Arizona Skeptic - Vol 4 No 2 - 1990-1991

Magazine Overview

Title: The Arizona Skeptic
Issue: December 1990/January 1991
Publisher: Phoenix Skeptics
Focus: A Journal Promoting Critical Thinking, with a focus on skepticism towards paranormal claims, pseudoscience, and creationism.

1991 Predictions of the Phoenix Skeptics

The issue opens with a list of 53 predictions made by the Phoenix Skeptics on November 10, 1990. The group claims a 42% accuracy rate on their 1990 predictions at the time of writing, which rose to 60% by December 4, 1990, citing a .666 batting average in 1989. The predictions cover a wide range of topics, including politics (Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Kim il Sung, Mario Cuomo, Neil Bush), economics (oil prices, inflation, interest rates, bank failures), technology (Shuttle Program, Biosphere II), social issues (drug use, crime, illiteracy, male cosmetic surgery, minority workforce percentage, cult leadership), entertainment (Roseanne Barr divorce, movie sequels, Emmy award), sports (Phoenix Cardinals, Arizona State University football, Phoenix Suns, Cincinnati Reds), and even the paranormal (killer bees, New Madrid Fault earthquake, SETI reception, UFOs linked to Satanist cults, Black Hole discovery).

Note of Importance: Membership and Skeptical Integrity

Michael A. Stackpole addresses a controversy within the Phoenix Skeptics, announcing the issuance of membership cards. To receive a card, members must sign a statement affirming their adherence to the skeptical philosophy of the Phoenix Skeptics. This statement requires members to refrain from making critical statements about the Phoenix Skeptics or publishing critical articles, and to report errors internally without public disclosure. Stackpole frames this not as a loyalty oath but as a necessary measure to maintain focus and unity against 'New Age nonsense.' He warns that refusal to sign will result in revoked membership, stating, 'Either you are with us or against us.'

Stackpole then clarifies that the membership statement is a concrete example of behind-the-scenes dynamics, not a literal attempt to suppress opinions or solicit loyalty oaths. He uses the example of an article by Jim Lippard, published in The Arizona Skeptic, which criticized an Australian skeptical magazine's report on a creation/evolution debate. The Australian Skeptics affiliate of the Institute for Creation Research used Lippard's criticism to attack the Australian Skeptics. The controversy highlighted perceived differences in what constitutes rude behavior and led to a protracted exchange of letters. The core issue, according to Stackpole, was the presence of erroneous quotes attributed to Duane Gish in the Australian article, which the author attributed to handwritten notes taken during a 'lively and rowdy' debate.

Stackpole emphasizes that the pursuit of truth is paramount for skeptics. He argues that failing to point out errors made by their own side undermines credibility and leads to building arguments on a weak foundation. He asserts that true skepticism requires critical examination of all claims, including those from within the skeptical community.

Ralph Epperson: Clueless Creationist

This lengthy article by Jim Lippard critically examines the arguments presented by Ralph Epperson, a conspiracy theorist and creationist, during a lecture. Lippard systematically debunks Epperson's claims:

• Evolution as a Fraud: Epperson, admitting he is 'not a scientist,' claims evolution is a fraud. Lippard counters that Epperson demonstrates ignorance of basic evolutionary concepts and even misrepresents creationist arguments. Epperson's analogy of rocks turning into flowers is presented as nonsensical.
• Darwin's Admission: Epperson claims Darwin admitted his theory was a fraud, citing quotes from 'Origin of Species.' Lippard argues that Epperson misinterprets Darwin, who discussed the incompleteness of the fossil record in his time and the need for transitional forms, not an admission of fraud. Lippard states that modern evolutionary theory does not require continuous gradations at the species level and that the fossil record, while not perfect, supports evolution.
• Paleontologists' Agreement: Epperson's assertion that ten leading paleontologists agree there are no transitional forms is dismissed as false. Lippard cites Stephen Jay Gould, whom Epperson allegedly quoted, stating that transitional forms are abundant between larger groups, even if lacking at the species level. The example of the evolution from reptiles to mammals is cited as well-documented.
• Cambrian Explosion: Epperson's claim that all forms of life are present in the earliest strata is called false. Lippard explains that the Cambrian period (second oldest) contains most major groups, but not all species, and that the Cambrian lasted millions of years.
• Punctuated Equilibrium: Epperson's caricature of punctuated equilibrium (e.g., 'a dinosaur laid an egg, and when it hatched out came a bird') is dismissed as a misrepresentation of the theory, which describes speciation over tens of thousands of years.
• Creation as Science: Epperson's claim that 'creation is a science' is contrasted with statements from prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish, who deny that creationism is a scientific theory, viewing it as a matter of faith.
• Eppersonian Geology: Epperson's claims about geological age not being determined by strata superposition and the existence of missing strata are called ignorant. Lippard explains concepts like the Lewis Overthrust and unconformities, refuting Epperson's simplistic interpretations.
• Paluxy Man Revisited: Epperson's claims about human footprints at Paluxy are thoroughly debunked. The 'Meister print' is identified as a natural rock formation, not a sandal print. The Caldwell print is identified as a carving, not a genuine human footprint found in situ. Epperson's use of alleged 'pressure ridges' is attributed to stromatolitic features.
• Probability and Thermodynamics: Epperson's argument that thermodynamics disproves evolution by citing low probabilities is dismissed as a misunderstanding of evolution, which is not solely based on chance. The inaccurate 1 in 1040,000 figure for DNA arising by chance, attributed to Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, is also mentioned.
• Design in Nature: Epperson's argument about intelligent design, using the 'Face on Mars' as an example, is contrasted with the actual scientific purpose of Mars exploration.
• The Bogus 'Lucy' Claim: Epperson's assertion that the 'Lucy' skeleton is a fraud due to a misplaced hip bone is called a bogus creationist claim, with Lippard noting that the hip bone was found at a different location and that other evidence supports Lucy's bipedality.
• Age of the Universe: Epperson's citation of 68 'age of earth' measurements indicating a young universe is dismissed, with Lippard referencing detailed refutations of arguments based on magnetic field decay, atmospheric helium, solar shrinkage, meteoritic dust, and population growth.
• A Communist Plot: Epperson concludes by framing evolution as a 'religion' promoted by humanists, atheists, and communists, citing Paul Kurtz as an example. Lippard notes Epperson's apparent belief in Velikovsky's theories and other fringe ideas.

Lippard concludes that Epperson represents an outdated, 'old school' of creationism that is an embarrassment to more scientifically-minded creationists.

December Meeting

Ron Harvey reports on a talk by James Speiser, a founder of ParaNet, a network for paranormal discussions. Speiser discussed recent UFO developments, including the Gulf Breeze, Florida sightings and their divisive impact on UFO organizations. He also covered recent Belgian sightings where F-16s responded to radar blips. Speiser's position is that most UFO sightings can be explained prosaically, but some unexplained cases warrant attention. The discussion also touched upon what constitutes 'interesting' evidence for skeptics and whether one can remain a skeptic without becoming dogmatic.

Editorial Prattle

The editor apologizes for the newsletter's tardiness, attributing it to a lack of articles followed by a sudden influx, compounded by the demands of writing for a living. The editor mentions giving a presentation on 'Satanism in America' to the American Atheists and at ASU, which led to media coverage. The editor also discusses the nature of reality and truth, arguing that it is independent of belief systems.

Meeting Announcements

Announcements for upcoming meetings of the Phoenix Skeptics are included. The January 1991 meeting features G. Harry Stine discussing the Neurophone. The February 1991 meeting topic is not yet available. Meetings are held at Jerry's Restaurant on Scottsdale/Rural Road, typically on the first Saturday of the month.

Publication Information

Details about The Arizona Skeptic's mission, copyright, and subscription information are provided. Contact information for the Phoenix Skeptics and Jim Lippard is listed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently promotes critical thinking and the scientific method, applying them to claims of the paranormal, occult, and fringe science. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical, aiming to subject such claims to rigorous examination. The critique of Ralph Epperson highlights a strong opposition to creationism and pseudoscience, while the discussion of UFOs reflects a desire to find rational explanations for phenomena, acknowledging that some cases remain intriguing. The internal discussion about membership and the 'Note of Importance' underscores a commitment to maintaining a unified, truth-seeking front within the skeptical community, even if it involves strict internal guidelines.