Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet - 1990 04

Magazine Overview

This issue of "BASIS", the newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, published in April 1990, presents a collection of articles critically examining various topics from a skeptical perspective. The publication aims to debunk pseudoscientific claims, analyze controversial educational policies, and promote scientific literacy.

Skeptics Sting Creationists

By Ian Plimer, head of the department of geology at the University of Newcastle, this article details an incident where the Creation Science Foundation (CSF) was duped by a fake "paper in rock" specimen. Plimer, a self-proclaimed "creationist basher," sent an unsolicited rock specimen to the CSF. Without proper examination, Andrew Snelling of CSF published an article in "Creation Science Prayer News" claiming it was evidence against the age of the Earth. Later, at a conference, Patrick Lyons, a geologist, revealed the specimen was the mineral palygorskite, a clay mineral similar to attapulgite, used as cat litter. The article criticizes the CSF for its lack of scientific rigor, its willingness to publish sensational claims without verification, and its broader agenda of promoting pseudoscience in schools.

BAS Influence

Robert Sheaffer reports on the media's coverage of psychics' failed predictions for 1989. An ABC-TV show "Entertainment Tonight" highlighted predictions that did not come to pass, citing the "Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet." The article also notes a "San Jose Mercury" piece that picked up on the "BASIS" article, with a newspaper clipping from the "Oakland Tribune" commenting on the inaccuracy of psychics' predictions.

ESP and dQ Over T

Harold Morowitz explores the concept of ESP (extrasensory perception). He distinguishes between two main ideas: one involving undiscovered physical signals, which is within the framework of contemporary physics, and another involving methods entirely outside physical measurement and energy dependence. The latter, if proven, would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Morowitz uses the thought experiment of Maxwell's demon to illustrate how information acquisition requires energy expenditure, thus increasing entropy and upholding the Second Law. He concludes that true ESP, if it exists, would fundamentally alter physics and biology. The article also touches upon the CIA's historical interest in ESP for espionage purposes, highlighting the creep of psychic thinking into establishment mentality.

Demon Exorcised

This section, continuing Harold Morowitz's article, delves deeper into the scientific argument against ESP by explaining how information theory, particularly the work of C. E. Shannon, resolved the paradox of Maxwell's demon. The demon's ability to sort molecules and create order would require observation and measurement, which in turn requires energy expenditure, leading to disorder that negates any gain in order. The argument is extended to ESP, suggesting that any knowledge of a system's state obtained without physical measurement would lower entropy and allow for the creation of energy from nothing, thus solving the energy crisis. The author challenges ESP supporters to explain how this is possible within the known laws of physics.

Oh My, Omarr

This piece critiques Sydney Omarr, a prominent astrologer. The author points out that Omarr's predictions for the Super Bowl were vague and largely meaningless, with only one specific prediction about the point spread. The article satirizes the reliance on astrology and suggests that followers of Omarr should be reimbursed for the poor advice they received. It humorously suggests adding a disclaimer to astrological predictions.

True Herbalism

Dan Dugan reviews an article by Marie Hammock in the "S. F. Examiner" that discussed a talk by Verro Tyler of Purdue U. The article outlines ten false beliefs about herbalism, including the idea that medical establishments suppress herbs, that herbs cannot harm, that natural is superior to synthetic, and that astrological influences are significant. Tyler defines "true herbalism" as the wise use of safe and effective herbs, supported by scientific study and honest reporting. The author suggests that once the false beliefs are removed, little remains of what is often presented as "true herbalism."

Science Won Medium

Dr. Kevin Padian, a professor of biological evolution at UC Berkeley, addressed the Bay Area Skeptics about the California Science Framework. This document, developed by a committee with few professional scientists, aims to guide science education in K-9 schools. Padian explains that the framework's development was politicized by fundamentalist Christians who lobbied heavily, causing the debate to focus primarily on creationism versus evolution. Despite the pressure, Padian believes the final document retains integrity, with "Evolution" mentioned over 200 times and taught as a fundamental principle. He argues that the concessions made were not substantive and that the overall thrust of teaching evolution remains intact.

Compromise

This section continues the discussion on the California Science Framework. It acknowledges the political reality of compromise in the face of fundamentalist lobbying. While some skeptics felt Padian's committee "sold out," Padian aims to shift public perception, arguing that science "won big" despite the changes. The article notes that the sentence "Evolution is a fact" was removed, which was widely reported as a major concession, but emphasizes that evolution is still presented as a fact and a theory that must be taught. The author suggests that the public perception of evolution being downplayed might even serve to mute some of the criticism against modern science education.

New vs. Old

This part contrasts the old and new California Science Frameworks. The old framework lacked detail and sometimes conveyed misunderstandings. The new framework emphasizes theory over fact, promoting investigation and the formation of theories rather than rote memorization. It aims to show how theories interact across disciplines and distills six key themes: Scale and structure, Energy, Evolution, Systems and interactions, Patterns of change, and Stability.

Miscellany

This section addresses questions about individual belief and education. Kevin Padian states that "Education does not compel belief -- only understanding." He emphasizes that science education's role is to help students understand nature based on evidence, not to dictate personal beliefs. Padian also clarifies two common misconceptions about evolutionary biology: that evolution is goal-seeking or progressive (it is driven by survival), and that mutations are mostly harmful (most are neutral). The value of a mutation is subjective and depends on the environment.

Creationists Issue a Phony Schoolbook

William Bennetta critiques "Of Pandas and People," a book promoted as a supplemental high school text by the fundamentalist group Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Bennetta explains that this book is a reworking of "creation-science" doctrines, designed to present the Bible as a historical account and deny evolutionary history. He references the Supreme Court's decision in "Edwards v. Aguillard," which ruled that "creation-science" is a religious viewpoint that violates the establishment clause. Bennetta argues that "Pandas" is the same old creationist material, disguised to avoid direct religious references by using terms like "intelligent agent." He highlights the book's use of false statements, misleading analogies, and distorted quotations, noting that the assertion that organic evolution has not happened is demonstrably false, with observed cases of speciation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of "BASIS" consistently adopts a critical and skeptical stance towards claims lacking scientific evidence or rigor. The recurring themes include the debunking of creationism and pseudoscience, the importance of scientific methodology, the critique of astrology and "paraherbalism," and the defense of science education against religious and political interference. The newsletter champions scientific literacy and critical thinking, exposing what it perceives as flawed reasoning and deliberate misinformation in various fields.

Title: BASIS
Issue: April, 1990
Publisher: Bay Area Skeptics
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of BASIS, the monthly publication of the Bay Area Skeptics, features a critical examination of the book "Pandas," which is presented as a work promoting creationist viewpoints. The publication also includes a book review of "Cosmic Catastrophes."

Critique of "Pandas"

The primary focus of the articles is a detailed dissection of the book "Pandas," co-authored by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon. The author of the critique argues that "Pandas" attempts to refute evolutionary biology by misrepresenting scientific concepts. A key point of contention is the book's assertion that speciation is not evolution, defining evolution as requiring the addition of new genetic information while speciation involves its loss. The author dismisses this as "not even wrong" and absurd, lacking any scientific basis.

The critique highlights that chapter 6 of "Pandas" draws heavily from Michael Denton's 1985 book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis." Denton's work is characterized as a mystical, mass-market book associated with "creation-science" that was discredited by scientists because Denton lacked a proper understanding of evolutionary biology. Denton's preoccupation with outdated notions like a linear "ladder" of forms is noted.

The article points out that "Pandas" recycles Denton's errors, including a misunderstanding of biochemical evidence. Specifically, it criticizes the book's analysis of the protein cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is described as a crucial molecule for studying evolution due to variations in its amino acid sequences across organisms, which biologists use to chart evolutionary relationships. Denton, and subsequently "Pandas," are accused of misinterpreting data from Dayhoff's "Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure." For instance, Denton is said to have confused a modern bacterium with its ancient ancestor and incorrectly concluded there was no "intermediate" between a modern bacterium and a modern horse or pigeon, failing to recognize that the bacterium was not the ancestor.

The writers of "Pandas" are accused of employing a similar technique of erecting and demolishing straw men. An example given is their citation of cytochrome c data for a modern pig, duck, and other organisms, concluding that the cytochrome c of wheat is equally distinct and that no species is ancestral to any other. The author counters that no biologist believes a modern carp is the ancestor of a modern duck or yeast, and that "Pandas" writers are misrepresenting the scientific consensus.

Furthermore, the article scrutinizes the credentials of the authors and contributors of "Pandas." Percival Davis, also known as P. William Davis, teaches biology at Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, Florida, but reportedly did not provide a curriculum vitae when requested. Dean H. Kenyon is a tenured professor of biology at San Francisco State University, whose conversion to fundamentalist religion in the early 1970s led him to publicly endorse "creation-science" doctrines. Kenyon's involvement in testifying for an Arkansas statute promoting "creation-science" is also mentioned, as is his evasive response when asked for his credentials.

Charles B. Thaxton, who holds a doctorate in physical chemistry, is described as having done little scientific work since college and is associated with The Julian Center, a religious community. His faculty listing calls him an "outstanding scientist" without mentioning any specific work. When contacted, Thaxton also provided evasive answers, with a lawyer responding on his behalf.

The article notes that none of the three main figures (Davis, Kenyon, Thaxton) are listed in "American Men & Women of Science," though they are listed as members of the FTE's "Council of Academic and Educational Advisors." The "critical reviewers" for "Pandas" are also examined. Norman L. Geisler, a creationist minister, is mentioned as having testified in the Arkansas "creation-science" trial and admitted to believing UFOs were a "satanic manifestation."

Three other reviewers, J. David Price, John L. Wiester, and Walter R. Hearn, are identified as having produced a booklet of creationist pseudoscience under the auspices of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), which was mailed to high-school teachers. The author refers to this booklet as "classic creationist quackery."

An advertisement for "Pandas" in "The Science Teacher" (NSTA's journal) prompted the NSTA's assistant executive director, Marily DeWall, to state that no more advertising for "Pandas" would be accepted, a decision deemed correct given the book's lack of scientific integrity.

Book Review: "Cosmic Catastrophes"

The issue also includes a book review by Yves Barbero of "Cosmic Catastrophes" by Clark R. Chapman and David Morrison. The book is praised as a useful and well-written analysis of cataclysmic celestial events, suitable for readers with limited mathematical and scientific backgrounds. It covers a wide range of topics including space impacts, dinosaur extinction, nuclear winter, chaos theory, moon formation, comets, craters, climatology, the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, and supernovas. The review highlights the book's thoroughness, its inclusion of a glossary and index, and its accessibility for the intelligent layman. It also provides an "excellent thumb-nail history of the uniformitarianism verses catastrophism debate," which is deemed important for understanding scientific creationist tactics. The book is recommended as an ideal gift for young people or discerning adults, with the only minor criticism being its length.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the articles is the distinction between genuine scientific inquiry and pseudoscience, particularly in the context of creationism versus evolution. The publication strongly advocates for scientific integrity and critical thinking, exposing what it views as flawed arguments and unsubstantiated claims made by creationist proponents. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of creationist literature and supportive of established scientific consensus. The review of "Cosmic Catastrophes" aligns with this by promoting a scientifically grounded understanding of natural phenomena.