—in the New Scientist, 21 January 1988

When the local paper carried a new advertisement, for 'Esoteric Astrology,' I had to reply to the number given. 'Esoteric,' of course, means 'intelligible only to the initiated' and the account given by its exponent laid her open to prosecution under the trades description act since it was clear that she, at least, had no idea what she was talking about. She said that her kind of astrology made no attempt to foretell the future, but that she used the predictions obtained to counsel people who were worried and perplexed. When I asked her what was the connection between the movement of the planets and the personal problems of people in New Plymouth, she replied in the pitying tones of a teacher talking to a backward five year old, "Well, you know that the moon is responsible for the tides." The following dialogue then ensued.

In your November 1987 issue, Dennis Dutton (page 3) asks whether it matters that sick people, especially cancer sufferers, are not discouraged from using "alternative" or "complementary" treatments, The answer of course is the one that he himself has given: it does and it doesn't.

Doris Stokes, the medium superstar, was a fraud, says a British author, Ian Wilson, in his book, "The After Death Experience."

An 80-minute cassette of excerpts from Hugh Young's "World of Science" radio series—ESP?, Astrology*, Creationism, Phrenology, and how to recognise pseudoscience.

The Evening Post, 28 December 1987

Nostradamus and the Millenium. By John Hogue. Bloomsbury/Roulston Greene. 1987. 209 pp. Illustrations. $45,

SEELISBERG, Switzerland (Reuter). — Followers of Indian guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi have staged what they called Europe's first European yogic flying" competition, describing it as a demonstration of their leader's programme to end violence on earth.

The Spectator, 20 September 1986

"Scientific" creationists are fond of easy examples that seem to contradict evolution: so much the better if they seem to make scientists look silly.

The Treasurer reminds readers that members' subscriptions to NZCSICOP for 1988 are now due. If you receive a renewal notice, please don't put it where it might be forgotten, but deal with it promptly. Your subscriptions are NZCSICOP's blood.

Through the kindness of Gordon Hewitt, I was told about the existence of the Thomas G. Barnes Institute of Physics. I hastened to write to them for information and have received a full reply from its President, Max Cullen. The egregious Dr Barnes is well known to students of creationism as the first Dean of Graduate Studies at the Institute of Creation Research. He is the author of a loony argument for a young earth supposedly based on measurements of the earth's magnetic field. He claims that the magnitude of the magnetic field is decreasing and that it must have had an impossibly large value not long ago. The theory totally ignores the massive evidence for periodic reversals in magnetic field. To illustrate the activities of the Institute, I cannot do better than quote from Max Cullen's paper. These quotations are all entire sentences, with the spelling corrected.

We recently received through the kindness of skeptic Malcolm McCleary information on the thought of Barry Long. It comes from the "Barry Long Centre (NZ)" in Auckland. Mr. Long is an Australian who left his career in journalism and PR "when he started to question the purpose of his life. He was made aware that the truth or spirit was entering him and directing his life."

The Creationists' tactics in getting their ideas accepted are not to promote their own (the biblical) version of creation but to attack the "orthodox" scientific view. A constant barrage of criticism of evolutionary theory and of geological theories on age and origin of the earth (and universe) is levelled with the aim of discrediting the theory or theories. Then, with a nimble leap sideways, it is concluded that "The Alternative" explanation is just as likely to be true, "the alternative" being of course the Genesis account. This ploy cleverly presents the biblical account as a viable alternative to an existing scientific theory thereby conferring upon the account the status of an "alternative scientific theory" and obscuring its real nature—that of a religious notion. This constant attack forces scientists into a defensive position—defending their theories by rebutting the creationist arguments.