Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet - 1990 07

Magazine Overview

Title: BASIS
Issue: Vol. 9, No. 7
Date: July 1990
Publisher: Bay Area Skeptics
Editor: Kent Harker

This issue of "BASIS", the newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, delves into topics ranging from the nature of myth and ancient beliefs to the controversies surrounding creationism and science education. The publication emphasizes critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning.

CONCRETE PYRAMIDS by Lynn Hammond

Lynn Hammond explores the human tendency to seek mystical explanations for phenomena, citing Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" which posits that myth plays a vital role in developing consciousness. Hammond contrasts ancient cultures' approach to myth, where truth was secondary to imagination and gods could be discarded, with modern notions of reality and internal consistency. He illustrates this with an example of East African tribes who ritualized the game of cricket to align it with their tribal ethos, turning it into a grand drama.

Hammond then applies this to the construction of the Great Pyramids, noting that while Egyptology is steeped in mystery, modern researchers have uncovered evidence of quarrying, stone cutting, and the use of sleds and ramps. He contrasts this mundane reality with more tantalizing, yet unsubstantiated, theories involving Atlantians or ancient astronauts.

The article introduces the claim of French researcher Joseph Davidovits, who asserts that the pyramid stones are high-quality concrete cast in situ, not quarried rock. Davidovits has patented a polymer cement called "Pyrament" and seeks to market it for monument repair and housing solutions in Egypt. Hammond suggests Davidovits' financial interests may influence his disregard for modern evidence, likening this misuse of science to crass commercialism.

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

Kent Harker introduces the following article by Walter R. Hearn, noting that the original introduction was too long. He clarifies that "creationists" typically refers to Christian fundamentalists, exemplified by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in Santee, California. These "scientific creationists" claim their conclusions stem from scientific research but require faculty to swear an oath of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that Genesis is the source of knowledge and the universe was created ex nihilo about 6,000 years ago.

Harker notes that ICR asserts that those who do not accept a literal Genesis are not "true" Christians. He highlights the "creation vs. evolution" dichotomy as an apocalyptic battle for creationists. He criticizes this dichotomy as false and a bludgeon used to mislead the public, contrasting it with the nuanced views within mainstream Christianity and theistic evolution.

Harker emphasizes that evolutionists should not create their own false dichotomies and that scientists can reconcile religious faith with their work. He points out the creationist tactic of conflating the origin of life (still speculative) with the origin of species (a well-established theory).

BENNETTA V. ASA: MISGUIDED ZEAL? by Walter R. Hearn

Walter R. Hearn, a leader in a group of Christians opposing ICR's views, responds to an article by William Bennetta in a previous "BASIS" issue. Bennetta had criticized a booklet by the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) titled "Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy," labeling it "creationist pseudoscience" and "classic creationist quackery." Hearn, an ASA member and co-author of the booklet, argues that Bennetta's zeal is misdirected.

Hearn states that Bennetta has a history of criticizing ASA and similar organizations, accusing them of trying to introduce "creation science" into public schools. Hearn asserts that ASA is not "scientific-creationist" and that their purpose is to investigate the relationship between Christian faith and science, not to promote creationism. He contrasts ASA's approach with that of ICR, which he describes as "religion masquerading as science."

Hearn recounts his own experience with Bennetta, including a previous letter to the editor of "BASIS" protesting Bennetta's claims. He notes that "BASIS" is open to dissenting views, unlike the "California Science Teachers Journal," which refused to print his response to Bennetta's critique of the ASA booklet.

He details the publication history of "Teaching Science," noting that it was distributed to thousands of high school biology teachers and has been revised to address criticisms. Hearn offers to send copies of the booklet and related documents to "BASIS" readers who are interested in evaluating Bennetta's claims for themselves.

OF PANDERS AND SLANDERS

Hearn addresses Bennetta's criticisms of the ASA authors and the book "Of Pandas and People." He notes that he, along with other ASA authors, considers "Pandas" to be seriously flawed, particularly in its approach to "evolutionary naturalism." Hearn clarifies that "Teaching Science" supports the teaching of evolution as science and warns against both theistic and atheistic scientisms.

Hearn also discusses Bennetta's critique of the qualifications of the authors of "Of Pandas and People." He shares his own difficulties in verifying Bennetta's credentials, noting that Bennetta's name did not appear in standard scientific directories. Hearn suggests that Bennetta's profession as a "scientific consultant" might explain his focus.

Hearn then addresses Bennetta's criticism of the American Scientific Affiliation's name, calling it "misleading." Hearn defends the name, explaining ASA's purpose and structure, which includes members from diverse scientific backgrounds who are also Christians. He contrasts ASA's position with that of ICR, which he characterizes as taking the Bible literally in scientific matters, whereas ASA takes it seriously in matters of faith.

Hearn concludes that both Bennetta and Henry Morris of ICR are annoyed by ASA because its existence challenges their narrow definitions of who qualifies as a "real scientist" or a "true Christian."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of "BASIS" are the critical examination of belief systems, the distinction between myth and science, and the defense of science education against what the Bay Area Skeptics perceive as the encroachment of creationist ideology. The editorial stance, as reflected in the articles and introductions, is one of skepticism towards pseudoscientific claims and a strong advocacy for the teaching of evolution as established science, while also acknowledging the diversity of views within Christianity regarding science.

This issue of "BASIS", the monthly publication of the Bay Area Skeptics, dated July 1990, focuses on the "CONTROVERSY OVER EVOLUTION". The magazine explores the complex interplay between science, religion, education, and ideology, particularly in the context of teaching evolution in public schools.

Controversy Over Evolution

The lead article, drawing from philosopher-historian Robert Root-Bernstein, argues that the evolution-creationism controversy is fundamentally not a scientific one. Instead, it is rooted in three core issues: the confusion between science and religion, the attempt by creationists to impose ideological control over science, and the failure of the educational system to equip the public with the necessary information to critically evaluate these problems. Root-Bernstein asserts that scientists waste time debating scientific issues with creationists, as "ignorance is" the true enemy, and education is the solution. He criticizes the "total failure of our educational system" in teaching public life facts.

The article notes that the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) changed its Statement of Faith in 1989 to acknowledge "contingent order and intelligibility" as the basis of scientific investigation and to commit members to stewardship of science for humanity's good. The author suggests that ASA's agenda, like that of other scientific organizations, extends beyond pure science into values and philosophy.

The publication addresses the perception that the scientific establishment is under ideological control, specifically a non-theistic or anti-theistic ideology. This perception, it is argued, fuels public resistance to evolutionary science. The ASA's "Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy" program is highlighted as an effort to distinguish evidence from inference and teach science neutrally, respecting students' religious questions without adding theistic or atheistic embellishments.

The article contrasts this with the views of figures like biologist William Provine of Cornell University, who argues that modern science implies a universe devoid of purposive principles, free will, or inherent moral laws, and that humans are complex machines with no ultimate meaning. The author suggests that scientists like Provine, who hold a naturalistic or materialistic worldview, are seen by some as indistinguishable from atheists.

Censorship and Ideological Control

The magazine discusses instances of perceived censorship and ideological control within the scientific and educational communities. It mentions William Bennetta's review in "BASIS" that led to an NSTA official refusing advertisements for a book he deemed "bogus". The author questions the respect for science teachers' judgment and the role of self-appointed censors.

An incident is recounted where ASA's exhibit privileges at an NSTA convention were threatened after ASA criticized two sentences in a National Academy of Sciences booklet, "Science and Creationism". This event is presented as an example of what ideological control feels like.

The article details the strong negative reactions to ASA's booklet "Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy", where nine scientists, in a critique published in "The Science Teacher", accused ASA of numerous moral offenses rather than addressing scientific or pedagogical errors. These accusations included undermining public understanding of science, crippling science education, rejecting evolutionary biology, and engaging in propaganda.

ASA Booklet and Major Conclusions

The ASA booklet is described as focusing on drawing appropriate inferences from scientific evidence, using four unsolved problems to illustrate how to evaluate evidence. These "Open Questions" include: "Did the universe have a beginning?", "Did life on earth arise by chance?", "Where did the first animals come from?", and "Do we share common ancestry with apes?". The booklet acknowledges that present evidence points to a positive answer for the universe's beginning but notes the question extends beyond science. Regarding the origin of life, it states that scientists do not yet know how it arose. For the origin of the first animals, it notes the lack of documentation in the fossil record. On common ancestry with apes, it suggests it is too soon to say with certainty, emphasizing that many problems are yet to be solved.

The article defends the ASA booklet's conclusions, urging critics to stop name-calling and focus on whether the conclusions are factually wrong based on available evidence. The current version of "Teaching Science" has been revised to clarify questions and sections, and the booklet is labeled as a supplement, not a textbook.

Other Content

The issue also includes announcements for upcoming events, including the "ANNUAL BAS PICNIC" in Palo Alto, detailing food arrangements and encouraging attendance. A calendar listing for June includes a talk titled "KIDS AND PSYCHOLOGY: A SKEPTICAL VIEW" by Jeffrey Masson, Ph.D., at the El Cerrito Library. Another article, "A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF CHILDREN ON THE COUCH" by Jeffrey Masson, Ph.D., is announced, discussing his work questioning psychiatric history and practices, particularly concerning children.

The publication also lists the "BAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS" and "BASIS STAFF", along with a comprehensive list of "BAS ADVISORS", including prominent figures in science, medicine, and skepticism. The issue concludes with copyright information and details on how to obtain a free sample copy of "BASIS".

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the defense of scientific inquiry against ideological control and censorship, the importance of critical thinking and education in understanding complex issues like evolution, and the role of skepticism in challenging unsubstantiated claims. The editorial stance, as represented by the content and the publication of "BASIS" by the Bay Area Skeptics, is to promote rational discourse, scientific literacy, and a critical examination of pseudoscientific or ideologically driven assertions, particularly those that seek to limit scientific understanding or impose particular belief systems.