Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet - 1990 03

Magazine Overview

Title: BASIS
Issue: Vol. 9, No. 3
Date: March 1990
Publisher: Bay Area Skeptics
Editor: Kent Harker

This issue of BASIS features two main articles: Robert Sheaffer's account of his UFO lecture tour in Australia and William Bennetta's detailed critique of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and its graduate school.

CROCODILE ABDUCTEE: CHASING UFOS DOWN UNDER by Robert Sheaffer

Robert Sheaffer, a prominent skeptic and co-founder of the Bay Area Skeptics (BAS), recounts his experiences during a five-city UFO lecture tour in Australia in the summer of 1989. He traveled courtesy of The Australian Skeptics, staying in private homes and benefiting from no-frills travel arrangements.

His tour began in Brisbane, Queensland, where he met with about fifteen local skeptics. He noted that Queensland, being a conservative religious area, had a significant concern with creationism and the effort to keep religion out of public schools. Communications between Australian and American critics of creationism were noted as not being optimal.

Sydney, the national center for Australian Skeptics and home to its president Barry Williams, was the next stop. Sheaffer experienced delays due to Air Traffic Controller slowdowns, which impacted air travel. He participated in a radio interview and other media appearances, including the nationwide "Today Show." His public talk in Sydney drew a good crowd.

In Newcastle, a city recently affected by an earthquake, Sheaffer noted the region's resemblance to California's headlands and its wine-growing climate. He shared speaking time with Professor Colin Keay, an astronomer who presented his own UFO investigations, including hoaxer hot air balloons.

Canberra, the Australian capital, was visited next. Sheaffer was interviewed on ABC Radio and local TV news. His host, Professor Colin Groves, an anthropologist, arranged a campus talk which drew about 25 receptive attendees. Groves also provided a tour of the countryside.

Adelaide, described as a genteel and unhurried city, presented challenges with a frazzled local skeptic, Allan Lang, struggling to get Sheaffer to a radio interview on time. Sheaffer conducted another interview and attended a dinner with about fifteen skeptics. His talk in Adelaide was held on university premises.

Melbourne was the final destination. Despite arriving late due to Air Traffic Controllers, Sheaffer gave two talks, one on UFOs hosted by the director of the public planetarium, and another on "Resentment Against Achievement." He noted that only domestic flights were affected by the controllers' actions, allowing him to return to San Francisco with minimal delay.

Sheaffer observed that Australian skeptics encounter similar irrational beliefs as in the U.S., including creationism, UFO encounters, and crystal energy. He also noted differences, such as the lesser appreciation for "aroma therapy" in the U.S. and the lack of familiarity with UFO abduction narratives popularized by authors like Whitley Strieber and Budd Hopkins. He concluded that as media crosses the Pacific, the silliness in both countries will likely converge. He was particularly impressed by the accomplishments of the Australian Skeptics, who, despite being spread across a geographically dispersed country, have published books, organized tours, secured media appearances, and established awards.

DEGREES OF FOLLY: PART X by William Bennetta

This extensive article, continuing from previous issues, critically examines the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (ICRGS) and its bid for accreditation. The article details an assessment conducted by the Private Postsecondary Education Division (PPED) of California's Department of Education.

The ICRGS, an arm of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), founded by Henry Morris, promotes "creation-science." The PPED's initial assessment in August 1988, managed by Roy W. Steeves, was criticized for being flawed and promoting the ICR's scientific pretensions, recommending approval despite the ICR's nature.

Two committee members reported the truth about the ICR to Superintendent Bill Honig. However, Steeves advocated for the ICR's approval. Honig initially refused approval in December 1988 but later began negotiations with the ICR in January 1989. The ICR, represented by lawyer Wendell R. Bird, agreed to revise its curriculum. A new committee was formed for a subsequent review.

This second committee, managed by Jeanne Bird, included academics such as Christopher J. Wills (geneticist), Richard E. Dickerson (molecular biology), Everett C. Olson (paleontologist), Lawrence S. Lerner (physicist), and Leroy E. Eimers (chosen by the ICR). Their visit occurred in August 1989.

The committee's report, dated January 1990, spans 48 pages and concludes that the ICR is not a scientific-research institution and does not offer proper graduate education. Bennetta highlights two instances of obfuscation in the report: the "Background" section, which he claims hides the mess made in 1988 by Steeves and others, and the final paragraph, which he suggests is a vapid fluff to excuse the omission of Leroy Eimers being the ICR's representative.

Bennetta also discusses the ICR's January 1990 "Impact" bulletin, which included their "1989 Annual Report." This report focused on successful conferences and lectures but omitted any mention of scientific work or publications by ICR employees. It listed publications from late 1988 and 1989, including books by John D. Morris, Henry M. Morris, Ken Ham, and Dr. Henry Morris, as well as a video by Dr. Steven Austin.

A news release from the ICR on January 17, 1990, headlined "ICR Under Continued Attack by Bill Honig," misleadingly claimed their programs were "strictly scientific with courses taught by scientists who have doctorate degrees." This claim is contrasted with the committee's report, which found the ICR's programs and teachers lacking in scientific rigor.

Excerpts from the committee's report are provided, detailing specific criticisms:

• Curriculum Comparability: The ICR's science degree courses were to be consistent and comparable to those offered by appropriate accredited institutions. However, the "comparables" listed by the ICR (Abilene Christian University, Loma Linda University, Biola University) were questioned, and a broader list of universities was submitted without specifying degree areas.
• Human Anatomy and Comparative Mammalian Anatomy Lab: The course syllabus devoted significant time to vestigial organs and evolution but lacked mention of comparative skeletal anatomy. The exam showed discordance with the claimed course content.
• Medical Microbiology: The ICR's course description stated it was not a lab course, unlike Abilene Christian University's comparable course which included a laboratory component and warned against taking it without the lab.
• Theoretical Physics II -- Thermodynamics: The article raises the question of whether ordered complexity can arise spontaneously by chaos, a concept creationists use to argue against evolution by misinterpreting the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Bennetta asserts that this is a misinterpretation and that teaching otherwise is a breach of scientific integrity.
• Curriculum Design in Science: This science-education course was criticized for not considering current trends in science curriculum design, possibly due to the instructor's background as an educational psychologist with no specific science education preparation.
• Faculty Research: The report found that none of the resident faculty had active, ongoing research programs. Specific faculty members like Gerald Aardsma, Steven Austin, Richard Bliss, Kenneth Cumming, Robert Franks, Duane Gish, and Henry Morris had limited or no recent scientific publications, with some having dropped out of research entirely.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine, through its editor Kent Harker and its featured authors, clearly promotes a skeptical viewpoint. The article by Robert Sheaffer highlights the importance of critical thinking and skepticism in examining claims, particularly those related to UFOs and paranormal phenomena. The extensive article by William Bennetta strongly advocates for scientific integrity and rigorous academic standards, particularly in the context of science education and the critique of creationism. The editorial stance is one of defending scientific methodology against pseudoscience and promoting rational inquiry.

The recurring themes include skepticism towards extraordinary claims, the importance of evidence-based reasoning, the critique of creationism as pseudoscience, and the defense of scientific education and research standards. The magazine appears to be a platform for disseminating skeptical viewpoints and scrutinizing claims that lack scientific validation.

This document is an excerpt from the March 1990 issue of "BASIS", the monthly publication of the Bay Area Skeptics. It presents a critical evaluation of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and its graduate programs, based on a report by a committee tasked with assessing the institution's academic quality and scientific integrity.

Evaluation of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)

The document details the findings of a committee that assessed the ICR's science degree courses and curricula. The primary focus was to determine if the M.S. degrees offered by ICR deviated substantially from similar degrees at comparable accredited institutions.

Faculty Research and Publications

The report highlights a lack of active and published research among the ICR's resident faculty. John Morris, a Geology faculty member, had his last paper in 1983. Larry Vardiman, in Astro/Geophysics, published seven peer-reviewed papers and two reports between 1971 and 1983 but nothing since joining ICR in 1987. Andrew Peterson in Science Education lists no scientific publications. The conclusion drawn is that the ICR cannot be considered a scientific research institution.

Laboratory Facilities

The document describes the state of the ICR's laboratories:

• Biology Laboratory: Contains a small amount of equipment suitable for a modestly equipped high school, with no equipment for biochemistry or molecular biology experiments.
• Geology Laboratories: Directed toward rock analysis and field studies, considered less satisfactory than those at comparable schools like California State University at Long Beach. Despite plural usage, the report indicates only a single, one-room lab for geology.
• Astro/Geophysics Laboratory: Experimental work seems focused on radiocarbon dating. Professor Aardsma was involved in building and refining a radiocarbon dating apparatus, but the process was slow and irregular.
• Science Education Laboratory: This was deemed the only laboratory suited to its function, well-equipped for displays, demonstrations, small animals, and equipment for high-school or elementary-school teacher training. It also hosts special lectures for local school classes.

Graduate Programs and Theses

The M.S. theses produced since the program began in 1981 are presented as the measurable "product" and best indicator of the program's quality.

• General Quality: The quality of the theses was generally low compared to those from comparison institutions. They tended to be extended term papers based on library research rather than independent research. Many were works of advocacy, aiming to prove creationist tenets rather than to discover facts.
• Publication: Not one of the seventeen M.S. theses had ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
• Specific Thesis Critiques:
• "A Survey of Heavy Metal Pollution in the Tijuana River": This thesis was described as a thorough investigation with an interesting approach to sewage treatment. However, the experiments seemed to have been conducted as part of the student's regular job at a sewage treatment facility, raising questions about its originality as a biology piece.
• "A Critique of Molecular Homology": The author claimed similarities between molecules could be explained by convergence, not common ancestry. The thesis cited a statement by Dr. Colin Patterson, but the citation was to an ICR newsletter insert, not Patterson's work. The committee found numerous errors of fact and interpretation, deeming it unacceptable at any university.
• "A Determination of the Time of the Flood from the Geologic Ages of River Deltas": This thesis misused and distorted terms like "uniformity" and "uniformitarianism." It presented a nonsensical interpretation of uniformitarian arguments and denied the principle of isostasy to minimize the volume of the Mississippi Delta, ultimately arriving at an age of 4563 years for the river. This was called the antithesis of true scientific investigation.
• "A Classical Field Theory for the Propagation of Light": This thesis originated from an antipathy toward 20th-century physics. It cited non-standard literature and unpublished works. The student demonstrated ignorance of special relativity and invented an ether for light propagation, resulting in worthless calculations and a thesis without scientific value.
• "Theories of Origins: Do They Persist Despite Contrary Evidence?": This thesis in "science education" cited a discredited limitation on Earth's age based on magnetic field decay and misused the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It also made nonsensical comments about crystallization and energy/entropy.
• "Two-model" doctrine thesis: A thesis in "science education" was invalidated by a fundamental error in applying a statistical manipulation called the T-test, which was only applicable to two statistically independent sets of data. The author applied it to two sets of results involving the same items in jumbled order, making the conclusions invalid.

Committee Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the findings, the committee concluded that students of the ICR could not be assured that the M.S. degrees offered were consistent in quality with curricula offered by appropriate established accredited institutions. The courses were not comparable to those required by other recognized schools. The issue was one of quality control and maintaining uniform standards.

The recommendation to the Superintendent was to deny reapproval of the ICR programs.

Scientific Integrity and Creationist Orientation

The committee noted that they did not feel it necessary to address issues of "scientific integrity" or "academic freedom" posed by the creationist orientation of the ICR, as the low quality of the graduate programs made these issues superfluous. However, they acknowledged that the unamendable bylaws of the ICR require each faculty member to annually reaffirm adherence to "scientific creationism" tenets as a condition of employment. This directly overlaps areas of presumed free scientific investigation and raises questions of scientific integrity and unfettered intellectual inquiry.

Minority Opinion

One committee member, Dr. Eimers, disagreed with the estimation of the severity of the problems and many of the conclusions. He felt that the ICR's positive attitude in seeking to implement suggestions and the quality of its geology, science education, and "astro/geophysics" programs were sufficient to meet minimum comparability standards, and the problems were not severe enough to warrant denial of reapproval.

Report Signatories

The report's final page lists the signatures of the committee members, their affiliated universities, and departments, which is noted as a difference from a previous "bogus" report from 1988.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The document strongly criticizes the Institute for Creation Research, portraying it as an institution that prioritizes defending pre-existing beliefs over genuine scientific inquiry. The recurring themes are the lack of scientific research, the poor quality of academic programs and theses, and the conflict between creationist ideology and scientific standards. The editorial stance of "BASIS" and the Bay Area Skeptics is clearly critical of creationism and supportive of rigorous scientific methodology and academic standards.

Other Content

BAS Board of Directors and Staff

The document lists the BAS Board of Directors and "BASIS" Staff, including Chair Larry Loebig, Vice Chair Yves Barbero, Secretary Rick Moen, Treasurer Kent Harker, editor Sharon Crawford, and others.

BAS Advisors

A comprehensive list of BAS Advisors is provided, including individuals with affiliations to universities, medical centers, and research institutions, as well as professionals in various scientific and investigative fields. Notable advisors include William J. Bennetta, Dean Edell, Donald Goldsmith, Thomas H. Jukes, John E. McCosker, Richard J. Ofshe, Bernard Oliver, Kevin Padian, James Randi, Wallace I. Sampson, Eugenie C. Scott, Robert Sheaffer, and Jill C. Tarter.

Cancer and the Power of Positive Thinking

This section features an article by Wallace I. Sampson, M.D., clinical professor of medicine at Stanford University and a founder of Bay Area Skeptics. He plans to explore popular ideas about preventing and curing cancer, comparing them with scientific research. The article touches on "mind healing" and how confidence schemes exploit beliefs in the ailing, contrasting it with scientific understanding of the brain as an organ working with the body. Dr. Sampson aims to show how this quasi-medical belief system operates in society.

Publication Information

The document concludes by stating that the articles are selected from the March 1990 issue of "BASIS", the monthly publication of Bay Area Skeptics. Information is provided on how to obtain a free sample copy and copyright details.