Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet - 1989 02

Magazine Overview

This issue of "BASIS", the newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, dated February 1989, features two main articles. The first, "Degrees of Folly: Part I" by William Bennetta, critically examines the Institute for Creation Research's (ICR) efforts to obtain approval for awarding masters' degrees in science. The second, "Face Talks Back" by Roger Keeling, is a rebuttal to an earlier article by John Hewitt concerning the "Face on Mars" anomaly.

Degrees of Folly: Part I

William Bennetta's article begins by reporting on the "New York Times" account of 8 December 1988, stating that the California State Department of Education had barred the ICR from issuing masters' degrees in science. Bennetta notes that the ICR, described as the "most prominent center of creationist pseudoscience in the United States," had previously been approved by the Department some seven years earlier and had been issuing degrees. The recent application for approval, submitted in 1987, involved a committee of five examiners, three of whom initially voted favorably, with the application only being denied after one examiner changed his vote.

Bennetta explains that the California legislature's Private Postsecondary Education Act of 1977 aimed to protect the integrity of degrees and diplomas by imposing discipline on unaccredited schools and preventing the distribution of bogus degrees. Schools seeking to award degrees needed certification from an accreditation agency or approval from the superintendent of public instruction, requiring academic resources and programs comparable to accredited schools.

Despite this legislative intent, in 1981, under Superintendent Wilson Riles, the Department approved the granting of advanced degrees in science and science education by the ICR. The ICR, founded by Henry Morris, is characterized as a fundamentalist enterprise dedicated to finding technical validation for the biblical account of creation, asserting that the universe is only 6,000 years old and refuting evolutionary views. The article highlights that "creation-science" is not science but is aimed at bolstering fundamentalist faith and influencing public-school science classrooms.

The ICR's approach involves presenting pseudo-scientific "evidences" to support biblical narratives, such as claims about asteroids originating from battles between angels, a continuously shrinking sun, adjustable speed of light, capricious radioactive decay rates, and Earth's features formed during Noah's Flood. They also promote the idea of immutable, separately created "kinds."

In 1981, Henry Morris established the ICR Graduate School and sought approval to award masters' degrees in geology, biology, "astro/geophysics," and science education. The Department's evaluation committee's qualifications are questioned, with evidence suggesting at least one member had a connection to the ICR. In June 1981, the Department endorsed the ICR, lending state prestige to its "creation-science" claims.

Due to legislative amendments, the ICRGS's initial three-year approval was extended, and a new application was submitted in December 1987. Bennetta notes that "creation-science" had faced significant legal and scientific challenges, including Judge William Overton's 1982 ruling that declared it unconstitutional in Arkansas and the Supreme Court's 1987 affirmation that it was an anti-scientific religious doctrine.

The article details the review process for the 1987 application, overseen by Superintendent Bill Honig and his staff, including Joseph Barankin and Roy Steeves. A committee was formed, comprising professors from various scientific disciplines, though notably lacking an education professor despite the "science education" program. The committee's visit to the ICR in August 1988 resulted in a ten-page report that Bennetta describes as "baloney," arguing it omitted or distorted information about the ICR's true aims and programs, promoting the pretense of scientific work.

Bennetta criticizes the report for not mentioning that the ICR itself calls its graduate school a religious outlet. He points out that the report's reference to "validating the theory" of creation science was the only mention of the term, with no discussion of its content or history. The report also failed to explain why degrees were in science fields rather than "creation-science" itself. Furthermore, the report commended the institution for recruiting faculty with academic and research capabilities but failed to cite any specific achievements or publications, despite the application's resumes lacking scientific publication records.

The report's mention of a "two-model" evaluation of the origin of life is criticized for lacking explanation, failing to define the doctrine that forces a choice between evolutionary science and fundamentalist Christianity, and ignoring that this "two-model" system had been discredited. Bennetta suggests the report was either written for an uninformed reader who would be misled, or for an informed reader who would conclude it was composed by incompetent individuals or the ICR's own PR specialist.

While the report included some cryptic criticisms, they lacked specific examples. The committee recommended approval by a vote of 3 to 2, but Superintendent Bill Honig was not misled. Professors Hurlbert and Woodhead, who voted against approval, provided Honig with further information.

Face Talks Back

Roger Keeling's article serves as a rebuttal to John Hewitt's October 1988 "BASIS" piece concerning the "Face on Mars." Keeling argues that Hewitt's article, while appearing calm, lacks scientific rigor and relies on appeals to nameless authority. Hewitt's assertion that "most scientists" dismiss the claims of figures like Hoagland is challenged, with Keeling questioning how Hewitt determined this consensus.

Keeling criticizes Hewitt for not qualifying his use of "authority" and for making broad statements about professional planetologists' views on the "Face on Mars." He specifically addresses Hewitt's attempt to discredit Dr. Mark Carlotto, stating that Hewitt misrepresents the scientific community's view and ignores that Carlotto's article passed a rigorous peer review and that Carlotto is a recognized expert in image enhancement and interpretation.

Keeling refutes Hewitt's "Argument #2," which claims the "Face" does not resemble a face. Keeling argues that the images themselves create a prima facie case for resemblance and that Hewitt's interpretation of shadows and features is flawed. He points out that Hewitt's argument is based on selective use of data and ignores overwhelming evidence.

The article then delves into the specific images of the Cydonia region, noting that researchers primarily rely on two images, 35A72 and 70A13, taken from approximately 1,500 km. Hewitt mentions four other images (673B54, 673B56, 753A33, and 753A34) procured by Norman Sperling, implying sloppiness in research by others. Keeling counters that these four images are essentially pairs of the two main images and were discovered by the original Mars Investigation Team. He criticizes Hewitt for omitting crucial details about the image acquisition, such as the significantly lower resolution and higher altitude (33,000 km) from which the four images were taken, and misrepresenting the lighting conditions.

Keeling concludes that Hewitt's argument is false and that the images, when properly analyzed, do not disprove the existence of the Face on Mars. He highlights that the low-resolution images, while showing features, are significantly less detailed than the primary images used by researchers.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of BASIS strongly advocates for scientific integrity and critical thinking. It exposes what it perceives as pseudoscience and academic fraud in the promotion of "creation-science" by the Institute for Creation Research, highlighting the manipulation of educational approval processes. Simultaneously, it defends the scientific investigation of anomalies, such as the "Face on Mars," against what it deems to be flawed, selective, and authority-based arguments presented by critics. The newsletter's stance is clearly in favor of rigorous scientific methodology, evidence-based reasoning, and transparency in academic and scientific pursuits.

This document is an excerpt from the February 1989 issue of the Bay Area Skeptic Informatoin Sheet, a publication by the Bay Area Skeptics. It features two main articles: one critically examining evidence for the 'Face on Mars' and another reviewing the accuracy of psychic predictions made for 1988.

Analysis of the 'Face on Mars' Evidence

The first section critiques the claims made by 'Hewitt' regarding the 'Face on Mars' images. The author argues that Hewitt's assertions are based on a selective and flawed use of data. The images in question, specifically 35A72 and 70A13, are described as extremely noisy with "salt-and-pepper" errors, making them inferior to other available frames like 673B56 and 753A33. The article points out discrepancies in pixel counts and the area each pixel covers, noting that Hewitt fails to mention crucial details about pixel resolution.

According to the article, the four images Hewitt presents offer very little detail. Photographic consultant Daniel Drasin is quoted stating that the images lack sufficient information to reveal features like "broad, bright slopes" or "ragged ridges." A comparison with high-altitude afternoon shots (673B54 and B56) reveals little beyond the mesa's overall shape and a shadow line. Only a slight indication of the right eye socket is visible, with no other details. The images primarily confirm that the 'Face' is symmetrical, a point already made by The Mars Project. The author criticizes Hewitt for impugning the integrity of researchers like Dr. Carlotto and for employing "classic pseudoscientific fashion" by selectively using data and drawing unsupported conclusions.

The article acknowledges that The Mars Project does not claim current evidence settles the origin of Martian anomalies, but it contends that arguments against their evidence are often driven by emotional motives. The Mars Project is continuing research into the relational aspects of Martian landforms using geomorphology and fractal analysis, with two professional papers nearing peer review. Their ongoing goal is to publicize anomalies and build support for future Mars missions, viewing increased public interest in space exploration as a success regardless of the anomalies' natural or artificial origin.

1988 Psychic Fizzes

The second article, written by Robert Sheaffer, reviews the performance of psychics in making predictions for 1988. The article highlights numerous predictions that failed to come true, including the San Francisco area not being devastated by an earthquake, Mikhail Gorbachev not divorcing his wife Raisa, dinosaur eggs not being hatched, and Fidel Castro not being toppled. The Bay Area Skeptics (BAS) annually compiles these failed predictions to demonstrate the unreliability of psychics.

Many psychic predictions are characterized as vague and difficult to verify, such as Jeane Dixon's prediction of a "stress-filled" period for Frank Sinatra or Prince Philip being "on guard." Others are predictable, like tornadoes in the Midwest or hurricanes in Florida, or simply state that ongoing problems will continue. Some purported predictions are merely disclosures of existing events like movie productions or business ventures.

The article lists specific failed predictions from various psychics: Jeane Dixon predicted Jesse Jackson would face a health problem, Fidel Castro would be overthrown, and Communists would gain a foothold in Cyprus. Clarisa Bernhardt predicted dinosaur eggs would be discovered and hatched, and Clint Eastwood would run for president. Shawn Robbins predicted a TV series starring Fawn Hall, Donna Rice, and Jessica Hahn. Marie Graciette predicted Mikhail Gorbachev would divorce Raisa. Jack Gillen predicted a massive earthquake in California and a mysterious skin epidemic. Lou Wright predicted Dolly Parton would lose significant weight and that Princesses Diana and Fergie would give birth on the same day. Noreen Renier warned of a political assassination attempt. Sylvia Brown predicted the San Francisco '49ers would win the Superbowl, Robert Dole would beat George Bush, a terrorist attack in San Francisco would be thwarted, an AIDS vaccine would be found, and interest rates would fall while oil prices rose (the opposite occurred). She also failed to predict the Jimmy Swaggart scandal while predicting Jerry Falwell would be involved in one.

Sheaffer emphasizes that no psychic accurately predicted the genuinely surprising news stories of 1988, such as the nomination of Dan Quayle, the death of Christina Onassis, the rise and fall of Michael Dukakis's candidacy, the Armenian earthquake, or the drought in the American farm belt. The article concludes by urging the public and media to exercise skepticism towards psychics and paranormal claims, as a failure to check their records sets a bad example.

The Bay Area Skeptics is described as a group dedicated to the critical examination of paranormal claims, working with similar organizations internationally, including CSICOP. The article by Robert Sheaffer was released as a press release and featured in newspapers and on TV programs.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards extraordinary claims, particularly those related to the paranormal and pseudoscientific interpretations of evidence. The editorial stance is clearly one of critical inquiry, emphasizing the importance of verifiable data, logical reasoning, and a scientific approach. The publication actively debunks claims made by psychics and challenges interpretations of phenomena like the 'Face on Mars' that lack robust scientific support. The underlying message is a call for rational thinking and a rejection of emotionalism or wishful thinking when evaluating evidence.