North Texas Skeptic - Vol 15 No 04 - 2001

Magazine Overview

This issue of The North Texas Skeptic, Volume 15 Number 4, dated April 2001, is published by The North Texas Skeptics and features articles primarily focused on debunking creationist claims and exploring the historical and scientific context of the evolution debate. The cover headline is 'Creationism lies'.

Creationism lies

This article, authored by John Blanton, directly addresses accusations of being 'soft on creationism' and asserts that such claims are serious in Texas. Blanton critiques the methods used by creationists, specifically mentioning Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research. He points to the Talk.Origins archives, which compile creationist 'whoppers,' and highlights Jim Lippard's findings on Henry Morris's selective quoting in his book 'Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth.'

One example cited involves the interpretation of catfish fossils. Morris allegedly used a quote from a journal article by Buccheim and Surdam to suggest catfish could have been transported to their fossilization sites. However, the original text, as pointed out by Lippard, strongly suggests the opposite: that the catfish were a resident population and that transport was improbable due to decomposition.

Another 'famous whopper' is detailed, attributed to Rob Zuber, concerning the work of John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris in 'Genesis Flood.' They claimed fossils are often found 'out of order' to challenge the evolutionary sequence. The article exposes how Whitcomb and Morris selectively quoted from a paper by C. P. Ross and Richard Rezak regarding the Belt strata in Glacier National Monument. The original text indicated that while the strata appear undisturbed, they are actually intensely folded, a detail omitted by Whitcomb and Morris to support their argument that geological sequences are not always in order.

The article also touches upon a presentation by Don Patton of the Metroplex Institute of Origin Science (MIOS), a young Earth creationist group. Blanton criticizes Patton for using quotes out of context and rearranging them to fit his narrative, suggesting a mindset where the ends justify the means, even if it violates Christian principles.

A significant portion of the article is dedicated to the uranium-lead dating method for moon rocks, as presented in a MIOS text titled 'DATING OF MOON SAMPLES: PITFALLS AND PARADOXES.' The original quote from 'Science News' is presented, highlighting the complexity of non-radiogenic lead (204, 206, 207, 208) and the uncertainty in determining its initial ratios on the moon. Blanton, with the help of Jeff, fills in omitted text from the original 'Science News' article. The original text discusses the challenges in dating lunar material using radioactive history and notes that lead ages have been consistently older. It details how uranium and thorium decay into lead isotopes. The article explains that while meteorite ratios are used as a reference, it's uncertain if they apply to the moon. A specific sample (14163) is discussed, where lead ratios suggest ages older than 4 billion years, with unusual isotopic compositions that have not been observed elsewhere in the solar system. The implications of these findings for understanding the early solar system are explored, with scientists like Silver suggesting that high lead 207 ratios might indicate formation very early in the solar system before dilution with lead 206.

Blanton concludes that creationists like Patton often omit text that clarifies the author's intended meaning and rearrange quotes to create their own narrative. He expresses frustration with this phenomenon, likening it to 'telling lies for Jesus,' and criticizes the violation of Christian principles to support mythical underpinnings.

Summer for the gods

This section reviews Edward J. Larson's book, 'Summer for the Gods: the Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion.' The review, also by John Blanton, frames the book within the context of the Scopes Trial, often referred to as the 'Monkey Trial,' which occurred in Dayton, Tennessee. The review begins by referencing the play and movie 'Inherit the Wind,' noting its fictionalized portrayal of the trial, and clarifies that the book is about the actual historical event.

Edward J. Larson, a Professor of History and Law at the University of Georgia, is introduced. His previous work on the creation/evolution controversy, 'Trial and Error,' is mentioned. 'Summer for the Gods' is presented as examining the Scopes trial in light of the shift in civil liberty law since World War I, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) playing a key role.

William Jennings Bryan, a prominent figure in politics, is discussed as advocating for the antievolution stance, viewing evolution as contradictory to the Bible and a cause of social injustice ('social Darwinism'). Bryan's arguments against teaching evolution included claims that it lacked scientific proof, undermined religious faith and social values, and that the 'Bible-believing' majority should dictate public school content. He also warned of eroding public support for such laws due to ridicule and the threat of court challenges.

The article details Bryan's role in the Scopes case, which he saw as a 'battle royal' for the faith. His public addresses often used the line, 'How can teachers tell students that they came from monkeys and not expect them to act like monkeys?' The ACLU, seeking a test case for the Butler Act, found John Scopes volunteering, possibly influenced by local boosters. Bryan's involvement shifted the focus from a narrow constitutional test to a broader debate on evolution.

Notable figures like Albert Einstein commented on the restriction of academic freedom, calling it a 'shame upon the community.' Shailer Mathews, a divinity school professor, stated that theology contrary to reality must be abandoned or improved. The article notes that the debate was framed by a cleavage between 'modernist' and 'fundamentalist' factions of Christianity.

Bryan's position was uncompromising, and the case forced him into a more extreme stance. The article suggests that Bryan's campaign against evolution was a national effort, and his involvement in the trial marked a significant point in his life. Editorial cartoons often depicted him struggling with monkeys, symbolizing the public perception of the debate.

Clarence Darrow's involvement in the defense is noted, with his declaration that 'Civilization is on trial.' Despite hopes for a large influx of tourists, Dayton saw only about 3000 visitors. Scopes was convicted and fined $100, though the conviction was later overturned on a technicality. Bryan died in Dayton shortly after the trial, which some believe helped refuel the antievolution movement. The article mentions Bryan College in Dayton as a repository for information on the trial.

Frederick Lewis Allen's book 'Only Yesterday' is credited with repopularizing the trial. The review also addresses 'Inherit the Wind,' clarifying that it was a response to Hollywood blacklists and not a faithful rendition of the Scopes Trial, despite common misconceptions. Creationists are criticized for using perceived inaccuracies in the play to paint evolutionists as deceptive.

John Scopes himself is described as an 'ideal radical protagonist' for the cause of scientific truth. After collaborating on the appeal, he pursued a career as a geologist and later reflected on the events of 1925 as a 'summer for the Gods.'

What's new

This section, by Robert Park, presents a collection of brief scientific news items.

Cold fusion?

The US Patent Office denied a 'cold-fusion' patent to Mitchell Swartz, citing lack of 'operability.' A federal appeals court upheld this decision, and the US Supreme Court is unlikely to review the case, effectively ending Swartz's bid for a patent after twelve years of attempts to gain serious consideration for the idea.

EMF: Power lines make it back into the news - sort of.

Following a 1997 study showing no link between EMF exposure and childhood leukemia, a UK report by the National Radiological Protection Board found a 'possible small risk' from exposure to fields much stronger than typically encountered. Despite the weak findings and lack of a plausible mechanism, the report was seized upon by 'fear mongers.'

Double anniversary: Promises were made to change the world.

This item notes the coincidence of two events: President Reagan's announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative on March 23, 1983, and the announcement of 'cold fusion' discovery on March 23, 1989. It humorously suggests a possible astrological connection and remarks on the equal progress made in both fields.

Climate change: New MIT study calculates the odds.

A new study from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change aims to improve public understanding of climate change. It presents projections, such as a median global mean surface temperature rise of 2.5C by 2100, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.9C to 4.8C, questioning how the public will receive such predictions.

Budget resolution: Who's giving the President science advice?

This brief note laments the lack of attention to the science budget, with a proposed amendment by physicist Rush Holt to add $1B to the science budget failing. It highlights the potential negative consequences when a new President takes office without a Science Advisor.

Skeptical ink

This section features a three-panel comic strip by Prasad Golla and John Blanton, copyrighted 2001 and permitted for free, non-commercial reuse. The comic satirizes gender bias in education. The first panel shows a man stating, 'Since we don't allow women to be treated by male doctors, we have decided to allow women to study medicine.' The second panel continues, 'Of course, women are still not allowed to study other subjects, such as math and chemistry.' The third panel shows another man responding, 'Now do you understand?' to which the first man replies, 'Yes, I think I do. You're an idiot.' The panels are labeled 'CATCH 22,' 'DEDUCTION,' and 'REVELATION.'

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critique of creationism and the defense of scientific reasoning against pseudoscience and religious fundamentalism. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of creationist claims, highlighting instances of misrepresentation and selective quoting. The magazine also engages with contemporary scientific issues, presenting them with a critical and rational perspective. The review of 'Summer for the Gods' underscores the ongoing tension between science and religion in American society, while the 'What's New' section demonstrates a commitment to reporting on scientific advancements and challenges. The overall tone is one of intellectual rigor and a dedication to promoting critical thinking.