The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his065/bullv3n1.arj/BULLV3N1.DOC

Text File | 1991-01-12 | 11KB | 182 lines

Volume 3, Number 4
February 1987

A publication for the members of SOR

Students for Origins Research
P.O. Box 203, Goleta, CA 93116-0203

Special Offer: Darwin Retried
     As you can see from our new 1987 Bulletin logo, we feel that the
creation/evolution case before the United States Supreme Court will be a big news
item this year.  To complement our legal theme this issue we would like to offer
our members a classic book, written by a lawyer, that deals with the scientific
short comings of evolution.  The book is Darwin Retried: An appeal to
reason, written by Harvard-trained lawyer Norman Macbeth.  In this book
Macbeth takes a critical look at comparative anatomy, embryology, speciation,
natural selection, survival of the fittest, adaptation, and many other key
evidences of evolutionary theory.

    Written over 15 years ago, some sections of the book are a little dated.
However, in the forward to the second printing (1978) Macbeth states, "The
reviews of the book in professional journals were few in number and mostly
unfavorable in tone.  The reviewers, however, did not point out any specific
errors.  This failure to show mistakes, combined with my further studies and with
my numerous conversations with evolutionists, enables me to assert, confidently
rather than diffidently, that my statements were correct.  Indeed, on several
important issues my conclusions have been confirmed in a most heartening way."

    Macbeth was ahead of his time in bringing the problems with evolutionary
theory to the public's attention.  Macbeth has never claimed to be a creationist,
just a dedicated skeptic of evolution.  We believe this is a classic work which
every student of origins should own, and we would like to send a copy to each SOR
member that sends in a donation of $10 or more.  Just write Darwin Retried
on the comment section of the reply envelope enclosed.  While you wait for the
Supreme Court to make its decision, you can read Darwin Retried and make
your own decision.

Supreme Court Report
    So--you ask--what will the Supreme Court decide in the Louisiana
"Balanced Treatment" case?

    The answer, not surprisingly, is that nobody knows. (And the predictions
we've read and heard from various observers don't agree; see below.) This case is
counterintuitive in many ways, so the decision may well be counterintuitive. Who
would have predicted that the state would be eager for, and specifically request,
a full trial on the scientific issues, while the ACLU would expend most of its
efforts on religious matters? (If macroevolution is an unquestionable fact, then
why should the ACLU be hesitant to argue the scientific issues in court?) Who
would have predicted, as Mike Woodruff of the Christian Legal Society observed,
that "in this case the cool, rational intellectual was the creationist, Wendell
Bird, while the blustery, rhetorical figure was Jay Topkis, the ACLU lead
counsel." Who could have predicted that Topkis would base the ACLU case, in part,
on the dictionary definition of "creation" (and read from the dictionary to the
annoyance of Justice Scalia), compare Wendell Bird to Tweedledum in Alice in
Wonderland, and conclude his arguments with a sort of "Ah ha!" flourish, claiming
that Louisiana hid some facts about one of the state's expert witnesses. (Terry
Miethe, a philosophy witness, now teaches at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.
The fact is that when Miethe's deposition was taken, he was not yet teaching
there. Either way, this line of argument is reprehensible, and smacks of
anti-religious McCarthyism. It is surely irrelevant to the quality of Miethe's
testimony that one knows where he works.) Several observers said the final
ACLU argument impressed no one.

    The Supreme Court justices could decide the case in a number of ways. In
his report in Science (2 January 1987, p. 22-23), Roger Lewin wrote:

...one [option] is simply to affirm the lower court ruling against the act.
Such a decision would be a decisive defeat for the creationists. Second, it
could reverse the lower court's decision, which would finally give the
Louisiana creationists the full trial they want...A third possible decision,
whose effect could be similar to the second, is based on a long-established
doctrine of the Supreme Court, the Pullman abstention. This holds that the
Supreme Court should not rush to decide matters of state law. In this instance,
the case would be referred back to the Louisiana courts for resolution, but is
procedurally messier than a simple reversal. The Pullman abstention has not
yet been applied to an Establishment Clause case, but Justice Antonin Scalia--
the newest justice on the bench--pursued this line of argument during the
hearing and is known to favor the doctrine. A fourth, theoretically possible,
but unlikely, outcome would be a declaration that the Louisiana law is indeed
constitutional. Such a decision would represent a substantial intervention in
the state's laws, and has not even been requested in the state's
presentation.

Notice that only one of these possible decisions (the first, a simple affirmation
of the lower court) would be a defeat for the state. The state wants a trial, and
persuading the Court to reverse the lower court and grant one would be a clear
victory. The state could win.

    However, some observers are skeptical about the likelihood of victory. Mike
Woodruff, quoted in Christianity Today (16 January 1987, p. 51), remarked:
"I was encouraged by the level of respect for this issue showed by the Court." He
predicted, however, that the high court will rule against the statute, with "a
majority of justices saying creation science is not science."

    Ed Larson, an authority on the legal history of the creation/evolution
debate, predicted (in his talk to the Annual Meeting of the National Center for
Science Education, at the Field Museum, Chicago, 15 February 1987), "I wouldn't
be surprised if the decision were 9-0 [against the creationists]."  But other
observers are less skeptical. Robert Melnick, an Ohio attorney working in First
Amendment law, was at the head of the line outside the Court on the morning the
case was heard, and, after watching the proceedings, thought the ACLU case was so
poor, and the state's so polished, that Louisiana had a good chance of winning a
reversal.

    Well, in a couple of months we'll know who won. We hardly need to point out
the significance of this case for the future of the origins debate. If the state
loses, creationists may find the lay public and the scientific community far less
sympathetic, i.e., "Look, you guys lost the game, so quit pestering us and go
home!" Working for a fair discussion of origins may become more costly and
difficult than ever before.

    But what if the state wins? Then, we're guessing, there will be another
media circus surrounding a fascinating trial--and this time the ACLU won't roll
over the state, as they did in Arkansas. And if the state should win at that
level, then...who knows? All bets are off.

    Whatever happens, we'll be here. The origins debate will go on.

Keeping up with Kuban
    Interest in Glen Kuban's evidence for the dinosaurian origin of the
Paluxy "mantracks" continues to snowball.  The January 1987 issue of Journal
of Geological Education (vol. 35, no. 1) contains an 11 page cover story
featuring Glen's work at the Taylor site.  The author is Ronnie Hastings, a Texas
high school science teacher, who first met Glen at Paluxy and assisted him with
some of his field work.  The article is written in a narrative style describing
the people, dates, and situations involved in recent work at the Paluxy.
Thirty-seven references are cited including Glen's first published reports which
appeared in Origins Research.  On page 10 there is a good bird's-eye view
map showing all the major trails at the Taylor site.

    Glen also snagged top billing in the "New Literature in 1986" section of
"Geotimes Annual Review of Geology" (Geotimes, February 1987, Vertebrate
paleontology section, pg. 58).  Unfortunately this citation only mentions his
article in Creation/Evolution and not the earlier, more extensive
Origins Research article.

    Finally, the recent issue of Palaios (Oct. 1986, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp.
519-520) contains a report "On the Track of the Dinosaurs" by Kevin Padian
(Department of Paleontology, UC Berkley).  Padian reports on the 1st
International Symposium on Dinosaur Tracks that was held last May in New Mexico.
Glen Kuban presented his Paluxy evidence at the conference and Padian refers to
Glen's presentation as some of the most intriguing results of the symposium and
goes on record as being supportive of Glen's conclusions.

Sneak Preview
    The next issue of Origins Research  will contain short reviews of two
fascinating articles.  We just couldn't wait to tell you about them, so here is a
sneak preview.  The first paper "On the validity of molecular evolution" by
Christian Schwabe appeared in the July 1986 issue of Trends in Biochemical
Sciences (pg 280).  From the opening paragraph: "... many exceptions exist to
the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many
in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important
message."  Schwabe is at the Department of Biochemistry, Medical University of
South Carolina.

    The second article is titled "How to Construct a Falsifiable Theory in Which
the Universe Came Into Being Several Thousand Years Ago". That mouthful was
authored by Frank J. Tipler in PSA 1984, Proceedings of the Biennial
Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 2, pp. 873-902).   Tipler
argues that federal judge William Overton made some fatal philosophical errors in
the Arkansas creation trial by ruling that creation was inherently religious,
unfalsifiable, and should not be taught in the public schools.  Tipler shows how
a falsifiable young earth model can be constructed and points out that it just
has not yet been falsified (although he believes it will be in the near future).
Tipler is coauthor of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle and a
relativistic cosmologist in the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University.


                ***************************************

                       This file originates from:

                  Origins Talk RBBS  *  [phone]

                Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
                       405 North Sappington Road
                        Glendale, MO  63122-4729
                             [phone]

              Also call: Students for Origins Research CREVO BBS
                                [phone]