linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/icrextra.txt

Internet Message Format | 1997-06-27 | 41KB

From: "James J. Lippard" <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: Ian Plimer and Australian creationism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Wed, 23 Sep 1992 09:26:39 -0700
>Date: 23 Sep 1992 18:18:46 +1000
>From: [e-mail]
>Subject: Telling Lies for God

>      Anyway, I thought the list would be interested in some happenings
>down here. I don't know if the story made the international news, but there
>was an Australian guy called Alan Roberts who was kidnapped by Kurdish
>rebels in Eastern Turkey last year, and was dragged around the countryside
>by them for weeks before being released. The interesting thing about
>Roberts is that he is a Creationist Scientist who was in Turkey looking for
>Noah's Ark. After his kidnapping, he gained a lot of media attention in
>Australia over his claims to have found the Ark on Mt. Ararat, and he went
>on a national lecture tour to present his findings. Roberts presents
>himself as Dr. Roberts, B.A. B.Litt, M.Ed, D.C.E., M.A.C.E., a qualified
>archeologist. He does have a B.A. in History and English from the
>University of New England (in New South Wales, a perfectly good Uni), but
>the rest of his qualifications are from unaccredited 'degree-mills' in the
>U.S. and he has no training in archeology or geology.

Roberts was part of a team that also included Ron Wyatt, John Baumgardner,
and David (?) Fasold.  Wyatt and Fasold
have each authored books about their "Ark" finding, which disagree on the
details.  Among the "scientific" evidence they collected are the results
of using dowsing rods to find bits of metal and wooden beams in the "ark."
Baumgardner was the only person on the team with scientific credentials,
and he now completely rejects the claims of the others.  The Institute for
Creation Research published a debunking of this ark claim (by John Morris)
a month or two ago in _Acts & Facts_.  The Australian Creation Science
Foundation also rejects these claims.
   Wyatt bills himself as a real Indiana Jones and claims to have found
Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea, among other biblical finds.

So not only do I agree with this debunking of Roberts, so do the largest
creationist groups.

>[text deleted]
>      'We were informed that the structure fits the dimensions given for
>the Ark in the Bible exactly, ie 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide. This
>is, of course, after you select the right cubit. The standard fifteen inch
>cubit used in the ancient world doesn't fit the structure's dimensions at
>all, but apparently the 26 inch 'Royal Egyptian Cubit' does. The audience
>was informed that the existence of this ancient unit of measurement was
>discovered by a certain Piazzi Smith in 1864. What we weren't told was that
>Piazzi Smith was a renowned religious crackpot who invented the 'Royal
>Cubit' to 'prove' that the Great Pyramid was actually built by Moses and
>that its dimensions could be used to foretell the future. This did not stop
>the peculiar Mr. Smith from chiselling pieces of the pyramid off when they
>did not fit his hare-brained calculations. That Mr. Roberts uses this
>totally invented unit of measurement is an indication of his
>professionalism.

More on Charles Piazzi Smyth may be found in chapter 15 of Martin
Gardner's _Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science_.

>      So much for Roberts as a scientist. Enter the real scientist, the
>hero of our story. Professor Ian Plimer (note: Australian Profs are proper
>Profs, like in Britain), Head of the School of Earth Sciences at Melbourne
>University, has spent ten years doing field research in Turkey and is an
>active opponent of Creation Science.

Here I have to express some concern about Ian Plimer being construed as
a "hero."  I think his critique of Roberts is basically sound, but keep
reading.

>      Plimer heard of Roberts' national lecture tour, and went along to the
>South Blackburn Baptist Church (in Victoria) on April 4th, 1992 to hear his
>talk. At the end, Roberts would not allow the audience to directly ask him
>questions. They had to write their questions down, and Roberts would select
>questions to answer. Plimer's difficult questions were conveniently not
>selected. So Plimer tried to ask questions anyway, and was forcibly removed
>from the building by the police.
>      Plimer then engaged the help of 'A Current Affair', Australia's
>biggest current-affair show. They sent a camera crew down to Hobart to film
>Robert's talk, and smuggled Plimer into the lecture, which was being held
>at the University of Tasmania's main lecture theatre, hired out by the
>organizers.
>      'This time, when the Chairman asked for (written) questions, Prof.
>Plimer stood up and began questioning Roberts about his highly dubious
>credentials and his amateurish 'data'.
>      'The audience's reaction was astonishing. The Chairman of the
>presentation began shouting over the microphone in a desperate attempt to
>drown out what the Prof had to say. He then encouraged the audience to clap
>loudly so that no-one could hear the Prof's questions, which at least
>three-quarters of the audience dutifully proceeded to do. The police
>appeared in a matter of seconds and spent some time removing Professor
>Plimer and his wife from the lecture theatre while various members of the
>audience shouted abuse at him. The rage which greeted Professor Plimer's
>attempt at presenting an alternative view of the evidence bordered on
>barely suppressed violence and was really quite frightening to see.'
>      Later, the TV journalist managed to get one of Plimer's written
>questions accepted, but Roberts 'used the old Creationist ploy of "I don't
>understand this question. This question makes no sense." -a tactic which
>allows the Creationist not to answer and which implies that the questioner
>is some kind of idiot.'
>      Hobart's main newspaper, 'The Mercury' (owned by Rupert Murdoch)
>reported the happenings as a front-page story, but unfortunately they
>reported it as though it was a debate between two academics that got out of
>hand. 'The Mercury' is in many ways a fine newspaper, but they have been
>increasing the number of uncritical New Age and parapsychological stories
>from overseas, and when it comes to reporting on such matters, some very
>unskeptical reporters tend to get assigned. This is all because these
>stories sell newspapers. They refuse to publish any skeptical stories,
>because they don't sell newspapers. Luckily the Australian Skeptics have
>good contacts with the national press.

Some details have been omitted here.  For instance, the Mercury story
(April 11, 1992) discloses that:
      However, on Thursday morning, Professor Plimer, who has worked
      in Turkey, registered the name Noah's Ark Research Project as
      his business name with Corporate Affairs.

This is the name of Roberts' organization--which he had not registered.
How Plimer intended to use this, I do not know--but it looks sleazy.

>      Since the national media coverage, Roberts has been hastily dumped by
>many Creationist groups around the country. He just isn't savvy enough to
>cope with critics like Plimer for their liking. And he was silly enough to
>sue Plimer, which most Creationist groups realize is suicidal.

Whether suing Plimer is "suicidal" is a question you should refrain from
answering until after you've read my article "How Not to Argue with
Creationists," which appeared in the Winter 1991-92 issue of the
_Cretion/Evolution_ journal (published by the National Center for Science
Education, P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709-0477).  Plimer himself
threatened legal action against the journal when my article was published,
unless he was given unedited space in which to reply.  So far he has neither
sued nor submitted a response.
   (BTW, I will send an email copy of this article to anyone who requests
one.)

>      Plimer came back to Tasmania to give a very interesting lecture for
>the Skeptics and the Univeristy's Geology Department (on September 15th,
>1992) called 'Creation "Science": Telling Lies for God', which I went to.
>What was interesting about this lecture was not so much the easy debunking
>of Creationism which Plimer (an excellent speaker) did very well, but
>Plimer's claims that the leaders of Creationism are deliberately deceiving
>the flock with claims that they actually know to be false. He and a number

In my opinion (see my article for why I think this), this describes
Plimer's behavior as well.

>of other Skeptics have made detailed investigations into the academic
>background of a number of leading Creationists in the U.S. and Australia,
>and found that, surprisingly, they really do have the good degrees from
>prestigious universities that they claim to. Many have Doctorates, often in
>Science, from leading Universities.

Most do, but some don't.  Very few have any published papers, and those who
do have published papers have usually not written them on anything pertaining
at all to creationism.

>[text deleted--btw, most of what I've deleted I have no disagreement with]
>      There's a Creationist in the U.S. called Gish, I think. Probably many
>of you have heard of him, and I'd appreciate any info on him. This guy has
>good scientific credentials from Berkeley, but he published a book claiming
>that all the fossils have been found on only one level of rock strata,
>which of course supports the Flood hypothesis (ie that all the fossils were
>created in the Flood). He knows this is bullshit. Plimer tackled him about
>it, and Gish said, "Ah, we don't hold that exact line any more". But he was
>still selling the book at his lectures. The guy is lying. He's not deluded
>or misled, or wacko. He's a liar, Plimer claims.

This is somewhat confused.  Duane Gish is the vice president of the
Institute for Creation Research and the premier debater of creationism.
In a little anti-evolutionary tract (not book), Gish claimed that there
were no Precambrian fossils (not that all fossils are only in one
stratigraphic level).  Plimer, in his debate with Gish, pointed out that
this was false, and Gish admitted it.  Gish defended himself on the
grounds that there were no known Precambrian fossils when he wrote the
booklet (in the early seventies, I believe).  Plimer rightly pointed out
that that's a lame excuse since the booklet continues to be sold--Plimer
said he bought his right at the lecture hall.
   I would agree with Plimer that Gish is dishonest.  Gish claimed on
national television that there are bullfrog proteins which are more
similar to human proteins than chimp proteins are.  When subsequently
pressed for the details, for years, he couldn't come up with them.
Various creationists also pressed Gish to put up his evidence or retract
his claim, but he never did so.  (This is documented in an article by
Bob Schadewald in _Creation/Evolution_, around 1985 or 1986.  Philip
Kitcher, philosopher of science and author of _Abusing Science: The
Case Against Creationism_, brought this up in his debate with Gish at
the University of Minnesota in 1985 and Gish got all upset but refused
to answer the question Kitcher put to him about the bullfrog proteins.)

>      I can't resist adding one of Plimer's amusing anecdotes. He was at
>one of Gish's lectures, and Gish was prattling on about how evolution is
>just a theory, and theories change all the time, they're airy-fairy things
>(and of course there is some truth in this, although I hold that evolution
>is a firmly-established fact, assuming there are such things as scientific
>facts. (I don't want this to become another debate about the philosophy of
>science. Hey, perhaps Creationists have their own science, just like
>feminists and Africans!)).

This took place at Plimer's debate with Gish, not at a lecture.  I have
this debate on videotape, and also have a copy of the Australian Skeptics'
news report of the debate.  It was major discrepancies between the latter
and the former which led me to start looking into the writings and public
statements of Plimer and Barry Price, author of the book _The Creation
Science Controversy_ (which was pulled from publication after a defamation
lawsuit from a creationist--details in my article).  The Australian
Skeptics have privately admitted that there were distortions in their
summary of the debate, but they have refused to print corrections.
(Details in "Some Failures of Organized Skepticism" and "Postscript to
'Some Failures'", articles published in _The Arizona Skeptic_.  These
are also available by email by request.)

Jim Lippard                  [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy          [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721





From: [e-mail]
Subject:      Plimer & Oz Creationism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Thu, 24 Sep 1992 13:03:32 +1000

      Many thanks to Jim Lippard for his comments on my post "Telling Lies
for God". I didn't realize the Skeptics network would know so much about
happenings in Tasmania. (Obviously some Americans do know about Tasmania.)
James seemed to know a lot more about the events at Roberts lecture than
me! (I hasten to add to any latecomers that I wasn't there and presented
other people's reports only).
      Interesting stuff about Plimer. If you can, Jim, send me the stuff
you mention in your post. By the way, by calling Plimer the 'hero', I
didn't mean to suggest that I thought he was the greatest thing since
sliced bread. It was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment. (He is a very
effective public speaker, though, unlike a lot a scientists.)
      Why did Plimer register the name 'Noah's Ark Research Project', the
name of Roberts' organization? Probably to bait him, I suppose. The
Australian Skeptics have just started up again in Tasmania, and I know
little about the activities of the national body. I'll certainly refrain
from distortions (except when I'm kidding). (My story, by the way, was not
meant to be a rigorous examination of this debate, but rather to let you
all know of the interesting happenings down here as an interested spectator
saw them).
      BTW, when I was a kid in the '70's the following happened.
Australia's main night-time TV variety show was the Don Lane Show, hosted
by Lane, a ridiculous American. James Randi was on, and he said something
about Doris Stokes, who Lane liked, and Lane told him to piss off. This
effectively ended Lane's career as a force in TV (thank God). Because I was
only a kid, I don't know much about this. I was wondering whether anyone
knows whether Randi has said or written anything about what sounds like a
highly-amusing (at least in retrospect) incident?

"Orville G. Marti" asked:
> see it already.  P.S.  Are thylacines extinct or not?

(Note: Thylacines are also known as "Tasmanian Tigers".). Probably. There
are endless searches for them (even Ted Turner wanted to find one), but
nothing has come up. If there are any left they are pretty well hidden.
_______________________________________________________
Scott Campbell                       Ph: ([phone] (Uni) / 252325 (H)
Dept. of Philosophy,              Fax [phone]
University of Tasmania   e-mail: [e-mail]
G.P.O. Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7001.
_______________________________________________________





From: Robert Sheaffer <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: Telling Lies for God
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Thu, 24 Sep 1992 10:18:27 PDT

The following was posted recently on the USENET "sci.skeptics" newsgroup.
As the subject of "credentials of creationists" has come up, I am
re-posting it here. It looks like many of the credentials of the
so-called "scientific creationists" aren't all they're cracked up to be.

By the way, about three years ago I was in Australia to give some
lectures to the various branches of the Australian Skeptics. When I
was introduced to Ian Plimer in Newcastle, I was informed that he
belongs to the "Militant Provisional Wing of the Australian Skeptics"!!



Article 31052 of sci.skeptic:
Xref: netcom.com sci.skeptic:31052 talk.origins:25282
Path:
 netcom.com!csus.edu!wupost!udel!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens
.
 tek.com!sail!mikec
From: [e-mail] (Micheal Cranford)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: ICR Faculty update
Summary: Box-top degrees not required for ignorance but it helps
Keywords: diploma-mills creationism ignorance pseudoscience know-nothingism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:34:53 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 168

--------------------------------------------

  Our mainframe has been unable to post news articles for a few months.  This
is a repost of an article that I sent (unsuccessfully) some time ago.  I hope
that you will not find it too dated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE : Creationists' Credentials (or is Ignorance really Bliss)


In a recent article [e-mail] (Callen Roy) writes:

  "Here is a fairly complete listing ICR faculty and their degrees, taken
   from the 1987-1988 ICR Graduate School catalog.  I have added, in
   parentheses, the fields in which they received their degrees, whenever
   I was able find this information." [ deleted stuff addressed below ]

    "[ ... ]
    * Bliss, Richard B....................Director of Curriculum Development
                      ....................Chairman of Science Education Dept.
    [ ... ] Ed.D. (Science Education Emphasis), University of Sarasota, 1978
    [ ... ]"

  The University of Sarasota is a nonaccredited diploma mill with no campus
and is located in a Florida motel.  Bliss wrote his "doctoral thesis" on the
"two-model" teaching of origins.  He has accused evolutionary scientists of
"intellectual dishonesty" and insists that he is "a recognized expert in the
field of science education".  Note that Bliss claims that he received his M.A.
in 1972 and not in 1978 as you have indicated above. [1]

  By the way, you seem to have missed Dr. Harold Slusher at the ICR.  Slusher
claims to have an honorary D.Sc from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D
from Columbia Pacific University.  Indiana Christian is a Bible College with
a 1/2 man graduate science department (one person for both math and science)
and Columbia Pacific is nonaccredited. [2]

  On a related note, Dr. Kelly Seagraves of the Creation Science Research
Center (CSRC - a bitter rivel of the ICR) claimed to have both an M.A. and a
D.Sc until 1981.  After exposure his D.Sc suddenly changed to D.R.E. (doctor
of religious education).  He claims that his M.A. is from Sequoia University
although a search for that school proved fruitless.  The closest match was a
Sequoia College, which offers 2 year associate degrees (and has no record of
Seagraves).  He insists that his D.Sc was honorary from Christian University.
A computer search shows that school to be located in Jakarta, Indonesia. [1]

  Dr. Clifford Burdick (CSRC) claims to have a Ph.D in geology from the
University of Physical Sciences in Phoenix Arizona.  Unfortunately, neither
the Phoenix telephone book nor the State of Arizona Board of Regents has the
faintest idea where the school is located. [1]

  Dr. Carl Baugh claims to be an archaeologist with a Ph.D from the California
Graduate School of Theology in Glendale.  The Western Association of Schools
and Colleges says this school is nonaccredited (not to mention that theology
was expelled from science over 400 years ago). [3]

    "[ ... ]
    You'll note that some very well-known and respected universities are
    represented.
    [ ... ]"

  I have personally met creationists from both MIT and Stanford.  This does
not make creationism scientific, but rather shows just how immune some people
are to education.  If, for example, someone with a Ph.D in astronomy were to
claim that the sun orbits the earth [5], geocentrism would not suddenly become
scientific.  Having a degree is no guarantee of competence in any particular
field.  I personally know someone with a degree in physics who is unable to
calculate points on a circle using sines and cosines (and who incidentally
also endorses astrology and biorhythms).  Donald Chittick (physical chemist,
George Fox College, Newberg, Oregon) [6] claims that the lack of helium in the
earth's atmosphere proves that the earth is only about 10,000 years old.  You
would expect a chemist to know that the earth's gravity is not strong enough
to keep any really light (low mass) gas from continually escaping into space.

    "[ ... ]
    a *  marks the professors who were once Evolutionists.
    [ ... ]"

  The claims that some creationists make about having once been evolutionists
are largely regarded as specious since these people relentlessly misrepresent
evolution.  They are also unable to give any kind of coherent definition of
science.  During the 1982 "Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science [sic] and
Evolution-Science Act" trial in Little Rock Arkansas, W. Scott Morrow (chemist,
Wofford College, South Carolina) claimed to have once been an evolutionist and
rambled for more than an hour about how closed minded evolutionary scientists
were.  When Judge Overton asked him for just one example of a scientifically
valid creationist paper's having been rejected, Morrow was unable to respond
but went on to imply that the entire international scientific community was
engaged in a conspiracy.  He then said "I know a closed mind when I see one"
while referring to scientific colleagues.  After leaving the stand, he told
reporters that the judge wasn't paying attention and was obviously biased.


Creationists' Scientific Publications :

  Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole used SCI-SEARCH to do a 3-year scan of over 1000
scientific and technical journals looking for articles written by creationists.
Only 6 papers from creationists were published.  None of the papers were about
creationism.  They then checked submissions to journals and discovered that out
of 135000 submitted manuscripts only 18 covered creationism.  All were rejected
for several faults including "ramblings", "no coherent arguments", "high-school
theme quality", "tendentious essay not suitable for publication anywhere",
"more
like a long letter than a referenced article", "no systematic treatment", "does
not define terms", and "flawed arguments".

  Scott and Cole ended up concluding "from the reviewers' comments, it appears
that laymen rather than professional scientists are submitting the few articles
that have surfaced the last 3 years".  "... when only 18 articles are submitted
to 68 journals in three years, and those articles are submitted apparently by
persons not skilled in established scientific methodology and theory, it is
inappropriate to invoke censorship." [4]


REFERENCES

  [1] On Creationism
    Free Inquiry, Spring 1982, volume 2, number 2, page 4.

  [2] Creationist Pseudoscience
    the Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1983, volume VIII, number 1, page 32.

  [3] personal check via phone calls.

  [4] Evidence for Scientific Creationism
    Science, May 17, 1985, Vol. 228, page 837.


NOTES

  [5] Warning, this "for example" was not randomly chosen.

  [6] Donald Chittick is also a member of the (idiotic) ICR.


RECOMMENDED READING

  Repealing the Enlightenment, about the 1982 Arkansas equal-time trial.
    Harpers, April 1982, pp. 38-78.

  Creationism in Schools
  The Decision in McLean verses the Arkansas Board of Education.
    Science, February 19, 1982, volume 215, pp. 934-943.

  Reviews of Thirty-One Creationist Books,
    National Center for Science Education, 1984.

  Evolutionists Confront Creationists
    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division,
    American Association for the Advancement of Science,
      April, 1984, volume 1, part 3.

  Science and Creationism : A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 1984.

  Science as a Way of Knowing - Evolutionary Biology
    American Zoologist, volume 24, number 2, 1984.

  Crusade of the Credulous
    California Academy of Sciences Press, 1986.


    Meanwhile, I'm saving up box-tops and when I have enough, I'll get some
  degrees and become a scientific type person just like those creationists.


  UUCP:  uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec  or                  M.Cranford
         uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec         Principal Troll
  ARPA:  [e-mail]            Resident Skeptic
  CSNet: [e-mail]                         TekLabs, Tektronix


--

        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - [e-mail]

 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"





From: [e-mail]
Subject:      Telling Lies for God
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date:         Wed, 23 Sep 1992 18:18:46 +1000

>Wow!  I didn't know that anyone actually lives in Tasmania.  I thought it
>was just a wild and wooly area full of Tasmanian Devils and such.  How is
>it down there?
>
>Don Henson

        It's fine Don. Tasmanians alternate between being appalled and
delighted at such distorted views of Tasmania (and of course you Americans
are the worst). There are almost half a million of us down here, and the
Tasmanian Devils look nothing like the Devil on Warner Bros. cartoons.

      Anyway, I thought the list would be interested in some happenings
down here. I don't know if the story made the international news, but there
was an Australian guy called Alan Roberts who was kidnapped by Kurdish
rebels in Eastern Turkey last year, and was dragged around the countryside
by them for weeks before being released. The interesting thing about
Roberts is that he is a Creationist Scientist who was in Turkey looking for
Noah's Ark. After his kidnapping, he gained a lot of media attention in
Australia over his claims to have found the Ark on Mt. Ararat, and he went
on a national lecture tour to present his findings. Roberts presents
himself as Dr. Roberts, B.A. B.Litt, M.Ed, D.C.E., M.A.C.E., a qualified
archeologist. He does have a B.A. in History and English from the
University of New England (in New South Wales, a perfectly good Uni), but
the rest of his qualifications are from unaccredited 'degree-mills' in the
U.S. and he has no training in archeology or geology.
      Roberts' lecture in Hobart (Tasmania's capital) had a rather
sensational ending when a Geology Professor was forcibly removed by police
for asking questions. I didn't get to this lecture, so this isn't a
first-hand report. I quote liberally from a report by a skeptical collegue
at this University, Tim O'Neill, who is president of the Tasmanian Branch
of the Australian Skeptics.
      Not surprisingly, Roberts' evidence was amateurish in the extreme.
There's no need for me to go into this in great detail, but I present the
following entertaining quotes from O'Neill.
      'We were shown many slides of the formation which were supposed to
suggest to us that it was a ship (though Mr. Roberts went to some pains not
to come out and say that it certainly was). The slides, however, showed
what looked to all intents and purposes like natural rock formations. Mr.
Roberts suggested many times that there was a great deal of petrified wood
on the site, but he never actually said that the 'sides' of the 'Ark' were
themselves petrified wood. We were never told what they were. We were told
however, that wood could actually petrify 'very quickly; in a matter of
centuries or even decades'; while this is true under certain conditions we
were not told whether the conditions at this site were suitable for such a
rapid rate of mineral replacement.
      'We were informed that the structure fits the dimensions given for
the Ark in the Bible exactly, ie 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide. This
is, of course, after you select the right cubit. The standard fifteen inch
cubit used in the ancient world doesn't fit the structure's dimensions at
all, but apparently the 26 inch 'Royal Egyptian Cubit' does. The audience
was informed that the existence of this ancient unit of measurement was
discovered by a certain Piazzi Smith in 1864. What we weren't told was that
Piazzi Smith was a renowned religious crackpot who invented the 'Royal
Cubit' to 'prove' that the Great Pyramid was actually built by Moses and
that its dimensions could be used to foretell the future. This did not stop
the peculiar Mr. Smith from chiselling pieces of the pyramid off when they
did not fit his hare-brained calculations. That Mr. Roberts uses this
totally invented unit of measurement is an indication of his
professionalism.
      'At one point Mr. Roberts showed us a slide of the valley above the
site in question. In the middle distance I spotted two or three geological
structures which looked disturbingly like the alleged 'Ark'. We were never
told if the team did anything as scientifically responsible as checking the
area to see if there were any similar structures. Indeed, as Graeme O'Neill
(no relation), the scientific columnist for 'The Age' [large, respected
Melbourne newspaper] has pointed out, aerial photographs of the area
reveals the outlines of large numbers of such formations ('The Age', April
10 [1992]). Either, it would seem, Noah built a veritable fleet of Arks, or
the structure Mr. Roberts has devoted so much attention to is a natural
geological formation.'

      So much for Roberts as a scientist. Enter the real scientist, the
hero of our story. Professor Ian Plimer (note: Australian Profs are proper
Profs, like in Britain), Head of the School of Earth Sciences at Melbourne
University, has spent ten years doing field research in Turkey and is an
active opponent of Creation Science.
      Plimer heard of Roberts' national lecture tour, and went along to the
South Blackburn Baptist Church (in Victoria) on April 4th, 1992 to hear his
talk. At the end, Roberts would not allow the audience to directly ask him
questions. They had to write their questions down, and Roberts would select
questions to answer. Plimer's difficult questions were conveniently not
selected. So Plimer tried to ask questions anyway, and was forcibly removed
from the building by the police.
      Plimer then engaged the help of 'A Current Affair', Australia's
biggest current-affair show. They sent a camera crew down to Hobart to film
Robert's talk, and smuggled Plimer into the lecture, which was being held
at the University of Tasmania's main lecture theatre, hired out by the
organizers.
      'This time, when the Chairman asked for (written) questions, Prof.
Plimer stood up and began questioning Roberts about his highly dubious
credentials and his amateurish 'data'.
      'The audience's reaction was astonishing. The Chairman of the
presentation began shouting over the microphone in a desperate attempt to
drown out what the Prof had to say. He then encouraged the audience to clap
loudly so that no-one could hear the Prof's questions, which at least
three-quarters of the audience dutifully proceeded to do. The police
appeared in a matter of seconds and spent some time removing Professor
Plimer and his wife from the lecture theatre while various members of the
audience shouted abuse at him. The rage which greeted Professor Plimer's
attempt at presenting an alternative view of the evidence bordered on
barely suppressed violence and was really quite frightening to see.'
      Later, the TV journalist managed to get one of Plimer's written
questions accepted, but Roberts 'used the old Creationist ploy of "I don't
understand this question. This question makes no sense." -a tactic which
allows the Creationist not to answer and which implies that the questioner
is some kind of idiot.'
      Hobart's main newspaper, 'The Mercury' (owned by Rupert Murdoch)
reported the happenings as a front-page story, but unfortunately they
reported it as though it was a debate between two academics that got out of
hand. 'The Mercury' is in many ways a fine newspaper, but they have been
increasing the number of uncritical New Age and parapsychological stories
from overseas, and when it comes to reporting on such matters, some very
unskeptical reporters tend to get assigned. This is all because these
stories sell newspapers. They refuse to publish any skeptical stories,
because they don't sell newspapers. Luckily the Australian Skeptics have
good contacts with the national press.
      Since the national media coverage, Roberts has been hastily dumped by
many Creationist groups around the country. He just isn't savvy enough to
cope with critics like Plimer for their liking. And he was silly enough to
sue Plimer, which most Creationist groups realize is suicidal.

      Plimer came back to Tasmania to give a very interesting lecture for
the Skeptics and the Univeristy's Geology Department (on September 15th,
1992) called 'Creation "Science": Telling Lies for God', which I went to.
What was interesting about this lecture was not so much the easy debunking
of Creationism which Plimer (an excellent speaker) did very well, but
Plimer's claims that the leaders of Creationism are deliberately deceiving
the flock with claims that they actually know to be false. He and a number
of other Skeptics have made detailed investigations into the academic
background of a number of leading Creationists in the U.S. and Australia,
and found that, surprisingly, they really do have the good degrees from
prestigious universities that they claim to. Many have Doctorates, often in
Science, from leading Universities.
      Take the case of Andrew Snelling who has a geology degree from Sydney
University and a Doctorate from the Univeristy of New South Wales (it might
have been the other way around). He is a leading Australian creationist who
writes for a Creationist magazine, put out by a 'Creationist Institute', in
which he claims that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that scientific
techniques such as carbon-dating (the old chestnut) don't work, and that
scientists, especially geologists, have got everything completely wrong.
Yet Snelling continues to work as a normal geologist, submitting standard
geological research articles to geology journals in which he assumes the
position of a standard geologist, talking about rocks being millions of
years old, and using standard scientific techniques and so on.
      Perhaps Snelling might say that he is simply going along with
mainstream science in order to make a living. Or perhaps he might give some
instrumentalist view of mainstream science, along the lines of "all this
talk about rocks being millions of years old is a convenient fiction", but
if the the rocks that he studies aren't really millions of years old, but
are really 6000 years old, how come this convenient fiction works so well,
and Creation Science, which is literally true, doesn't? Naughty Mr.
Snelling is having it both ways.
      No-one's sure what his real aim is, as he doesn't seem to be making a
huge amount of money out of the faithful, and he refuses to sue Plimer
despite Plimer baiting him. Perhaps he just wants the adoration of the
flock.
      Plimer, under a disguised name, sent him a rock, saying that it
looked like it had what could be a wad of ancient paper in it. This would
be very exciting for the Creationists: how could a rock be millions of
years old if paper was found in it? Apparently, Snelling was excited about
the find, even though the 'paper' looked like it could be anything, and was
telling people about it. Plimer eventually let him know through a third
party that it was not paper but Mineral A (I can't remember the actual name
of the mineral). Snelling then published an article in his magazine saying
that they had had this sample sent to them which might have a major find,
but after rigorous scientific investigation, they discovered the paper was
in fact Mineral A. Snelling's moral: we don't make claims at our
Creationist Institute until we've done heaps of rigorous scientific
testing. Problem for Snelling was that Plimer had deliberately given him
the wrong info. It was in fact Mineral B. There was no rigorous scientific
examination, as claimed. It would have cost Snelling $10 to send this to a
lab for a simple analysis, and he didn't even bother to do this.
      There's a Creationist in the U.S. called Gish, I think. Probably many
of you have heard of him, and I'd appreciate any info on him. This guy has
good scientific credentials from Berkeley, but he published a book claiming
that all the fossils have been found on only one level of rock strata,
which of course supports the Flood hypothesis (ie that all the fossils were
created in the Flood). He knows this is bullshit. Plimer tackled him about
it, and Gish said, "Ah, we don't hold that exact line any more". But he was
still selling the book at his lectures. The guy is lying. He's not deluded
or misled, or wacko. He's a liar, Plimer claims.
      Plimer also presented a number of other instances of direct
correspondence with Gish which clearly showed that Gish is lying a lot of
the time. I can't remember the exact details of Plimer's claims, so I won't
go into them in case I get them wrong. I've gone on long enough as it is.
      So it does seems that there is good evidence to support the claim
that the Creationist leaders are not poor deluded fools like their
followers, but are deliberately deceiving their followers. Any thoughts on
what their motives are, and any more evidence would be most welcome. (If
you want first-hand accounts try writing to Plimer, but bear in mind that
he's a very busy man. He'd probably appreciate any stuff on Gish if he
hasn't already got it (as would I). Melbourne Uni's address is just
Melbourne University, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, 3052).

      I can't resist adding one of Plimer's amusing anecdotes. He was at
one of Gish's lectures, and Gish was prattling on about how evolution is
just a theory, and theories change all the time, they're airy-fairy things
(and of course there is some truth in this, although I hold that evolution
is a firmly-established fact, assuming there are such things as scientific
facts. (I don't want this to become another debate about the philosophy of
science. Hey, perhaps Creationists have their own science, just like
feminists and Africans!)).
      Plimer got up, went to the wall and plugged in a cord to the
power-point. The cord had two bare wires sticking out of it. He said to
Gish "Electricity is just a theory. Touch the wires".
      (Yeah, yeah, I know there are lots of replies that can be made to
this, but it's the sort of flair that skeptics need to show more of if we
are to compete against TV evangalists and Uri Geller).

      P.S. Don Henson mentions it being a help for poker players to wear
dark glasses. I know one idiot who tried that with mirror sunglasses, not
realizing that all his cards were reflected in them.


_______________________________________________________
Scott Campbell                       Ph: ([phone] (Uni) / 252325 (H)
Dept. of Philosophy,              Fax [phone]
University of Tasmania   e-mail: [e-mail]
G.P.O. Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7001.
_______________________________________________________