Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet - 1989 10

Magazine Overview

This issue of "BASIS", the newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, dated October 1989, features several articles critical of pseudoscientific claims and promoting skeptical inquiry. The editor is Kent Harker.

MENSA MADNESS

The lead article, "MENSA MADNESS", addresses Mensa's interest in remote viewing (RV) experiments conducted at SRI. The editor notes that while Mensa members are highly intelligent, this does not necessarily translate to skepticism, as many are sympathetic to 'psi' phenomena. The article critiques the work of Dr. Edwin May at SRI, who is attempting to establish evidence for remote viewing. The author points out that May has not published findings in over 12 years, the test protocols were lacking, and the results appear subjective, akin to Rorschach tests. Schmitz, the editor of Mensa's "Intelligencer," is quoted as believing that psi is an "intuitive field" not amenable to scientific investigation, which contradicts his earlier article. The piece questions the scientific validity of parapsychology, highlighting the lack of a central theory and replicable experiments despite over 100 years of research. It also contrasts the claims of psi with established laws of physics, such as forces diminishing with distance and information not exceeding the speed of light. The article touches upon personal experiences with the paranormal, emphasizing that subjective experiences are not a substitute for objective scientific examination. It also criticizes a Utah group for making physics errors due to a lack of collaboration with experts.

BAS in the News

This section reports on the Bay Area Skeptics' (BAS) participation in a special session at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Chico, California. BAS founder Robert Steiner, advisor Dr. Wallace Sampson (an oncologist), board member Lawrence Jerome, former board member Don Henvick, and Sacramento Skeptic Terry Sandbeck were panelists. Steiner demonstrated how easily people can be led to believe in paranormal powers through magic routines. Dr. Sampson discussed the dangers of medical quackery, noting that quacks often claim the medical establishment is corrupt and that their 'cures' are effective because patients feel better. Don Henvick shared experiences with faith healers, and Lawrence Jerome used statistical studies to debunk astrology. Dr. Sandbeck, a psychologist, spoke about why people believe in false things, attributing it to intellectual laziness and a willingness to accept authority without question. The consensus of the panelists was to seek the most reasonable explanation before resorting to supernatural ones. The BAS presentation reportedly made the front page of local papers.

Ramparts

This feature invites readers to submit examples of irrationality from their local scene. The section discusses "Gypsy scammers" who use supernatural claims in their cons, citing an example of Olga Cruz who allegedly swindled over $300,000 by offering to cure illnesses and bless valuables. It also critiques "biodynamic farming," a term that has gained popularity for its visceral appeal despite lacking technical substance, and notes its connection to Rudolph Steiner and anthroposophy. The article points out that biodynamic products are significantly more expensive than ordinary organic crops.

Wise He's Not

This section focuses on Edgar Whisenant, a former NASA engineer who has made numerous failed prophecies about the end of the world. His latest prediction, "The Final Shout: Rapture Report 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993," is presented as a hedging of bets after his previous failed prediction for 1988. The article humorously notes his attempts to sell more books and booklets.

BAS Picnic

A brief report on the July BAS meeting, which was a feast prepared by members Ben and Carol Baumgartner for over 75 attendees. BAS co-founder Bob Steiner performed magic tricks, and the event was described as having great camaraderie.

Writers! Writers!

This is a call for contributions to "BASIS," asking members to write up tapes, articles, and media encounters. The newsletter aims to keep up with BAS's interactions with the media, including newspaper, radio, and TV interviews, and talk show debates.

A Truth Patrolman Tracks Prof. John

Authored by Frank Zindler, with an introduction by William Bennetta, this article investigates the claims of John Morris, a "full professor of geology" at the Institute for Creation Research. Zindler confronts Morris's misrepresentations regarding the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs and his attempts to discredit radiometric dating. Morris claimed that ancient dinosaur legends were factual accounts and that radiometric dating methods yielded vastly different ages for lava flows in the Grand Canyon (1.1 billion years for the bottom flow and 2.5-2.6 billion years for the upper flow). Zindler refutes this, citing geological surveys that date the lavas between 0.01 and 1.18 million years ago, and notes that Morris misrepresented data and sources. The article also details Morris's denial of having written about fossiliferous sedimentary rocks on Mt. Ararat in his book "The Ark on Ararat," a denial that Zindler proves false by quoting directly from the book. The book claims that fossil-bearing strata, including those with ocean creatures, have been found as high as 14,000 feet on Mt. Ararat, indicating it was once submerged. Morris's claims about the discovery are attributed to creationist Clifford Burdick.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the promotion of critical thinking and skepticism against pseudoscience, irrationality, and unsubstantiated claims. The Bay Area Skeptics, through "BASIS," actively debunks topics ranging from parapsychology and creationism to medical quackery and failed prophecies. The editorial stance is firmly rooted in the scientific method, emphasizing objectivity, replicability, and evidence-based reasoning, while cautioning against the acceptance of subjective experiences or authority without question. The newsletter encourages its readers to engage in similar critical analysis and contribute to the ongoing effort to expose and counter misinformation.

This document contains selected articles from the October 1989 issue of "BASIS", the monthly publication of Bay Area Skeptics. The issue focuses heavily on the controversy surrounding the accreditation of the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (ICRGS) in California, and also includes a brief mention of a parapsychologist speaking engagement.

Article 1: John Morris and Mt. Ararat Fossils

The first section addresses a dispute involving John Morris and his claims about fossils on Mt. Ararat. The author recounts sending a $5 bill to Morris for a photocopy of a report, which Morris returned with a rude note, stating the materials were public record. The author suspects Morris was hiding something and eventually obtained a copy of a Burdick article that Morris had referenced. However, the Burdick article did not claim fossiliferous, sedimentary layers on Mt. Ararat, but rather cited a list of fossils found in 1845 by H. Abich in sedimentary rocks located ten miles from Ararat. The author concludes that John Morris falsely wrote about fossiliferous rocks on Mt. Ararat, falsely denied writing it, and falsely claimed Burdick reported it, characterizing these actions as "pseudoscience."

Article 2: DEGREES OF FOLLY: PART VII by William Bennetta

This is the seventh part of an article by William Bennetta, detailing the assessment of the ICR Graduate School (ICRGS) by California's Department of Education. Unaccredited postsecondary schools in California cannot issue degrees unless approved by the superintendent of public instruction.

Background of the Assessment

In August 1988, the Private Postsecondary Education Division (PPED) assessed the ICRGS, an arm of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which promotes "creation-science." The assessment was conducted by a five-man committee, managed by PPED officer Roy W. Steeves. Two committee members had ties to the ICR or its president, Henry Morris. The committee produced a report that the author claims was false and misleading, promoting the ICR's scientific pretensions and recommending approval for master's degrees in biology, geology, "astro/geophysics," and science education.

Internal Disagreement and Reassessment

However, two legitimate members of the committee sent separate reports to the superintendent, Bill Honig, revealing the truth about the ICR. Roy Steeves, in memoranda to PPED director Joseph P. Barankin, endorsed the ICR and urged approval. In December 1988, Honig refused approval. By January, the Department reconsidered, and on March 3, an agreement was reached for the ICR to revise its curriculum, removing "ICRGS's interpretations." A new examining committee was formed, with four members from the University of California or California State University, and one chosen by the ICR from an Ohio Bible college. This committee was managed by Jeanne Bird, not Steeves.

ICR's Response and Tactics

The ICR men publicly predicted a damning report and Honig's denial of approval. To counter this, they initiated an effort to win public sympathy. They sent out notices for an ICR "news conference" on August 31, announcing a response to the "imminent State decision to shut down ICR's graduate school of science." Accompanying the notice were a letter from John Morris and a handout titled "Basic Freedoms Under Attack at ICR." These items are seen as foreshadowing the tactics the ICR would use if approval was denied and they appealed.

John Morris's Letter and Arguments

John Morris's letter, in three paragraphs, argued that the State had acted with an adversarial attitude, threatening closure despite the ICRGS's qualified faculty, graduates, and constituency. He claimed the underlying reason was the ICRGS's "perspective" on science, which differed from Honig's. Morris asserted that Honig viewed allowing this perspective as state agreement, and that censoring minority opinions violated academic and religious freedoms, effectively establishing a state religion. He questioned what would prevent Honig from dictating other views (political, philosophical, etc.) if he silenced minority scientific views.

Bennetta's Commentary on Morris's Letter

Bennetta refutes Morris's points:

• (1) The "evidence" was the "Basic Freedoms" handout, not actual evidence.
• (2) Calling the ICRGS "approved" begs the question, as its approval was the subject of investigation. Its initial "approved" status in 1981 was a sham.
• (3) Bennetta expresses doubt that the committee's report would ignore the ICRGS's faculty or their qualifications.
• (4) The law does not require assessing a school's "constituency" size or emotional state.
• (5) Whether the ICRGS is a "graduate school in the sciences" is precisely what the Department must judge.
• (6) The ICR's "perspective" would be meaningful if illustrated with examples like Noah's ark stories or "proprietary raving about organic evolution, Marxism and satanism."
• (7) The issue is not whether the ICR's perspective should exist, but whether it should issue degrees in science and education, which would imply state endorsement of its "pseudoscientific rubbish."
• (8) The proceeding is about academic quality and degree legitimacy, not censorship. Honig stated the ICR could teach its beliefs as long as they were not mislabeled as scientific.
• (9) The concept of "academic freedom" is questioned for men who swear devotion to Bible stories and reject modern science.
• (10) The ICR claims to teach science, not religion, and refuses religious school certification, making the "religious freedoms" argument questionable.
• (11) Bennetta suggests examples of "scientific concepts" like imaginary fossils on Mt. Ararat or dinosaurs with Adam would be enlightening.

"A CONSPICUOUS HEDGE"

The "Basic Freedoms" handout distributed to news organizations is described as hysterical and false. Its most significant paragraph questioned the state's power to dictate what a private Christian school can teach, framing it as the beginning of the end of American freedoms and Christian education. It warned that the ICR would exhaust "every REASONABLE AND FEASIBLE avenue of appeal." Bennetta interprets this phrase as a hedge, suggesting the ICR recognizes that a lawsuit would likely fail and lead to a "ruinous expose" of creationism.

Media Coverage

The ICR's effort to gain media attention had modest success. The "San Diego Union" reported on the situation, quoting John Morris accusing Bill Honig of stifling academic freedom and using "dirty tricks." Honig responded that the ICR had a year to prove its quality but fell short, and he disagreed with teaching creationism as a science degree. Similar stories appeared in "The Tribune" and the "Los Angeles Times." However, some papers, like the "San Jose Mercury News," ran "foolish puff-pieces" based on an Associated Press story that consisted solely of ICR assertions.

Legal and Financial Irrelevance

The article notes that the ICR advertises educational benefits from the Veterans Administration, but states that government money is irrelevant to the approval process, as the law applies equally to all schools.

BAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS and BAS ADVISORS

Lists of the BAS Board of Directors and BAS Advisors are provided, including names and affiliations. Notable advisors include William J. Bennetta, Dean Edell, Donald Goldsmith, Alexander Jason, James Randi, Eugenie C. Scott, Robert Sheaffer, and Jill C. Tarter.

BUSTING GHOSTS

This section announces an upcoming meeting featuring Loyd Auerbach, an active parapsychologist from JFK University, as the featured speaker. Auerbach is described as someone who attempts to bridge the gap between skeptics and believers in the paranormal. The meeting is co-sponsored by the Berkeley Skeptics, a student group, which BAS supports.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue reflects a strong skeptical stance against creationism and pseudoscience, particularly in the context of educational accreditation. The articles critically examine the claims and tactics of organizations like the Institute for Creation Research, highlighting perceived misrepresentations and a disregard for scientific principles. The publication advocates for critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning, as demonstrated by its focus on the ICRGS controversy and its support for organizations like the Berkeley Skeptics. The editorial stance is clearly in favor of scientific rigor and against the blurring of lines between religious belief and scientific education.