REALL News - Vol 13 No 01 - 2005

Magazine Overview

Title: The REALL News
Issue: Volume 13, Number 1
Date: January/February 2005
Publisher: The Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL)
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of The REALL News, the official newsletter of the Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land, focuses on two primary themes: a re-examination of a famous UFO abduction case and an extensive discussion of the creationism versus evolution debate, particularly concerning Intelligent Design (ID).

Suppressing a Smile: The Betty and Barney Hill Case

Martin S. Kottmeyer opens the issue with an article titled "Suppressing a Smile," which revisits the Betty and Barney Hill abduction case. Kottmeyer expresses his belief in Betty Hill's sincerity and considers the case to be the most fascinating alien abduction experience on record. He thanks Ufo researcher Karl Pflock for providing a document related to the case, titled "A Dramatic Encounter in the White Mountains, N.H.: September 19-20, 1962," authored by Walter N. Webb and attributed to the NICAP Subcommittee Mass. Unit #1. This account, based on a 6-hour interview with the Hills, differs in some fascinating ways from John Fuller's popular book on the case.

Kottmeyer highlights specific details from Webb's summary that interested him, particularly those that offer an alternative insight into Barney Hill's perception of the encounter. He notes that while Betty Hill's account is well-known, Webb's version presents a more compressed narrative focusing on the essentials. Kottmeyer addresses potential myths surrounding the case, such as whether the Hills experienced a folie à deux or if Barney had romantic feelings for an alien. He finds the pedantic details of Webb's account to be of particular charm.

The article details Barney's initial guess that the object was a military chopper. When he observed the craft with binoculars, it descended. He saw 8 to 11 figures in glossy black leather uniforms through the windows. One figure appeared to be a leader. A "burst of activity" occurred on the craft as figures scurried towards levers, moving with "the cold precision of German officers." One figure smiled. Red lights appeared on the tips of fin-like structures extending from the sides of the ship. Barney's disbelief is noted: "This is ridiculous!" He then realized it was something alien and sensed he was going to be captured, describing the beings as "of a superior type, beings that were somehow not human."

Barney panicked and fled to the car. The couple heard beeping noises and felt vibrations. Betty asked Barney if he now believed in flying saucers, to which he responded, "Don't be ridiculous. That wasn't a flying saucer." More beeps were heard. Betty contacted Pease AFB, and the officer seemed particularly interested in the extending wing-like structures, a feature not commonly seen in other UFO sightings.

Kottmeyer points out that Barney's drawing of the craft, as depicted in "The Interrupted Journey," shows "fins" and red lights at their tips, which skeptics should observe. He notes the absence of identical craft drawings, suggesting a problem with the consistency of the saucer phenomenon. He also references Betty Hill's 1961 letter to Keyhoe, which mentions wings protruding from the craft and figures scurrying, but argues that Webb's account better synchronizes the wing extension with the lever-pulling activity. Betty did not mention levers or the smile.

From the Chairman

Wally Hartshorn, Chairman of REALL, wishes readers a Happy Groundhog Day and an early spring. He mentions the arrival of a new baby in his household, which is taking up more of his time but is also a source of fun. Hartshorn also announces an event where REALL members will attend a presentation by John Mark Henry, an anti-evolutionist, at the Lincoln Library, intending to "field trip" and politely correct his arguments. To aid members in countering creationist arguments, the newsletter includes articles from two websites focusing on this topic.

Anniversary & Darwin Day!

February 12th is celebrated as Darwin Day, marking Charles Darwin's birthday. February also signifies the twelfth anniversary of REALL's formation. A party is planned for the afternoon of Saturday, February 12, to celebrate both events, including a meal, an evolution trivia/knowledge contest, and other activities.

Introduction to TalkDesign.org

This section introduces TalkDesign.org, a website created to provide a central location for responses to the arguments of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. It aims to link to the best and most up-to-date articles critical of ID, as well as original content. The site is run by volunteers who are critics of ID and supporters of evolutionary biology, and it is hosted by the Talk.Origins Archive. Neither site receives outside financial support.

What is Intelligent Design?

The core beliefs of ID advocates include the idea that an intelligent being was involved in the evolution of living organisms and that empirical evidence supports this action. The article clarifies that those who believe in a designer but not necessarily empirical evidence are not considered ID advocates by this site. The controversy stems from the claim of empirical evidence, which the authors argue is based on pseudoscience and appeals to religious or ideological beliefs.

What is the Intelligent Design movement?

The ID movement is described as having grown out of a creationist tradition, aiming to overthrow "materialist science" and replace it with "theistic science." While advocates may claim to argue only for a "designer," leading advocates believe this designer is God. Phillip Johnson is credited with founding the movement. The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), part of the Discovery Institute, is identified as playing a leading role in promoting ID, with a goal to make ID "the dominant perspective in science" and to "permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."

ID advocates are noted for addressing their arguments to the general public, politicians, and philosophers rather than scientists, using misleading rhetoric and misrepresentations. The article states that ID arguments are often disguised as scientific but are essentially propaganda.

Do scientists support Intelligent Design?

The article asserts that while a "tiny number" of scientists support ID, the "vast majority" support evolutionary theory. It contrasts a letter signed by 80 scientific organizations supporting evolution with a spoof "Project Steve" list by the Discovery Institute, highlighting the significantly larger number of scientists who disagree with ID.

Is opposition to Intelligent Design based on naturalism?

ID advocates often accuse mainstream scientists of being biased by a commitment to "materialism" or "naturalism." The article explains that science often adopts "methodological naturalism" as a rule of thumb, meaning natural explanations are preferred for extraordinary claims. It argues that ID often lacks testability, parsimony, and explanatory power, and that the "naturalism" claim is sometimes a cover for ID's difficulty in meeting basic scientific criteria. The ambiguity of the word "natural" is also discussed.

Is Intelligent Design a form of creationism?

The article suggests that ID is ultimately a form of creationism, particularly when considering the belief that individual species or "kinds" were divinely created. It notes that while ID advocates may not strictly entail divine involvement in species origin, most leading advocates do believe in such involvement and often deny common descent. The "big tent" strategy of ID is described, encompassing various creationist viewpoints. The article points out similarities in arguments and tactics between ID and creationism, such as appeals to information theory, probability calculations, gaps in the fossil record, and out-of-context quotations.

A distinguishing feature of ID is its attempt to shift the debate towards abstract concepts like "design" or "teleology," making it difficult to test. The motivation for creating a distinct ID movement is seen as an attempt to evade legal restrictions on teaching creationism in public schools, as "scientific" creationism has been ruled a religious position.

Is Intelligent Design a pseudoscience?

The article argues that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, similar to astrology or Atlantis. Pseudoscience is defined as a belief system claimed to be scientific but actually based on flawed arguments, often directed at non-scientists, with grandiose claims and a resistance to contrary evidence.

What are the “scientific” arguments used to support Intelligent Design?

The primary "scientific" arguments for ID are identified as arguments from ignorance (god-of-the-gaps) and claims of positive evidence like "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity." ID also uses arguments from analogy and attacks evolutionary theory without providing strong support for its own hypothesis.

What is the argument from ignorance, or god-of-the-gaps argument?

ID advocates point to unexplained biological structures as evidence that they could not have evolved naturally, concluding they must have been designed by an intelligent agent. This is often disguised with terms like "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity."

What is the argument from analogy?

This argument posits that because man-made machines are designed, and biological systems share some properties with machines, biological systems must also be designed. The article critiques this by highlighting fundamental differences between biological organisms and machines, such as reproduction and natural selection.

What is “irreducible complexity”?

The term "irreducible complexity" was introduced by Michael Behe in "Darwin's Black Box" to describe biological systems where all parts are necessary for function, implying they could not have evolved gradually. The article states that Behe's model is simplistic and does not consider evolutionary mechanisms like functional change and coevolution.

Introduction to TalkDesign.org

This section introduces TalkDesign.org, a website providing responses to Intelligent Design arguments. It aims to be a one-stop resource for articles critical of ID, linking to external resources and original content. The site is run by volunteers and hosted by the Talk.Origins Archive.

What is the purpose of Talkdesign.org?

Talkdesign.org was created to provide a one-stop location for responses to the arguments of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. It links to the best and most up-to-date articles critical of ID, as well as a collection of articles written specifically for the site.

Who runs Talkdesign.org?

Talkdesign.org is run by several volunteers of various religious and philosophical persuasions, who are all critics of ID and supporters of mainstream evolutionary biology. It is hosted by the Talk.Origins Archive.

What is Intelligent Design?

ID advocates believe that an intelligent being was involved in the evolution of living organisms and that empirical evidence exists to justify this inference. The article emphasizes that the controversy arises from the claim of empirical evidence, which is considered pseudoscience.

What is the Intelligent Design movement?

The ID movement is described as originating from a creationist tradition, aiming to overthrow "materialist science" and replace it with "theistic science." Phillip Johnson is credited with founding it. The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), part of the Discovery Institute, plays a leading role in promoting ID with the goal of making it "the dominant perspective in science."

Do scientists support Intelligent Design?

While a small number of scientists support ID, the vast majority support evolutionary theory. The article contrasts a letter supporting evolution signed by 80 scientific organizations with a spoof list by the Discovery Institute.

Is opposition to Intelligent Design based on naturalism?

ID advocates accuse scientists of being biased by "materialism" or "naturalism." The article explains that science uses "methodological naturalism" and that ID often fails to meet basic scientific criteria.

Is Intelligent Design a form of creationism?

The article suggests that ID is a form of creationism, noting that most leading ID advocates believe in divine involvement and often deny common descent. It highlights similarities in arguments and tactics with creationism.

Is Intelligent Design a pseudoscience?

The article argues that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, characterized by flawed arguments, appeals to non-scientists, and resistance to evidence.

What are the “scientific” arguments used to support Intelligent Design?

Arguments for ID include arguments from ignorance, "specified complexity," and "irreducible complexity," as well as arguments from analogy and attacks on evolutionary theory.

What is the argument from ignorance, or god-of-the-gaps argument?

ID uses unexplained biological structures as evidence for design, concluding that an intelligent agent must have been involved.

What is the argument from analogy?

This argument compares biological systems to man-made machines, suggesting that since machines are designed, so are biological systems.

What is “irreducible complexity”?

"Irreducible complexity" refers to biological systems where all parts are necessary for function, implying they could not have evolved gradually. The article states this is a simplistic model.

Talk.Origins Archive Frequently Asked Questions

This section presents a series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) from the Talk.Origins Archive, addressing common queries about evolution and creationism. The archive itself is described as a resource providing mainstream scientific responses to issues raised in the talk.origins newsgroup.

What is the purpose of the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup?

To provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins.

What is the purpose of the Talk.Origins Archive?

To provide easy access to FAQ files and essays posted to the talk.origins newsgroup, offering mainstream scientific responses.

I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?

Biological evolution is both a fact (a change in genetic characteristics of a population) and a theory (describing the mechanisms that cause evolution). The evidence for historical evolution is overwhelming.

Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?

No, many people of various faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.

Isn't evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology?

No, evolutionary theory is comparable to any other valid scientific theory and is not a tautology.

If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?

Gaps exist due to the rarity of preservation and speciation occurring in small populations. However, transitions at higher taxonomic levels are abundant.

No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it's true?

Evolution has been observed both directly and indirectly.

Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?

Speciation has been observed in both the laboratory and in nature.

Doesn't the perfection of the human body prove Creation?

No, humans and other animals have many suboptimal characteristics.

According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn't that make evolution wildly improbable?

Evolution is not solely random chance; it also involves non-random selection.

Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics; order emerges from disorder naturally (e.g., snowflakes, embryos).

Didn't Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed?

This is a false story; a scientific theory stands or falls on facts, not on who believes it.

How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says it's young.

Numerous dating methods indicate the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Young-earth arguments often rely on flawed extrapolations.

But radiometric dating methods rely on the assumptions of non-contamination and constant rates of decay. What if these assumptions are wrong?

Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal contamination, and theoretical calculations and observations support constant decay rates.

I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true?

Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a C-decay is based on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements.

If Earth is so old, doesn't that mean Earth's decaying magnetic field would have been unacceptably high at one time?

No, the Earth's magnetic field has varied in intensity and polarity throughout its history.

Isn't the fossil record a result of the global flood described in the Book of Genesis?

No, a global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed in the geological record.

What about those fossils that cut through multiple layers?

These have natural explanations, such as tree roots or fossils found in inclined strata.

What about those human footprints that appear next to dinosaur footprints?

The "man-tracks" at Paluxy Riverbed are explained as eroded dinosaur tracks or human carvings, not actual human footprints alongside dinosaur ones.

Didn't they find Noah's Ark? I saw something on TV about this.

Claims of finding Noah's Ark have not been substantiated; a 1993 CBS television show on the topic was reportedly hoaxed.

The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.

This is irrelevant, as scientists do not claim cells arose through random processes but from more primitive precursors.

Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they be wrong?

The quality of an argument is not determined by the credentials of its author. Some creationists have questionable credentials and have used dishonest tactics.

What about Immanuel Velikovsky? Didn't he show that Earth has experienced a lot of major catastrophes?

Velikovsky claimed that certain written legends described real events, not necessarily major catastrophes.

Where can I find more material on the Creation/Evolution debate?

Resources include the National Center for Science Education, the Talk.Origins Archive, and its "Other links" page, as well as specific FAQs.

What about “intelligent design”?

ID advocates use arguments similar to creationists. The article notes that ID's "scientific" arguments are often disguised arguments from ignorance.

Doesn't irreducible complexity (as described in Behe's Darwin's Black Box) shown that some biomechanical systems could not evolve gradually, but must have all their parts created at once?

Behe's "irreducible complexity" is based on a simplistic model of evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms not considered by Behe make irreducible complexity possible.

Hasn't Jonathan Wells shown that Darwinist claims about such "icons of evolution” as the peppered moth, Haeckel's embryos, and Darwin's finches have been disproven? If so, why are these claims still found in biology textbooks?

Dr. Wells's arguments are described as including false statements, misunderstandings of science, and misunderstandings of the significance of the subjects he discusses.

Doesn't William Dembski's "specified complexity" mean that an intelligent designer had to be responsible for the observed complexity and diversity of living things?

Dembki's arguments are described as superficial. The article refers to examinations of his ideas available on the Archive.

Isn't it true that scientists are abandoning evolution?

This is not true; the vast majority of scientists support evolutionary theory.

If evolution is true, why don't you take Dr. Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge and make yourself rich?

Kent Hovind's challenge is described as a propaganda ploy, similar to his claimed "doctorate" claims.

Don't you know that the earth is round?

Yes, REALL acknowledges the Earth is round and keeps a flyer from the "International Flat Earth Society" for documentation.

Where can I learn more about evolution?

Starting with the talk.origins FAQs is suggested, with a library being a more appropriate place for a thorough understanding. Specific FAQs are recommended.

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

While not formally peer-reviewed, Archive materials have undergone commentary. Links and references are provided for evaluation, and the Archive is recognized as a valuable online resource used in college courses.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The REALL News consistently promotes rational thinking, critical inquiry, and the application of the scientific method. The publication appears to be skeptical of paranormal claims and fringe science, as evidenced by its focus on debunking creationist arguments and its critical examination of UFO phenomena. The editorial stance favors evidence-based reasoning and challenges pseudoscientific claims, particularly those related to Intelligent Design and creationism. The magazine also engages with topics of scientific interest, such as evolution and Darwin Day, reflecting a commitment to scientific literacy and education within its community.

This issue of The REALL News, dated January/February 2005, Volume 11, focuses on the intersection of Intelligent Design (ID) theory, evolutionary biology, and UFO phenomena. The publication is from the Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL).

Intelligent Design: Critiques of Core Concepts

The magazine critically examines the foundational concepts of Intelligent Design, particularly 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity,' as promoted by figures like Michael Behe and William Dembski.

Irreducible Complexity

ID advocates claim that irreducibly complex biochemical systems cannot evolve through natural evolution. The original definition of irreducible complexity required observing a system's current state to determine if removing any part rendered it non-functional. However, the article notes that acknowledged problems have led Behe and Dembski to propose new definitions that increasingly require consideration of evolutionary predecessors, making the judgment of irreducibility more complex. The text points out that even if a system is deemed irreducibly complex, it does not rule out an evolutionary origin, as biological systems can adapt to new functions. Behe's arguments against 'direct' and 'indirect' evolutionary pathways are discussed, with the author noting that his claims about the low probability of indirect pathways are based on intuition and ignorance, as biologists have not yet provided detailed accounts of such pathways. The article mentions that biologists have proposed evolutionary explanations for systems like the immune system, but ID advocates often focus on the bacterial flagellum, which is considered less well-explained.

Specified Complexity

The article clarifies the term 'specified complexity,' which ID advocates use as a marker of intelligent design. It explains that the term was originally coined by biologist Leslie Orgel and physicist Paul Davies to distinguish living organisms from non-living objects. In their sense, an object is complex if it cannot be compressed to a shorter description (akin to algorithmic or Kolmogorov complexity) and is 'specified' if it possesses a special property, such as coding for a living organism. Orgel's definition states that living organisms have specified complexity because they are both complex and specified.

However, the article highlights that Intelligent Design advocate William Dembski has recycled the term 'specified complexity' with a different meaning. For Dembski, 'complexity' is a measure of improbability, and he labels an object 'complex' if it has a low probability of occurring. He uses 'specified complexity' to argue that if an object's origin has a sufficiently small probability under a natural hypothesis, that hypothesis should be rejected. If all natural explanations can be rejected, and there are compelling reasons to believe no other natural explanation exists, then Dembski infers design. An example provided is Dembski's analysis of a politician's ballot order, where a disproportionate number of Democrat candidates were placed first. Dembski calculates the probability of this sequence occurring by chance and argues it indicates design.

The article criticizes Dembski for conflating Orgel's and Davies' usage of 'specified complexity' with his own. While biologists generally agree with Orgel and Davies' definition, they do not accept Dembski's argument that low probability implies design, as they believe compelling reasons for natural explanations have not been provided.

Dembski's Application to Biology: The Flagellum

Dembski's primary application of his 'specified complexity' method to biology is discussed, focusing on the bacterial flagellum of E. coli. The article states that Dembski considers a hypothesis of purely random combination of proteins, ignoring natural selection. This straw man argument is deemed irrelevant, and his probability calculation is dismissed. The core of Dembski's argument is his 'proscriptive generalization,' which relies on irreducible complexity. The article asserts that Dembski adds little to Behe's argument and fails to consider the possibility of the flagellum evolving from a system with a different function, a process known as 'co-option.' Dembski is criticized for claiming biologists have no clue how the flagellum evolved, despite proposed evolutionary scenarios.

Information and Design

Intelligent Design advocates often appeal to 'information' to support their claims, suggesting that the information in living organisms cannot arise by natural means. The article explains that information theory has multiple definitions, including algorithmic information (Kolmogorov complexity) and Shannon information. Both types of information can be generated by natural processes. Dembski's formulation of the 'information' argument is presented as being identical to his 'complexity' argument, using 'information' and 'complexity' synonymously as measures of improbability. His 'complex specified information' is equated with 'specified complexity.'

The Hill Case: "Suppressing a Smile"

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to a detailed analysis of the famous Hill UFO abduction case, specifically focusing on the interpretation of Barney Hill's account and its discrepancies across different tellings.

Fuller's Account vs. Webb's Version

The article contrasts John G. Fuller's book, "The Interrupted Journey," with a version of the account reportedly from an interview with Barney Hill by investigator Budd Hopkins (though the article refers to Webb's summary). Fuller's account includes details such as the saucer's wings extending and a figure smiling, which are not present in Webb's version. The article suggests that Fuller's version may have incorporated elements from hypnosis sessions conducted years after the event, and that the 'smile' detail, in particular, is presented in a way that implies the craft is preparing to land.

Barney's own account, particularly from his hypnosis sessions, is examined. A notable detail is Barney's description of a smile as a 'twinkling or a recognizing an eye as being part of a smile,' and his insistence on the 'absence of a mouth.' The article notes that Jerry Clark disputes the 'no mouths' impression as a myth, but the text suggests Barney's statement is unambiguous.

The article argues that Webb's version is preferable because it was written earlier, minimizing concerns about memory degradation and 'polishing' of the story. Webb's account is seen as making a better psychological fit with the rest of the journey, suggesting the 'transformation' of the craft was a blending of conflicting interpretations (plane vs. saucer).

Science Fiction Influence

Martin S. Kottmeyer, a skeptic, is quoted as relating the Hills' story to science fiction films like 'Invaders from Mars' and an episode of 'The Outer Limits' that aired shortly before Barney's hypnosis sessions. Investigator Karl Pflock argues against this influence, stating the Hills were not science fiction fans. However, Kottmeyer suggests that Betty might have simply forgotten seeing the show or that Barney, who worked the night shift, could have seen it. The article finds it curious that Kottmeyer's rebuttal to Clark and Bullard is not mentioned.

Other Interpretations and Details

The article also touches on other aspects of the Hill case, including the description of the aliens (large black eyes, grey skin, small noses and mouths, large chests, navy blue uniforms), and the denial of telepathy by both Barney and Betty. It questions the claim that the aliens were 'friendly' and that the examiner smiled, noting that the description of the aliens aligns with archetypal 'Grays.'

The concept of 'swing-wing' aircraft, which could change wing shape in flight, is discussed as a possible influence on the description of the UFO's transforming wings, noting that this technology was being experimented with in the early 1950s and appeared in popular culture like the TV series 'Supercar.'

Upcoming REALL Events

The magazine concludes by announcing two upcoming events hosted by REALL in Springfield, Illinois:

1. Field Trip: On Tuesday, February 1, a talk titled "Intelligent Design: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution" by John Mark Henry will be held at Lincoln Library.
2. Celebration: On Saturday, February 12, REALL will celebrate Darwin Day (Charles Darwin's anniversary) and REALL's 12th anniversary with a meal, an "Evolution Jeopardy" contest, and other activities.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critique of Intelligent Design arguments, particularly 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity,' and a detailed examination of the Hill UFO abduction case. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of Intelligent Design, presenting scientific counterarguments and highlighting perceived flaws in ID reasoning. The analysis of the Hill case also leans towards debunking or offering more rational explanations, questioning the influence of science fiction and suggesting discrepancies in various accounts. The magazine appears to promote a rational, scientific perspective against what it views as pseudoscientific claims.