the conference organizers have been purged from
positions of authority in BSA during recent years). Or perhaps the
BSA people just elected not to submit abstracts.
The creation conference will be preceded by a two-day conference on
Biblical Astronomy (geocentricity) on Monday and Tuesday, July 27
and 28, at the same site. The geocentricity conference is being
sponsored by the Association for Biblical Astronomy (formerly the
Tychonian Society). Organizer Gerardus Bouw hopes to bring
together the speakers who were scheduled to present papers at the
canceled 1991 Conference on Absolutes in Cleveland. As of late
March, no program had been published. Registration is $25. For
further information, write to either the Association for Biblical
Astronomy (4527 Wetzel Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44019) or The Genesis
Institute (7232 Morgan Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423-2940).
--
Article #21 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: More Biology on Disk. (CD-ROM biology classroom materials)
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:36:53 1992
Tired of simulated golf or Leisure Suit Larry on your computer? A
new biology series from the University of Maryland's Academic
Software Development Group will attempt to present a comprehensive
series of CD-ROM biology programs for classroom use. The first,
"Introduction to BioQUEST," is an introduction to the series--a
sort of demo disk. Cost: $100.
Other titles include: Biota, Biometrics, Cardiovascular
Construction Kit, Data Collection and Organization, Environmental
Decision Making, Genetics Construction Kit, and Sequence It!
For information, contact ASDC, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD 20742. (301) 405-7600. ASDG@UMDD.BITNET. Site licensing
will be available.
Note: If you try it, NCSE Reports would appreciate a short review.
--
Article #22 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: A Little Learning...
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:38:11 1992
Alexander Pope
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fir'ed at first sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts,
While from the bounded level of our mind,
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind;
But more advanc'd, behold with strange surprise
New distant scenes of endless science arise!
(Thanks to Hubert P. Yockey)
--
Article #23 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Chimp Pharmacology
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:39:17 1992
Chimps not only use tools, they dose themselves with effective
herbal remedies, according to recent field researchers. A AAAS
symposium on zoopharmacognosy (!) in February featured reports from
Africa which maintained that chimps intentionally used specific
plants for specific remedies (e.g., particular plant leaves
effective against worm infestations).
This adds to growing awareness of chimpanzee culture and cultural
differences from one area to another. Chimps in the wild are
highly endangered, however. Some researchers hope that
demonstrating that chimps are useful informants about medical uses
of plants will inspire greater efforts to save the lives of our
closest nonhuman relatives. Not driving chimps extinct should not
be such a dollar-related issue, and the more we learn about them,
the more amazing they become.
--
Article #24 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Improvement in Science/Math Ed. Since A Nation at Risk?
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:40:58 1992
"Yes, but" say state school chiefs
In March the Council of Chief State School Officers released a
study analyzing trends in student course enrollments, supply of
qualified teachers, and student achievement since the 1983 report
by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. The study
finds some good news compared with 10 years ago, although the
details reveal a lot of room for improvement.
The Council paper draws on data from four recent surveys and
outlines national and state indicators on three key questions:
1) Are students receiving more instruction in science and math
now than 10 years ago?
2) Has the supply of qualified teachers in science and math
improved?
3) Are students learning more science and math?
There is some improvement in each area. High school course
enrollments have risen significantly, although rates of increase
are smaller for advanced courses. Scores on the NAEP science and
mathematics assessments have increased, particularly for students
at ages 9 and 17. However, the level of student proficiency is
still too low. In math, US students score below the level expected
for their age and grade level. And there is wide variation by
state in course enrollments and student achievement.
No absolute shortage of teachers was found, although in many states
as little as a third or less of math teachers had college math
majors; science teachers fared a bit better, but in most states
much improvement in qualifications seems possible. Shortages are
greater in schools with more poor or minority students.
The Council is a nationwide non-profit organization of the 57
public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary
education in every state, the District of Columbia, the Department
of Defense Dependents Schools, and the five extra-state
jurisdictions.
--
Article #25 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Current Liasons
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:42:29 1992
Current Liaisons
The following is a list of current NCSE liaisons. Liaisons head or
represent Committees of Correspondence (CCs), or in other ways
support evolution education, the public understanding of science,
and the opposition to sectarian influences in science classes. We
depend on them for information on challenges to science education
at the local level, and we help them to oppose these challenges.
Some CCs are very active, producing newsletters and corresponding
among active members, much as did the original Revolutionary War
Committees of Correspondence. Other liaisons need your help to
make their CC become more active and vigorous. Not all NCSE
members belong to their local CC. Your liaison needs your support
at the state and grass-roots level. Write him or her today! There
can be more than one liaison in a state, so contact NCSE if you are
willing to serve.
Harriet Shaftel
133 East Cook Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
John Schweinsberg
1105 Rivlin Road S.E.
Huntsville, AL 35801
Frances C. Roelfs
P.O. Box 4320
Fayetteville, AR 72702
David Rasmussen
Department of Zoology
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287
Eugenie C. Scott
1218 Milvia St
Berkeley, CA 94709-0477
Martin Tobias
1031 S. Terry St.
Longmont, CO 80501
Kenneth L. Feder
Department of Anthropology
Central Connecticut State U
New Britain, CT 06050
Rivers Singleton
School of Life & Health Science
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19711
Kenneth S. Saladin
Dept. of Biology
Georgia College
Milledgeville, GA 31061
Garvin Chastain
Boise State University
Department of Psychology
Boise, ID 83725
Al Martin
201 Cedarbrook Rd
Naperville, IL 60565
Ransom R. Traxler
301 Weber Drive
O'Fallon, IL 62269
(Liaison for MO and IL)
Craig Nelson
Biology Department
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN 47405
George R. Clark
Geology Department
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
Frank L. Lovell Jr.
1907 Deer Park Avenue
Louisville, KY 402054
Milton Fingerman
Department of Biology
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA 70118
John R. Cole
248 Amherst Rd. Apt L-2
Sunderland, MA 01375
Erik P. Scully
Biology Department
Towson State University
Towson, MD 21204
Richard Terry
8 Congress Street
Belfast, ME 04915
Carl J. Bajema
940 Shawmut Court, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
Robert J. Schadewald
13204 Parkwood Drive
Burnsville, MN 55337
Barry Ferst
Philosophy Dept.
Carroll College
Helena, MT 59601
William S. Pollitzer
Department of Anatomy
U of NC Medical School
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Kevin R. Henke
2023 11th Ave. N
Grand Forks, ND 58203
William A. Forsee
4942 Greene Avenue
Omaha, NE 68157
(Liaison for NE and IA)
Larry T. Spencer
Prof Biol., Natural Science
Plymouth State College
Plymouth, NH 03264
Joan Rogow
P.O. Box 496
Flemington, NJ 08822
William J. Meikle
5301 Arvilla N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87110
John R. Wilbanks
Department of Geoscience
University of Nevada
Las Vegas, NV 89154
Jack Friedman
23 Chelsea Drive
Syosset, NY 11791
Catherine Callaghan
Ohio State University
204 Dieter Cunz Hall,1841 Millikin
Columbus, OH 43210
Frank J. Sonleitner
Department of Zoology
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK 73019
Bruce Benton
P.O. Box 3415
Ashland, OR 97520
Emmanuel I Sillman
623 Burton Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15235-4423
Kenneth Miller
Div. Biology & Medicine
Brown University
Providence, RI 02912
Harrison Rigby
503 Kensington Road
Taylors, SC 29687
Michael H. Farmer
Route 1, Box 315
Travelers Rest, SC 29690
Keith Morrill
Biology Department
Box 2207B University Station
Brookings, SD 57007
David Benner
ETSU/Dept. of Biology
Johnson City, TN 37614
Ronnie J. Hastings
114 San Jacinto
Waxahachie, TX 75165
Steven D. Schafersman
P.O. Box 541314
Houston, TX 77254-1314
Duane E. Jeffrey
589 WIDB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Wayne Moyer
1547 Scandia Drive
Reston, VA 22090
Alice Kehoe
3014 N. Shepard Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53211
Karl Fezer
Department of Biology, Box 32
Concord College
Athens, WV 24712
Robert Day
Dept. of Computer Science
U.of Manitoba, Winnipeg
R3T 2N2, MB CANADA
Paul A. Erickson
Department of Anthropology
Saint Mary's University
Halifax B3H 3C3, NS CANADA
J. Richard Wakefield
385 Main Street
Beaverton L0K 1A0, ON CANADA
Richard C. Fox
Department of Zoology
Univ.of Alberta, T6G 2E9
Edmonton, AB CANADA
--
Article #26 (26 is last):
Newsgroups: freenet.rec.skeptic.ncse
From: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Subject: Berkeley Law Prof Opposes Non-Religious Nature of Science
Reply-To: xx029@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Skeptics SIG)
Date: Tue Sep 1 07:57:43 1992
by Mary Lou Mendum
UC Davis
Davis, CA
I read with interest the account of Phillip Johnson's Yale lecture
[Reports 11(4)]. I had the opportunity to see Johnson in action a
month ago when he came to UC Davis to debate with Berkeley
Professor Vincent Sarich. The debate was sponsored by the Truth
Seekers, a student Christian apologetics club which had previously
sponsored talks by Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation
Research.
The audience was largely attentive, with a majority of
fundamentalists, but also a good smattering of scientifically
literate students. Unlike other creationists I have heard, Johnson
was honest enough to admit that he was advocating the addition of a
supernatural, untestable hypothesis to account for the origin of
species. This allowed Sarich to steer the debate away from
creationist pseudoscience towards a more productive discussion on
the nature and limitations of science as a method of knowing. This
tactic was so effective that the creationists in the audience were
very much on the defensive during the question session, and no
pro-creationist letters appeared in the student newspaper in the
following weeks.
For the benefit of NCSE members wishing to debate Johnson or attend
his debates, here are some of the highlights:
1.) In his introductory speech, Sarich carefully explained why
supernatural, untestable hypotheses are excluded from science.
Then, during the cross examination, he asked Johnson whether
evolution was the best explanation for the current abundance and
distribution of species if, for the sake of argument, one limited
oneself to natural forces. There was an audible wince from
creationists in the audience when Johnson readily admitted that it
was.
2.) Sarich handled questions from two creationists very effectively
by refusing to accept their fundamentalist world view. One wanted
to know how an evolved human race could come up with absolute moral
principles instead of relative ones like animals have. When
challenged to name one such absolute moral principle, he offered,
"Thou shalt not kill." Sarich added, "Except...", and the matter
was quickly dropped. The other creationist wanted to know how
Sarich's evolutionary perspective could account for the increasing
moral decay of modern society, probably as a lead-in to linking the
Second Law of Thermodynamics with the Fall of Adam and Eve. Sarich
replied that given therecent downfall of many repressive communist
governments, he felt that moral standards of the world were
improving. In both cases, the creationists were unable to pursue
their line of questioning, once their philosophical framework had
been successfully challenged, and Sarich didn't have to try
condensing a semester of introductory theology or thermodynamics
into one minute or less.
3.) One issue which Sarich did not adequately address was Johnson's
statement, made three times during the evening, that one of the
major reasons why he rejects evolution is that artificial breeding
programs have not produced new species. This, according to
Johnson, invalidates the frequently made comparisons between
artificial breed development and speciation. If Sarich had been
ready with a few examples of human-developed species (maize,
tobacco, peppermint, grape, triticale, etc.), Johnson would have
been forced to either retract his main stated objection to
evolution, admit that he is not basing his beliefs on scientific
evidence, or both.
Unlike other creationists I have seen, Johnson actually listened
and responded to the points raised by his opponent, instead of just
giving a set speech. He also avoided much of the usual creationist
misquotation and rewriting of scientific laws (at least in his
speech; I haven't read his book). Instead, he vigorously argued
against the non-religious nature of the scientific method itself.
This did not endear him to creationists in the audience, many of
whom were all too aware that teaching religion in schools is
unconstitutional. However, it does raise the hope that scientists
who agree to debate Johnson might be able to use the opportunity to
educate noncreationists in their audiences o the nature of science
instead of having to concentrate on refuting a smokescreen of
misinformation.
--
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.