North Texas Skeptic - Vol 04 No 03 - 1990

Magazine Overview

Title: The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics
Issue: Volume 4 Number 3
Date: May/June 1990

This issue of The Skeptic delves into several topics critical to skeptical inquiry, including the philosophical underpinnings of the New Age movement, the ongoing debate surrounding evolution in science education, and a scientific examination of a creationist theory about Noah's flood.

New Age or Old Nonsense by Keith Parsons

Keith Parsons, a philosophy lecturer, critically analyzes the New Age movement's embrace of relativism and metaphysical idealism. He argues that the claim that beliefs are "true for them" or "their reality" is a form of subjective truth that denies objective states of affairs. Parsons contends that this relativism is self-vitiating, as a statement asserting the non-existence of objective truths cannot itself be objectively true.

He further dissects the New Age concept of "mind" as a dualistic entity separate from the brain, questioning how such a non-physical entity can be identified or interact with the physical world. Parsons dismisses the idea of mind as a form of energy like "orgone energy" due to a lack of evidence and the availability of alternative explanations for phenomena like out-of-body experiences.

Parsons also addresses the New Age's frequent, but misguided, references to quantum mechanics (QM). He explains that while QM is complex and departs from classical determinism, it does not support the New Age doctrine that consciousness creates reality. The "measurement problem" in QM, he argues, is subject to various interpretations, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, for instance, suggests interaction with measuring devices, not consciousness, determines particle properties. He concludes that the New Age is not a new worldview but a revival of older ideas like spiritualism and crystal healing, united by an antipathy to scientific rationality.

ONLY A THEORY: UPDATE by Scott Faust

This article provides an update on the Texas textbook proclamation process concerning the inclusion of evolution in science curricula. Scott Faust reports on Proclamation 67, the final version of which was adopted on March 10th. The good news is that the State Board of Education made no changes to the science sections, thus avoiding the introduction of anti-evolution language seen in the previous Proclamation 66. This is seen as a positive development for science education in Texas.

However, Faust notes the "bad news" that while the board adopted changes for other subjects, similar recommendations for science were not seriously considered. He highlights a modified descendant of Proclamation 66's section 6.3, which discusses "examining scientific evidence and information to test, modify, or refute scientific theories." Criticisms include that theories are not refuted but abandoned, hypotheses are tested more often than theories, and the section is redundant and confusing.

Faust also corrects previous impressions about People for the American Way and its director, Mike Hudson, clarifying their involvement in Texas textbook adoptions. He also corrects a reference to the Institute for Creation Research's newsletter, noting it was material edited from it, not the footnote itself. The article concludes by mentioning that Henry Morris, president of ICR, believes evolution has a "Satanic origin."

REPORT ON MIOS PROGRAM ON WATER CANOPY by John Blanton

John Blanton reports on a meeting of the Metroplex Institute of Origin Science (MIOS), a group supporting "creation science." The speaker, Dr. Clyde V. McKnight, a physicist and atmospheric scientist, presented on the physical basis for a water canopy that supposedly preceded Noah's flood.

Dr. McKnight discussed four models for a water canopy: ice, water, cloud, and water vapor. He dismissed the first three as lacking valid physical or biblical bases, asserting the water vapor canopy model as the most logical. He proposed that this canopy, equivalent to forty feet of liquid water, would have trapped heat, creating a greenhouse effect and uniform global temperatures. He also suggested that the increased surface pressure and oxygen partial pressure might have supported larger animal life.

However, Dr. McKnight acknowledged significant objections: a base temperature of approximately 220 degrees F would be needed, and the combined pressure of vapor and air would create a two-atmosphere surface pressure. He calculated that the condensation of this water would release immense heat, causing a 2100-degree Celsius temperature rise in the atmosphere. Ultimately, Dr. McKnight concluded that the flood could "not [be] supported by the laws of physics," and that "a miracle is the only answer."

Blanton agrees with this conclusion, emphasizing that invoking a miracle bypasses scientific inquiry. He notes that Dr. McKnight's own analysis led him to conclude that the flood lacked a scientific basis. The report includes a brief exchange of notes between Blanton and McKnight, where McKnight reiterates his belief in the supernatural aspects of the flood and the adherence to evolution as a matter of "unshakable religious faith."

Summer Science

This section announces "Summer Science" programs offered by The Science Place in Dallas for children from kindergarten to grade nine. These programs cover various science topics. Notably, a course called "Sci or Fi?" for grades five through seven aims to teach kids how to evaluate scientific evidence for phenomena like Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, and UFOs, using principles of reason and common sense. The program does not cover "controversial" subjects like astrology, the occult, or creationism.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The overarching theme of this issue is the critical examination of pseudoscientific and non-scientific claims through the lens of skepticism and scientific rationality. The North Texas Skeptics, through its publication, consistently advocates for evidence-based reasoning and challenges beliefs that lack empirical support or rely on supernatural explanations without scientific justification. The editorial stance is clearly pro-science, anti-pseudoscience, and supportive of robust science education free from ideological interference.