North Texas Skeptic - Vol 04 No 04 - 1990

Magazine Overview

Title: The Skeptic
Publisher: The North Texas Skeptics
Issue Date: July/August 1990
Volume: 4
Issue: 4

This issue of The Skeptic, the newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics, features articles that critically examine claims of pseudoscience and advocate for a scientific perspective. The main articles cover the evolving public image and market integration of astrology, a critique of creationist arguments presented by the Metroplex Institute of Origin Science (MIOS), and an analysis of a significant court ruling concerning the teaching of creationism in public schools.

The Stargazers Strike Back: Astrologers Look Sharp and Play the Market

This article by Patricia King, reprinted from Newsweek, discusses the changing face of astrology. It notes that while public perception, influenced by figures like Nancy Reagan, has often been dismissive, a new breed of astrologers is emerging. These professionals are actively seeking to improve their public image, with organizations like the Association for Astrological Networking (AFAN) reviewing media coverage and providing lists of reputable practitioners. The article highlights the increasing use of astrology in business, particularly in finance, where sophisticated software calculates 'astro indicators' for trading. Astrolabe, Inc., a company developing such software, is mentioned, as is Wall Street astrologer Arch Crawford, who reportedly predicted a market crash based on planetary alignments. The piece also touches upon the legal challenges faced by astrologers, with AFAN offering legal counseling against laws that restrict or ban fortunetelling. However, it also points out that even with this professionalization, the media often still seeks out the most eccentric practitioners as spokespeople, and that the core of astrology remains a subject of skepticism for many.

MIOS

This section, written by John Blanton, reviews a presentation by Don Patton of the Metroplex Institute of Origin Science (MIOS), a group promoting creationism. Patton's presentation, titled "The Laws of Thermodynamics (devastating evidence against a naturalistic explanation of life, evolution, the universe.)", used computer-generated slides to present arguments commonly used by creationists. Blanton debunks these arguments, stating that Patton's points about things getting worse on their own and life forms representing thermodynamic systems were either unarguable truisms or misinterpretations of the second law of thermodynamics, which applies to closed systems. Patton's third point, concerning the improbability of the spontaneous creation of genetic code, was also challenged. The article notes that David Dunn, a skeptic present at the meeting, severely rebuked Patton, calling him a liar, though Patton reportedly took the accusation calmly. The article also mentions a debate planned between MIOS and the North Texas Skeptics. A significant part of this section focuses on the "Burdick Track," a fossil purported to be a human footprint found in Glen Rose limestone. MIOS presented this as evidence against evolution and for the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs. The article details how the fossil was sectioned to show compression marks, and how photographs of the fossil and a matching human foot were presented. However, the origin of the fossil and its scientific context remain unclear, with no field notes available. When questioned about its age, Don Patton initially suggested it was from a time when humans and dinosaurs coexisted, but later admitted he believed the rock was only 4500 years old, laid down by the daily tides during the great flood. The article also notes that Clyde McKnight, a creationist, dismissed radioactive dating methods, suggesting that decay rates were much faster in the past.

Court Opinion Spoke Well for Science

Written by John Blanton, this article discusses the landmark 1982 case of Arkansas' Act 590, which mandated the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. Federal Judge William R. Overton ruled the act unconstitutional, stating that creation science was based on religion, not science. The article praises Judge Overton's written opinion for its respect for science. It reprints a passage from the opinion detailing the efforts of Marianne Wilson, a science curriculum administrator for Pulaski County Special School District, to find scientific material to support creationism. Wilson and her committee found creationist materials to be unacceptable due to their religious basis and misrepresentation of scientific theories like evolution. The article cites examples from creationist texts such as "Origins" by Richard B. Bliss and "Biology, A Search For Order in Complexity," highlighting how they present evolution as atheistic and misapply concepts like adaptive radiation. It also quotes from "Evolution -- The Fossils Say No!" and "Scientific Creationism" by Morris, which frame creation as a supernatural act and criticize evolutionary philosophy. The article concludes that Ms. Wilson was unable to find any genuinely scientific articles supporting Section 4(a) of Act 590 and that the curriculum guide she prepared had no educational value as science. The defendants failed to produce any usable scientific texts. The article also includes footnotes from the court opinion, detailing the difficulties Ms. Wilson faced and the questionable nature of some creationist publications.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of pseudoscientific claims, particularly in the fields of astrology and creationism, and the defense of scientific methodology and education. The editorial stance is clearly pro-science, skeptical of claims not supported by empirical evidence, and critical of the misrepresentation of science in educational contexts. The newsletter actively engages with and debunks arguments from groups like MIOS and critiques the legal and educational challenges posed by creationist movements. The emphasis is on maintaining a clear distinction between science and religion and upholding the integrity of scientific inquiry.