linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basismar.88

Text File | 1997-06-27 | 37KB | 841 lines

-------------------------------------------------------
March 1988 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
-------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 7, No. 3
                Editor:  Kent Harker



SHROUD STILL SHROUDED IN MYSTERY
by Steve Orr

[The Shroud of Turin has stirred imagination and controversy among
millions since analyses have been conducted during the past five
or six years. After all the time and effort, major questions
remain. Believers find "proof" of what they want, and skeptics
remain skeptical.

Some of the best skeptical review has been done by Joe Nickell in
his book "The Inquest of the Shroud", and articles in the
"Skeptical Inquirer". The best skeptical evidence points to a 12th
- 14th century religious art work using daubed-on dyes, a process
that wouldn't leave brush strokes. (Protagonists think a brush is
the only way to transfer coloring material.) Bits of blood, Middle-
Eastern pollen grains, etc., could very easily have been added to
the cloth without concluding Jesus' body was wrapped in and
resurrected through it.

Before the advent of high-energy accelerators, dating methods
required destruction of the entire sample -- obviously unacceptable
for this important relic. Although a date of 35 CE would do nothing
to prove that the shroud is what the church claims it to be, it
would lend a small measure of credibility by increasing the
plausibility. (In fact, testing on almost any feature of the cloth
can scarcely make a positive case of any kind; something
unexplained is only unexplained, not necessarily supernatural.) On
the other hand, any later date than 35 CE would instantly vaporize
the religious claims. The church has everything to lose and almost
nothing to gain from testing except perhaps relief from the charge
of conspiracy to conceal a hoax.

The following article is printed with permission from "The
Democrat".]

A university of Rochester physicist who has waited nearly a decade
for the chance to help date the Shroud of Turin, believed by some
to be the burial cloth of Jesus, now has been told he never will
get the chance.

In a reversal of an agreement reached a year ago, the Cardinal of
Turin has said that only three laboratories, not seven, will be
given a small piece of the shroud to test.

Prof. Harry E. Gove's Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory at the
UR is one of the four research institutions that has been dropped
from participation.

"I'm disappointed. I've put a lot of effort into it," said Gove,
who helped pioneer the sophisticated dating method that would be
used to establish the age of the shroud.

Noting that the Roman Catholic Church leaders have changed their
minds before on the subject, Gove said he is not giving up hope.

"I don't think the last word has been said yet," said Gove reached
at a scientific conference in Nashville, Tenn.

For on thing, the three laboratories that were told they could test
the shroud have informed church officials that all seven should be
included to enhance the scientific validity of the testing.

"I think they (church leaders) are either going to say they're not
going to date the shroud right now, or they're going to reconvene
the seven laboratories and talk about what kind of compromise
they're prepared to make," Gove said.

Scientists have attempted for years to prove or disprove the
authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, which is one of the most
prized relics of the Roman Catholic Church.

The shroud, a 14-by-3+ foot piece of linen, bears the image of a
bearded man who appears to have been whipped, stabbed in the side
and crowned with thorns.

The history of the shroud can be traced back to a 14th-century
crusader, who apparently brought the relic to Europe from the
Middle East.

The shroud is owned by the Vatican but kept in Turin, Italy, under
the care of Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero.

Some devotees say the image was created by a miraculous burst of
energy that accompanied Jesus' resurrection.

The cloth has been subjected to a number of scientific tests in
recent years that have showed the image is not imprinted or
painted, and which have found traces of blood on the linen.

Those tests did not involve destruction of any part of the shroud.
The carbon-14 dating that would be done by Gove and other
institutions would involve removal of a piece about the size of two
large postage stamps.

The destruction of even a small part of the shroud was a stumbling
block for years, though church officials finally agreed to the
examination about a year ago. Pope John Paul reportedly approved
the study.

But Gove and scientists at the six other research laboratories in
the U.S. and Europe received a letter last month from Cardinal
Ballestrero saying that only three labs would be allowed to
proceed.

Gove and other scientists say they do not know why the decision
was changed.

"They spoke about conservation (of the shroud's material) but that
does not seem to be a reasonable or plausible reason for reducing
the number of labs. The amount of cloth to be taken was minuscule,"
said Garman Harbottle of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in
Brookhaven, another of the laboratories that has been excluded from
the testing.

Both Gove and Harbottle said that using three labs -- and not seven
-- to test the shroud would be scientifically risky.

"Once in a while, you'll get a really bad number. If that happens
with six or seven labs, you can handle it," Harbottle said. But if
only three labs are used and one of the finding is wildly
erroneous, he suggested, "it will be a can of worms. No result you
get after that will ever be convincing."

Speculated Gove: "It's almost as if they (church officials) want
it to be done in a way that's questionable."

The testing method that would be used by six of the seven
laboratories was one developed at the UR by Gove and other
researchers about 10 years ago.

It is an updated version of carbon-14 dating, with which scientists
can date once-living objects by measuring the remaining amount of
carbon-14, a radioactive isotope that decays at a known rate.

Gove's approach employs a nuclear accelerator and is advantageous
because only a very small amount of material is needed.



PARAPSYCHOLOGIST DEFROCKED

The "Sunday Times" in the U.K. airs a bitter dispute between one
Dr. Carl Sargent of Cambridge university, a scientist who claims
to have proved the existence of telepathic powers and Dr. Susan
Blackmore, a researcher at Bristol university's brain and
perception laboratory.

For a science (parapsychology) plagued by tricksters and
charlatans, but in which Sargent's careful laboratory-based
approach had seemed to establish a core of factual evidence, the
accusations are an acute embarrassment, if not a disaster.

Blackmore, who spoke at the 1985 CSICOP conference, had read about
some of Sargent's work in parapsychological journals and tried
unsuccessfully to replicate his astounding results in telepathy and
then decided to watch him at work. (Ms. Blackmore worked as a
parapsychologist and finally left the field, disillusioned after
ten years of negative results.)

Sargent's subjects would lie on a mattress, alone in a windowless
room with only a red light, their eyes covered and headphones
transmitting "white noise." (All this to try to reduce interfering
stimuli.) They were instructed to describe images that came into
their consciousness, presumably from senders in an adjacent room.
The descriptions were then judged for accuracy against a picture
the sender was trying to transmit.

After carefully watching the procedure for several days, Blackmore
"saw Sargent handle the envelopes in a way that could have allowed
him to know which picture had been chosen." She also said she saw
Sargent in what appeared to be an attempt to steer the judge
towards choosing a particular picture.

Sargent was outraged at Blackmore's charges, and counter-charged
that she "made up her hypotheses on the basis of no more than
`trivial and random' errors, and he stands by his findings."

In what must be characterized as admirable scientific protocol,
the Parapsychological Association voted to censure Sargent "for
refusing requests to release data from the experiments for
checking." There are laudable efforts to maintain a scientific
atmosphere in many of the parapsychological laboratories.



BOOK REVIEW

Our own resident UFO expert and former BAS Chairman Robert Sheaffer
(who incidentally also writes the "Psychic Vibrations" column for
the "Skeptical Inquirer") is coming out with another book this
spring. It is a book written from a Libertarian perspective, titled
"Resentment Against Achievement", to be published by Prometheus
Books. While much of the book deals with political, economic, and
religious matters, and hence lies outside the scope of "BASIS",
skeptics will be interested in Sheaffer's analysis of the
foundation of pseudoscience, which he attributes primarily to
widespread resentment against science: envy of the influence,
prestige and money of those who have successfully pursued science
and technology.

In a chapter titled "Resentment Against Science, Technology, and
Medicine," he notes that in the past two centuries the influence
and power of the scientific elite has grown dramatically, often at
the expense of the liberal arts, and has reduced the demand for and
the status of unskilled labor. This has resulted in widespread envy
and discontent with things associated with science among some
members of these groups.

The attraction of the pseudosciences, says Sheaffer, is that they
allow those who harbor strong resentments against science to
imagine that simple-minded explanations are superior to carefully-
reasoned ones, derived by disciplined investigation, and hence that
those ignorant of science are in fact more knowledgeable than
scientists -- who themselves are blind to the "facts" about psychic
powers, ancient astronauts, UFOs, etc. The advantage of the
pseudosciences is to allow the untrained or even the illiterate to
imagine themselves superior to all the scientists who have ever
lived.

"Pseudoscience is the manifestation of the belief that ignorant
answers are better than carefully-reasoned ones, that the haphazard
belief systems of the common people are more correct than those of
the scientific and technical elite. The pseudosciences delight the
resentful by portraying sages as simpletons and simpletons as
sages." Those who are interested in theories that seek to explain
the surprising durability of pseudoscientific thinking will want
to read "Resentment Against Achievement", which will be available
in a few months.



EDITOR'S CORNER
by Kent Harker

Whatever is certain is not science. What is science is forever
uncertain. So said Einstein at the turn of this century.

The scientific successes of this century have caused us to regard
the person in a white lab coat as something of a demigod, and
phrases like "scientifically proven," have become the standard of
proof. The expectation is that science and technology can produce
everything to make us well, happy and comfortable. There is
disappointment and resentment on learning that a doctor might not
know everything, or that doctors disagree among themselves.

Truth, with a capital "T", is an end-of-the-rainbow quest from a
scientific standpoint. There are four principle barriers between
science and "Truth": ignorance, error, anomaly, and counter-
example. Leaving ignorance aside, as the solution to that problem
is obvious, the job of science could well be how we are able to
sort data into one of the other categories. If the newest
information does not seem to go along with a particular theory, how
do we deal with it? Depending upon how we categorize, we will throw
out the information, ignore it, or change a theory.

No matter how powerful the theory, there is always the possibility
of that little counter-example lurking out there which will cut the
legs from under and overturn the whole thing. For those who need
certainty, this comes as a surprise at least, because the man on
the street has come to think that what is "scientifically proven"
is fact of the same caliber that 2 and 2 make four. The very nature
of science is that it is tentative to a greater or lesser degree.

The so-called scientific creationists attempt to exploit the public
misunderstanding of this. The creationists sift the scientific
literature (this is the way they do research) to find statements
in which a scientist issues a carefully-guarded statement about his
or her latest work--words like "it seems that..," or "it may be
that..," or "we feel that.."--all used to indicate proper
scientific caution (and a little skepticism). Creationists pounce
upon such phrases and say it is evidence that scientists only have
a kind of religious faith in their theories. No different (they
say) than the faith of a creationist in his theories.

The other half of this dichotomy is presented when a scientist
extols the power of a theory (evolution, for example), corroborated
by a mountain of supporting evidence. Now our antagonist sneers
that scientists and their theories are dogmatic, and that after
all, it is "only a theory." It is easy to understand why many
scientists are unwilling to get into a three-ring circus debate
with creationists when polemics and tactical maneuvers are more
important than real scientific issues.

I am always impressed by some of the PBS nature series programs.
Impressed with the dedication and tireless work of real scientists.
Real science is getting dirt under ones fingernails. Real science
is spending cold nights in a small tent in Nepal or sweltering
noons in the Serengeti with the barest of necessities.

A recent article in the "New York Times" described the work of
Bonnie Cole, a doctoral candidate at NYU who just spent 18 months
in Uganda eviscerating mice. Her purpose was to test the hypothesis
that specialized species die out when their environment changes.
This sounds obviously true, but there was no body of evidence to
support it, so off she went to Uganda. This is the stuff of which
scientific research is made.

Creationists prefer the comfort of the library, browsing through
books, newspapers and journals for some juicy citation to show "the
other side" is really either weak and uncertain (scientists
disagree with one another), or iron-fisted dogmatists.

The constant companion of real science is uncertainty. The ability
and willingness to trash years of work with the discovery of new,
controverting evidence is the hallmark of science. The decision of
when and how to overturn a theory comes back to anomaly, error, or
the counter-example. The degree of uncertainty allowed in a given
theory is a measure of our confidence in the quality of the
evidence and the reliability of the assumptions.

A good example of this problem is illustrated in the theory of
radiometric dating. This method is based upon the known time
required for the decay of half the radioactive atoms in a sample
(the parent material) to a different atom or isotope (the daughter
material). This time, called the half-life, can be determined to
a very high degree of accuracy under laboratory conditions.

To make a radiometric age determination of a sample, the ratio of
parent-daughter material is measured: very small amounts of
daughter material imply a recent date and conversely. Problems
arise in that a sample may have had extraneous parent and/or
daughter material introduced at any time during the past, which
will obviously affect the dating. A primary assumption of this
dating method is that the rates of decay have been constant -- it
is very difficult to imagine what kind of physics could make them
non-constant.

This process of dating is difficult, requiring a great deal of time
and some formidable technology. When widely differing dates occur
from a single sample (and they sometimes do), study is begun in an
effort to determine the extent of intrusion. Dates are then cross
checked with as many other methods possible to put a window on the
final date. From beginning to end, the work can take as much as a
year. In some cases, a large error factor is allowed because of the
uncertainties of intrusion and initial conditions.

When a wide error factor is allowed, it indicates the difficulty
of sorting out error, anomaly, and counter-example. What does it
mean when a moon rock sample is dated at 120 million years old when
all the rest check out in the 4+ billion-year range? Is it an
anomaly, have we made errors in our measurements, or is it
indicative of the real age of our satellite? Since a 120MY date
would be a minority category, it would be treated as an anomaly.
But the sample would sit on a shelf with a glowing appeal all its
own for some bright geologist somewhere, hoping to make a name with
a major discovery. That rock is in the back of his or her mind.

A theory about how and why the rock has that age might prove to be
powerful enough to challenge the reigning paradigm. Our genius
might be able to prove that it is a counter-example, and a single
counter-example is sufficient to fell the most noble theory.

Creationists spend their time looking at the uncertainties of
science and then showing their congregations (and anyone else who
will listen) that scientists disagree, and that there are errors,
and anomalies. All this really demonstrates is that scientists are
doing science, and that science is alive and well. But they
concentrate on the uncertainty, packaged with some errors (the
Piltdown hoax, for example) and a lot of anomalies, and then
translated the whole thing into a picture of a crumbling
superstructure shot through with counter-examples and a
conspiratorial community trying to maintain its empire.

The creationist recognizes only one category: counter-example. Of
course, this is a simple misunderstanding of science, but it may
be due in part to their own position. They claim absolute truth.
There is no such thing as anomaly or error in absolutes. The
faintest breath of error is anathema to absolutes.

Cosmologists say that the universe might have existed for as much
as 20 billion years. Creationists pounce upon the "might," and "as
much as," and propose that their 6,000-year-old proposition is just
as plausible. We may never have the means of refining the estimates
(yes, estimates) of the age of the universe to better than 18 BY
plus or minus 3 BY -- a 17% error factor. This magnitude of error
has to say to any reasoning person that we are less than certain.
There is no attempt to hide this fact of uncertainty. It is openly
discussed. But what kind of convoluted logic is involved when one
can say that since there is as much as a 17% uncertainty, a
99.999996% uncertainty is thinkable?

The proposition of a six-thousand-year-old universe, using the
uncertainty scientists have about the current estimates, is like
saying that since we cannot telescopically measure a mountain ridge
on Pluto any more accurately than 35.5 miles long give or take six
miles, we are justified in saying it is only one inch long.

There will always be error in the human endeavor of science. There
will always be anomalies -- unexplained quirks that will require
more time and technology to clarify. When a counter-example
surfaces, we must be ready, willing and able to change. Change and
uncertainty are the nature of science. Rigidity and certainty are
the stock in trade of pseudoscience.



PARADOXICAL WHIRLIGIG
Copyright (C) S.E. Brown (TQM)

Around and around
Religions do go,
From the days of yore
To the times we know.

Self-contradiction
In a whirligig dance,
Transports the willing
To a specious trance.

False dichotomy
Predicates the spin;
When logic's ignored...
Fallacy sets in!

We skeptics can't bear
Paradigms absurd --
Arguments proposed
From paradoxed "Word".

Would the whirling soon
By inquiry, slow,
Misguidance foregone...
Truth sought, now to know.



NOVEMBER MEETING
by Keith Henson

In the announcement of the November BAS meeting, it was mentioned
that animal language was "addressed" at the last CSICOP meeting in
Pasadena but no researchers in the field saw fit to present their
side to the skeptics. Can't say I blame them. All aspects of the
subject have become heavily loaded with emotional controversy.

Our speaker, Ms. Mitzi Phillips, has been working for several years
as an assistant to Penny Patterson. Ms. Patterson and her work with
Koko have become famous, especially after the "National Geographic"
story that featured Koko and her pet kitten. At the November
meeting in Campbell, Ms. Phillips described her work in some
detail, complete with slides of Koko and Michael, the male gorilla
at the Gorilla Foundation location in Woodside, to a sometimes
hostile audience of Bay Area Skeptics.

Is this "language"? Ms. Phillips made no claims to such that I
noticed. She simply described Koko's ability to communicate with
Ms. Patterson and herself, and let the audience apply their own
words to what she described. Ms. Phillips made no secret about her
attachment to these charming (and most likely doomed in the wild)
animals. Many in the audience seemed to feel that there was serious
self-delusion involved in her report. The question-and-answer
period included comments that Ms. Patterson had not published in
reviewed journals, (there are often good reasons) and arguments
about semantics.

Subjects that involve changing our world view, or those close to
humans' closely-guarded "superiority" seem especially prone to
controversy in the form of overstatement and reaction. Much of the
initial enthusiasm, and some of the latter criticism was over a
single chimp in a distantly related experiment.

Work in artificial intelligence is plagued by similar-sounding
arguments and changing definitions. At one time, playing chess was
considered an intelligent activity. Now that computers can play at
near-master levels, it is considered a mechanical activity. If the
trend keeps up, the effect of long-range computer development may
be to eliminate the concept of human intelligence entirely! One
solution to the ape-language problem would be to simply define
whatever they can do as outside of "language". But language is, by
its very nature, subjective. Communication involves not only a
shorthand exchange of symbols but a shared information base between
the two parties. If they are talking in a symbol system we don't
know, or we are getting second-hand reports, it is hard to say how
much is actual communication, and how much is just the subjective
report of one side.

Are the people at the Gorilla Foundation fooling themselves? Or can
some gorillas develop a significant ability to communicate with us?
More interesting, is there a consciousness out there, somewhat
similar to ours, in these magnificent animals? I frankly find the
reports of jokes Koko plays on her keepers, her attempts to lie,
and her whimsical nature to be more convincing than all the double-
blind, item-naming tests that were described. But truth does not
depend on my opinion, publication or non-publication in a reviewed
journal, or even the opinion of a patron saint of the skeptics.

Is it a good idea for the skeptics to get involved in this subject?
After both my experience of rank derision while trying to present
the concept of a meme, and this talk, I don't think so. I don't
think skeptics distinguish very well between new topics that need
thoughtful consideration before they settle down, and topics that
just need to be put down.



SURE-FIRE PREDICTIONS
by Yves Barbero

Each year, Psychics make end-of-the-year predictions affecting
everything from royalty to volcanoes. And, each year, Bay Area
Skeptics takes the previous year's predictions and dissects them
for validity. Thus far, it seems, psychics have a low batting
average. They should be sent back to the Farm Team on page 57 of
your favorite supermarket tabloid.

This year, in an effort to be helpful, I am offering ten
predictions that can't fail -- barring a nuclear war, of course....

In the field of politics:

1. President Reagan will not get a crew-cut next year.

2. The Soviet Union will promise to get out of Afghanistan at least
three times.

3. Gary Hart's campaign will continue to state that he didn't
return to the Democratic contender ranks to get Federal matching
funds.

About Royalty:

4. Princess Di will make the cover of the "National Enquirer"
twenty or more times.

5. British Royalty will not be abolished.

National Concerns:

6. The Budweiser people will continue to insist that the party
animal, Spuds McKenzie, has not been recruited to get young people
to drink.

7. 432 scholars, intellectuals, captains-of-industry and high-level
civil servants will be asked if they are "fun people" before being
allowed on the radio by talk show hosts.

Sports:

8. A team from either the National League or the American League
will win the World Series and at least one football team will win
the Superbowl.

The Media:

9. Four hundred and six new diet books will appear on the market.
Three hundred and eighty-two cook books will also appear. Seventeen
new brands of cigarettes, all low in tar, will appear on the world
market.

10. A public relations professional will decry the fact that his
candidate can't get his real message across on television and make
us all yearn for the good old days of yellow journalism.

And finally, I know it's eleven, but spokespersons for Bay Area
Skeptics will insist, at least 765 times, that because a psychic
is sincere, does not mean he or she is right.



RAMPARTS

("Ramparts" is a regular feature of "BASIS", and your participation
is urged. Clip, snip and tear bits of irrationality from your local
scene and send them to the Editor. If you want to add some comment
with the submission, please do so.)

The "Buffalo News" reports that Shirley MacLaine's metaphysics
class was singularly unenlightening in a literal sense.

The metaphysical Ms. had just started a class of 1,000, teaching
them how to connect with their higher selves "when a 12-inch water-
line burst near the hotel and flooded a power station." The power
went out in the hall and candles were rushed into the room. Shirley
instructed her disciples to sit cross-legged on the floor and
meditate to "spiritually repair the broken water main."

"Imagine the water slowing down", she told them. "Now picture the
workmen finding the broken pipe and securing them together."

The scheduled seven-hour seminar concluded several hours later --
still in the dark.


Shirley can't seem to keep herself out of the news on all psychic
fronts. The "Minneapolis Star and Tribune" shed light on some
definitely in-body experiences of an out-of-body channeler for Ms.
MacLaine.

Charles Silva pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal sexual
conduct for deceiving two female patients into "believing they were
receiving therapy when he attempted to have sex with them."

Silva is facing deportation to Peru as a result of the charges. He
claims that he was MacLaine's guide and confidante on her Peruvian
trip, which led to her book "Out on a Limb".


The razor-tongued advocate sounds the depth of his knowledge of
logic as he plies his craft prosecuting his case.

So why isn't there a carry-over to normal, work-a-day routine?
Attorney Peter Gersten, a criminal lawyer in New York, is reported
in the "Reporter Dispatch" to have conducted a UFO conference in
White Plains, NY, and he recounted that "12 unrelated earthlings
in the Hudson Valley have reported being kidnapped by aliens."

"Twelve is too large a number for the hostage reports to have been
coincidental fantasies." (He thinks that is the only other
possibility.) He added, "...the chances of that happening are
astronomical unless there's actually something there. If a dozen
people said they were taken hostage by a motorcycle gang, their
claim would generate a massive investigation."

Well, Peter, this means that there is still hope that sanity reigns
in our police departments when they can distinguish between the
importance of investigating a Hell's Angels hostage take and a
Space-Men hostage take.


BAS advisor Earl Hautala was inspired by the November "BASIS" blurb
in "Ramparts" about psychics for our pets when he saw an article
in "The Wall Street Journal". Sales must be down, because they ran
a four-column article about psychics in the help-you-understand-
your-pet business. Anything you want to know about what your pet
is thinking or would like to tell you can be ferreted out by an
especially sensitive psychic. Some of them are even specialized.
Go one place for your cockateil and another for your iguana. A dog
psychic, Lydia Hibby, told the owner of a white spaniel named Didi
that "Didi wanted to know what happened to the big black dog I had
six years ago. We thought Didi was stupid, but evidently she lies
around and thinks a lot.

A cat named Lulu told her owner to "stop trying to sneak out of the
house and pretend that she doesn't notice".

As to how the animals manage to send their notions to us, psychic
Alice Lydecker says she "mentally asks questions, and receives
images from the pet". Of course, you can pay for a seminar and
tapes and learn how to psyche your pets by yourself.

Well, this stuff is big business, so maybe the "Journal" is just
keeping up on the entrepreneurial spirit in the world of psi.

Channeling is the big thing -- business is booming, reports the
"Journal". (Our own sturdy psychic, Sylvia Brown, keeps abreast of
the best trends by cashing in on the channeling mania; she trance-
channels an "Aztec-Inca".) The most lucrative way to get on the
band wagon is through numbers. Seminars. If you want to have some
New Age experience you've got to do it in a seminar. Maybe this is
just good ol' red-blooded American capitalism.

What it all says is that people don't want honesty or truth. We
want feelings.



NEW BOARD MEMBERS

With the New Year there are some new faces on the BAS Board of
Directors.

Former "BASIS" co-editors Diane Moser and Ray Spangenburg have been
under contract to write a couple of books since their resignation
as editors, but they have remained on the board to have a voice in
the affairs of BAS. Regrettably, time constraints have grown
tighter, and they have asked to be replaced. We will miss their
moderating influence and wish them well in their work.

Michael McCarthy has also requested release from Board membership.
He worked closely with Steiner and Sheaffer in founding BAS.
Sincere thanks to these three people who have given their time and
talents. They have all assured us they will stay close and give
support and advice.

Well, the next order of business is to fill the vacancies.

We have come to regard the services of the "bane of the faith-
healers", Don Henvick, as a given. Don has spent large sums of his
own money, not to mention time, traveling throughout the country
to track the likes of Popoff and Grant. His work has been a major
contribution to the decline of W.V. Grant and the virtual fall of
Peter Popoff. We feel fortunate to have his influence on a formal
basis, as he has accepted a position on the board.

Norman Sperling has been closely following the activities of BAS
for the past four years. He was editor of "Sky and Telescope", and
is completing his M.S. in science history at UCB. Norm has one of
those minds that absorb detail to such an extent that you had
better have your facts absolutely correct or you will find them in
your lap! If some detail is in a book he has read, it is in some
neuron above his shoulders. The guy must have cortical material in
his legs.

"BASIS" and the rest of the Board of Directors welcome Don and
Norm, and we want the readers out there to know that this board is
dedicated to the goals of BAS.



AUSTRALIAN CATHOLICS DENOUNCE CREATIONISM
by William Bennetta

The Catholic Education Office in Sydney, Australia, has issued a
paper that denounces creation science as nonsense and tells plainly
that the proponents of creation science rely on fraud and deceit.

The Office is responsible for religious instruction in some 340
Catholic schools in the archdiocese of Sydney. It began vigorously
to combat creationism in the autumn of 1986, when it published a
paper -- called "The Two Books of God" -- that rejected biblical
literalism, rejected creationism, made clear that creationism
contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church, and declared that
no teacher should consider presenting creationism as if it were
scientific.

The Office's new paper is called "The Bumbling, Stumbling,
Crumbling Theory of Creation Science", and it carries an
introductory note that says, in part:

"This paper considers creation science as science. It clearly
demonstrates that creation science is a pseudo-science and utter
nonsense. In addition, this paper shows beyond any doubt that
creation science uses fraud and deceit to achieve its ends.

"Creation science is also shown to be the evangelizing area of a
narrow, US-derived fundamentalism.

"Brilliant marketing techniques have been responsible for the
significant success of creationism.

"Creation science has no place in Australian schools. This is
demonstrated conclusively for any reader with an open mind."

The paper was issued officially on 1 December 1987, and a front-
page story about it appeared in the "Sydney Morning Herald" of that
date. The headline was: "Creationism Utter Nonsense, Catholics
Told." Here is an excerpt from the story:

"The booklet, published by the Catholic Education Office (CEO),
says the Biblical account of the world's origins is not meant to
be taken at face value.

"It encourages children to ask how Noah managed to carry in his
133-metre-long Ark pairs of dinosaurs weighing up to 70 tonnes each
-- `among them the most ferocious meat-eating predators' -- not to
mention hundreds of thousands of pairs of insects.

"It also ridicules attempts by some creationists to reconcile the
apparent age of the universe with their belief that God created
the world 6,000 years ago.

"It singles out the creationist view that the speed of light has
slowed down since the day of creation, a view needed to explain
why the light from distant stars appears to have taken millions of
years to reach us.

"Using creationist calculations, it argues that light must have
traveled 200,000 million times faster at the time of creation than
today.

"If that were true, the energy from lighting a match would be 4 x
10 to the 21st power times greater, since the energy depends on the
speed of light squared.

"Fires lit by the first human beings 6,000 years ago would thus
have triggered the equivalent of small nuclear detonations."

It also attacks creationist claims that Aborigines have not been
in Australia for 40,000 years, as archaeological evidence suggests,
and that their Dreamtime stories are memories of the main events
recorded in the Bible.

"Surely it must be close to blasphemy to dismiss the aspirations,
hopes and religious history of a proud people as `racial memories
of Creation and the Tower of Babel'."

Readers may order a copy of "The Bumbling, Stumbling, Crumbling
Theory of Creation Science" by writing to Barry Price, Catholic
Education Office, Archdiocese of Sydney, 42 Consul Road, Brookvale
2100, Australia.

This article is important if for no other reason than it shows the
absurdity of the creationist dichotomy that origins thinking is
only between themselves and atheistic evolutionists.



THE GANZFELD EXPERIMENTS

Peter Bishop, President of the Humanist Community of San Jose, will
be the featured speaker at the March BAS meeting.

The so-called "Ganzfeld" (German for "total field") experiments are
characterized by a technique for the study of perception that
creates a homogeneous visual field by placing halves of ping-pong
balls over a subject's eyes, and then shining a bright light on the
balls. The subject is placed in a comfortable position and white
noise is played into earphones. All this is done in an effort to
place the subject's mind in "neutral" so the test will involve only
the variables directed by the experimenter. Experiments conducted
with this method are alleged to have produced the most startling
evidence confirming psi.

Bishop will share his considerable analyses and critique these
experiments, showing that major design flaws exist. Bishop will
review the critical work of CSICOP fellow Dr. Ray Hyman and add his
own analyses.

Join BAS for this educational presentation. The Ganzfeld
experiments are hailed as some of the best proof of psi, so it is
important that informed skeptics be up to snuff on this work.

                             -----

Opinions expressed in "BASIS" are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of BAS, its board or its advisors.

The above are selected articles from the March, 1988 issue of
"BASIS", the monthly publication of Bay Area Skeptics. You can
obtain a free sample copy by sending your name and address to BAY
AREA SKEPTICS, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA 94122-3928 or by
leaving a message on "The Skeptic's Board" BBS (415-648-8944) or
on the 415-LA-TRUTH (voice) hotline.

Copyright (C) 1988 BAY AREA SKEPTICS.  Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco,
CA 94122-3928."

                             -END-