Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet - 1989 05

Magazine Overview

This issue of "BASIS", the newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, dated May 1989, features a cover story titled "IS SCIENCE UNNATURAL?" by George O'Brien. The issue also includes ongoing investigative reporting by William Bennetta concerning the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and its interactions with the California Department of Education.

IS SCIENCE UNNATURAL?

George O'Brien, a management consultant and student of history, explores the fundamental differences between the scientific method and the ways most people typically acquire knowledge and form beliefs. He identifies four primary sources of knowledge: common knowledge or tradition, authority, insight, and experience. O'Brien argues that while common knowledge is derived from informal sources like family and friends, authority relies on credibility from identifiable sources such as publications or reputation. Insight is described as intuition or mental associations, and experience is personal knowledge gained through direct events. He notes that cultures vary in their emphasis on these sources, but all are present universally.

O'Brien traces the development of critical rationality to the Hellenic Civilization around 600 BC, noting that it was initially unpopular. He posits that critical rationality is not inherent and that people often prefer conventional wisdom over unpleasant truths, leading reason to be subordinated to other factors, as seen in the medieval Catholic Church. The emergence of the modern scientific method in the late 17th century is presented as extraordinary, despite initial opposition. This method, O'Brien explains, combines elements of insight, experience, and reason into a testable system where hypotheses are formed, tested, and either modified or rejected based on evidence. He emphasizes the rigor of hypothesis creation and testing, requiring logic, testability, conclusive results, freedom from bias, and duplicability. He contrasts this with mere observation or invention, stating that true science requires training and proper experimental design, often necessitating formal degrees.

The rise of the scientific method was controversial, challenging established religious, traditional, and social hierarchies. Despite opposition, its implementation led to a rapid expansion of knowledge about the physical universe and a dramatic improvement in living standards. However, O'Brien observes recurring waves of anti-science sentiment, with the current popularity of the occult and parapsychology being a recent example. He criticizes school systems for promoting authority over critical rationality and the scientific method, and notes that mass media often fails to convey a proper understanding of science, treating unsubstantiated claims with the same seriousness as scientific theories.

O'Brien suggests that the desire for scientific support from psychics and mystics stems from a perceived threat from scientists, leading them to seek validation without adhering to the scientific method. He advises scientists to be careful with their language and avoid dogmatism. Skeptics, he concludes, should ensure claims are subjected to the scientific method and educate the public about its workings, emphasizing that critical rationality is not mere negativism. He anticipates that as long as critical rationality is perceived as unnatural, people will remain open to claims of "unknown powers."

DEGREES OF FOLLY: PART IV

William Bennetta continues his investigation into the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and its relationship with the California Department of Education's Private Postsecondary Education Division (PPED). Bennetta was initially planning to detail a plan for the State Department of Education to re-examine the ICR Graduate School (ICRGS). However, he must postpone this due to the recent emergence of a formal agreement between the Department and the ICR, detailed in correspondence between Wendell R. Bird, the ICR's lawyer, and Joseph P. Barankin, director of the PPED. Bennetta had not received the second letter in time to analyze the agreement or get answers to his questions.

Instead, Bennetta focuses on other aspects of the ICR case, including the composition of the PPED's assessment committee. He reveals that the committee included not one, but two "ringers" – individuals with ties to the ICR. He also alleges that the Department is attempting to obscure the PPED's "fiasco" and justify the actions of Roy W. Steeves, the PPED official who managed the committee. This alleged cover-up involves disseminating misleading statements attributed to the Department's chief, Bill Honig.

Bennetta then delves into the "NO DEAL" aspect, referencing an analysis of creationism by paleontologist Richard Cowen. Cowen's key point was that "creation-scientists" often operate under the rationalization that "Telling a lie for Jesus is presumably OK!" Bennetta asserts that misrepresentation is central to the ICR case, as their entire endeavor is based on a sham that disguises religious doctrine as science. He questions why the ICR chose to issue degrees in geology, biology, "astro/geophysics," and science education, rather than fundamentalist religion, suggesting the motive was to equip fundamentalists with credentials for public-school science teaching positions.

He explains that the ICR rejected a deal offered by Bill Honig, which would have expedited approval if the ICR stopped misrepresenting its programs and retitled its degrees to reflect religious doctrine. The ICR refused, as reported by The New York Times.

Bennetta further criticizes the ICR's application to the PPED as being "nonsense from the start," defective, self-contradictory, and absurd. He highlights that the application did not provide adequate information about curricula or faculty, offering instead "baseball-card sketches" and a hand-assembled dummy catalog. He points out that the ICR's "science" was taught by individuals who swore annually that "science" was about believing ancient religious scriptures, making their claim of comparability to state universities absurd and a mockery of the Department of Education.

THE SECOND RINGER

Bennetta identifies George F. Howe as a second "ringer" on the PPED committee. Howe is described as an old associate of ICR President Henry Morris and allied with him in an organization aiming to remove evolution from schools. Wendell Bird, the ICR's lawyer, is also associated with this group. Another committee member, G. Edwin Miller, is revealed to be a "buddy" of Morris, having held administrative posts at Christian Heritage College, which had a relationship with the ICR, and where Morris himself served as president.

Miller's resume, submitted to Roy Steeves, failed to disclose his association with Morris and the ICR. Bennetta retracts his earlier description of Miller as an "expert in finance and administration," stating he found no evidence of expertise and noting Miller's resume lacked details on work or publications.

WHAT DID STEEVES KNOW?

Bennetta questions whether Roy Steeves was aware of Miller's ties to the ICR, suggesting that the information was available in the ICR's application materials and Miller's resume, if Steeves had examined them.

THE COVER-UP

Upon learning of Howe's affiliation, Bennetta informed others following the ICR case, leading to queries directed at Bill Honig. The Department's response, a form letter signed by Shirley A. Thornton, is characterized by Bennetta as an attempt to obscure and rationalize the PPED's actions. Thornton's rationale suggests that "standard folly and dereliction" are acceptable and that "brains" are not needed if lists exist. The letter states that the Department does not inquire into the political or religious beliefs of committee members, though Steeves did inquire about their willingness to set aside personal beliefs. Thornton defends Howe's inclusion by citing his listing in the catalog of an accredited institution, The Master's College, as responsible for science education. Bennetta refutes this, stating Howe's school does not offer master's degrees in relevant fields and its "Statement of Faith" precludes legitimate science instruction. He also notes that Howe is listed on the Defense Fund's letterhead, contradicting the Department's claim of unawareness.

SIDEBAR: WHO IS THIS BIRD?

This section details the background of Wendell R. Bird, the ICR's lawyer. Bird has a history of involvement in creationist causes, including efforts to dissuade witnesses during the Arkansas "creation-science" trial and serving as special assistant attorney general of Louisiana. His legal arguments in the Louisiana case are described as futile, with the defense refusing to define "creation-science" to avoid revealing its religious nature. Bird and others continue to advocate for removing evolution from public schools through groups like the ACADEMIC FREEDOM Legal Defense Fund.

SIDEBAR: TAKE IT AWAY?

This brief section mentions State Senator Becky Morgan's bill (S.B. 190) aimed at overhauling California's regulation of unaccredited schools, transferring this function from the Department of Education and abolishing the PPED.

BAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The issue concludes with a listing of the BAS Board of Directors: Larry Loebig (Chair), Yves Barbero (Vice Chair), Rick Moen (Secretary), and Kent Harker (Treasurer).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the nature of scientific inquiry versus other forms of knowledge acquisition, the critique of creationism as a pseudoscientific movement based on misrepresentation and religious dogma, and the alleged institutional failures and cover-ups within California's educational oversight bodies. The editorial stance of "BASIS" and its contributors is clearly skeptical, advocating for the rigorous application of the scientific method, exposing what they perceive as flawed or deceptive practices in the promotion of creationism, and calling for greater transparency and accountability in educational institutions.

Title: Bay Area Skeptic Informatoin Sheet
Issue: May 1989
Publisher: Bay Area Skeptics
Date: May, 1989

This issue of the "Bay Area Skeptic Informatoin Sheet" features several articles and letters focusing on skepticism, critical thinking, and the debunking of pseudoscientific claims. It includes a discussion on the term "scientism," an anecdote from the "Editor's Corner" about a psychic reading, and an announcement for a talk by UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass.

Letters to "BASIS"

The section "Letters to 'BASIS'" includes a letter from Hal Draper commenting on Yves Barbero's article "A Note on Scientism." Draper finds Barbero's focus on the term interesting but believes Barbero may have missed the main point. Draper analyzes the definition of "scientism" from the "Random House" dictionary, noting that it encompasses "Scientific or pseudoscientific language." He argues that the term is often used pejoratively and ambiguously, making it difficult to determine whether the accusation is about using scientific language correctly or incorrectly. Draper hypothesizes that "scientism" is frequently used as a substitute for science itself, allowing critics to dismiss scientific methodology or attitudes without taking responsibility for specific critiques. He suggests that the term is often a sign of "intellectual cowardice" and that one should demand clarification of its meaning rather than engaging in a rational discussion.

Editor's Corner

The "Editor's Corner," written by Hal Draper, explores the varied reactions people have when they discover someone is a skeptic. These reactions typically fall into three categories: mild discomfort or fear, curiosity leading to sharing personal experiences, or hostility stemming from an assumption of attack. Draper then recounts an anecdote about a friend who sought counsel from a psychic card reader during a marital breakup. The friend was convinced the psychic revealed information she could not have known, such as his wife's past abortion. Draper questions how the psychic obtained this information, suggesting it could have come from the friend's superstitious mother, who knew the psychic, or other family members. The friend, however, dismissed these possibilities, believing the psychic possessed special, otherworldly power. Draper concludes that the friend felt good about the experience, which he suggests is the primary goal of psychics, contrasting it with the more challenging but necessary truths offered by legitimate counselors.

Klassic UFOs

This section introduces Philip J. Klass, described as the "dean of all UFO skeptics," who has authored several books on the subject. An announcement is made for an upcoming talk by Klass on Sunday, May 14th, where he will discuss the "epidemic of UFO abductions," including "aliens' remarkable obsession with the sexual organs of earth people" and "genetic experiments." The talk will also cover the "Majestic 12" documents and the nature of Whitley Strieber's "humanoid visitors." A nominal fee is requested to cover Klass' travel costs.

General Information and Copyright

The issue concludes with a disclaimer stating that opinions expressed in "BASIS" are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of BAS, its board, or its advisors. It also provides information on how to obtain a free sample copy of "BASIS," the monthly publication of Bay Area Skeptics, and lists contact details, including a BBS number and a voice hotline. The copyright for the material is held by BAY AREA SKEPTICS for 1989.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism, critical analysis of claims, and the importance of clear definitions and evidence. The editorial stance consistently promotes rational inquiry and challenges pseudoscientific beliefs, particularly those related to psychic phenomena and UFOs. The publication aims to provide a platform for skeptical viewpoints and to educate readers on critical thinking methodologies.