Forum

- 1 May 1992

Creationism in NZ

In reference to Ruth Walker’s article “Absurdities of Creationism” [Skeptic 22], I would like to remind fellow Skeptics that it is not only “fundamentalist” Christian schools that teach creationism.

When interviewing Auckland area state secondary science teachers in 1987 as part of the research for a Masters thesis on the resurgence of creationism and its implications for New Zealand, J found a wide range of attitudes among teachers.

I began the interviewing with the aim of discussing teachers’ difficulties in coping with school pupils and/or parents who were creationists. But from the first interview, I found I had to adjust my focus of questions to encompass the fact that some science teachers were themselves openly and enthusiastically including creationism as an “alternative” theory to evolution.

Here are three examples from interviews with science teachers — all teaching at large state secondary schools:

I am sympathetic to the day-age theories of creationism, but hard-line creationists have gone a bit too far. But both theories [evolution and creationism] have some validity.

The place for talking about creationism is when we discuss the shortcomings of evolution, then we try to juxtapose the two theories together. I certainly don’t like the idea of just presenting one point of view.

I teach that a theory is basically a suggestion or an idea, and wouldn’t teach it as based on any framework of facts. Evolution is said to be a theory, but what happens is it gets taught as a fact. Creation and evolution are both theories — you don’t say they’re absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

In case these examples are viewed as mere aberrations awaiting disciplinary action by Ministry of Education staff, I would further alert Skeptic members to the views of a spokesman for the Curriculum Development Unit in 1988.

In referring to the possible inclusion of creationism in New Zealand state school science classes, he saw no problem with teachers presenting “scientific creationism”, as long as they’re presenting it as one possible explanation and not as the only explanation.

I have no reason to suppose there is any less teaching of creationism in state secondary schools now in 1992 than in 1987.

M. Carol Scott, Auckland

Medical Beliefs

Bill Morris in “Quackpots and Science” [Skeptic, 22] clearly states the case against alternative medicine, that its procedures have not been subject to systematic evaluation and that the mechanisms advanced to explain the various treatment effects rarely make sense in scientific terms and indeed often are palpable nonsense. Muchas I agree with these points, I do not believe they are the issues of central concern to doctors and patients.

The probability is that faith healing in its various forms does at times work. Even the most rigorously evaluated “scientific” treatment is likely to be more effective if the patient really believes it will be of benefit.

At the other end of the spectrum, in the many often ill-defined conditions in which neither diagnosis nor treatment can be made with precision, the patient’s belief in the therapy proposed may be a major factor in achieving symptomatic relief.

Most healers know and work with this fact, that the better the fit between the belief systems of the doctor and patient, the better the chance of a good outcome to treatment. This is an empirical observation, and begs the question as to how the effect is achieved.

In my view, the skeptic should look beyond the obvious absurdities in the pseudoscience of alternative medicine to ask how its healing effects actually are achieved. For the practicing doctor, however, the issues are much more complicated.

Clearly, those disorders for which a specific diagnosis can be made and a scientifically proven treatment applied should be treated accordingly, but in other cases, the doctor recognising the limitations of “orthodox” methods has a dilemma.

Does he or she simply acknowledge these limitations knowing that the patient may then, and with possible benefit, pursue alternative treatments, or is it appropriate to make these alternative suggestions first?

A further dilemma then is whether the doctor can or should collude in advising a treatment which he or she may see as based on faith, folklore or superstition, even though the patient apparently believes in the system and many benefit from it.

To my mind, the problem is not with the doctor who knowingly supports unorthodox approaches having exhausted the reasonable possibilities of orthodox diagnosis and treatment, in the patient’s interest, however repugnant this may seem to the scientific purist.

Rather, the problem is with the doctor who is unable to maintain sufficient detachment or intellectual rigour to see when an alternative approach is inappropriate, or worse, who comes to believe that pseudoscientific explanations actually are true. This latter situation would appear to be increasingly common. It is dangerous and professionally unacceptable.

Dr John Turbott, Auckland

Mensa Mistakes

I agree wholeheartedly with the opinions expressed by Russell Dear concerning the concept of IQ [Skeptic, 22], and have had personal experience which suggests that IQ measurements are practically meaningless.

Like Russell Dear’s children, I attempted to join Mensa when I was in my teens (this causes me considerable embarrassment now, but I’m sure we’ve all done ridiculous things in our youth).

Since the IQ tests I’d taken at school had always set my IQ at around 150, I thought my chances would be good, so I sent for an application. With the application came an IQ

test. I did the test, following the rules and the time limit scrupulously, sent it in, and got a result of 178. Several weeks later I sat a supervised test. My result there was 128, and I was rejected.

The tests were different. The first was an English comprehension test, choosing which of four definitions most precisely matched a word used in a sentence. The second involved choosing the odd figure in a set of four, or completing a sequence of numbers or diagrams.

Either my level of intelligence dropped drastically in the space of a few weeks, or the Mensa tests are totally worthless. Perhaps Mensa should hire someone to gauge the intelligence of prospective members by reading their auras — that should be at least as accurate as the IQ

test!

What is “intelligence” anyway? Does anybody know?

Grant Gillatt, Lower Hutt

Geller vs Randi

The claims by Uri Geller against James Randi and the attempt to silence Randi have put me in mind of an important case in English law, which here may be referred to as Whistler versus Ruskin. The case came up in the year 1878.

J A M Whistler was an American-born artist who settled in England in 1859 when he was 25 years of age. In 1877, he exhibited some of his works, in a particular style he had developed, at the Grosvenor Gallery, London.

These paintings were fiercely assailed by the art critic Ruskin in a monthly publications he himself put out. Whistler sued Ruskin for libel, claiming damages of £1,000 sterling. The case resulted in Whistler being awarded one farthing as damages (a quarter of a penny).

In sum, what the case decided was that a critic is free to express his opinion without fear of claims of libel or for damages — this would be so provided, of course, that the criticism was not inspired by malice or other unworthy motives.

I see some parallels between the case Whistler v Ruskin and the dispute between Geller and Randi.

Norman Lewis, Tauranga

A Question of Scale

As a newcomer to NZCSICOP, I am curious as to why the Skeptics are so quick to pounce on relatively trivial paranormalities, such as aura readers and other various psi advocates, and yet never appear to say anything about the seriously dangerous personalities, such as Christians and Muslims, among others.

One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to be unaware of the crimes these cults have carried out over the centuries. Their key articles of faith are the alleged resurrection of a nebulous character two thousand years ago, and a channeled book claimed to be the messages of a supernatural entity named Gabriel.

Of course, there is no way of verifying the origins of the Big Groups, but some of the ideas the believers continue to express are extremely worrying, to put it mildly.

A story in the Feb 11 Herald tells us that “millions of baby girls have been killed in China in the past decade” because “only males can worship the ancestors”. Indeed, many large-scale crimes against women are perpetrated by religions.

One would think the Skeptics would be screaming with indignation and rage, but they are strangely silent. Yet if a telekinetic metal bender steps off a plane, all hell breaks loose.

Naturally, they are big organisations to tackle, and we have to consider the bizarre fate of Salman Rushdie. But still, it seems that some comment might be justified.

Of course it’s entirely possible the Skeptics have made all sorts of comment on the Big Groups and I, as a beginner, just don’t know about it. In any case, this is mere curiosity. So far I don’t have any reason to be skeptical of the Skeptics.

Carl Wyant, Auckland

Worried Skeptic

My article “School Teachers and Skepticism” [Skeptic 22] created a great deal of media interest. [See cuttings in this issue’s “News Front”]. This, in turn, generated a large amount of mail, both personal and in the form of letters to the editor. I would like to share with fellow Skeptics some of the “facts” presented to me as incontrovertible by the writers of these letters:

The US and Russia are spending millions of dollars in a Star Wars project to protect the planet from extraterrestrials.

Frogs fall most often from the sky on Wednesdays, usually according to a cycle of 9.6 years.

Telepathy is an accepted fact and is taught in.many universities around the world.

Jesus said, “Ask and you shall receive.” Try it next time you need a parking place in town.

The elimination of morning assemblies with prayers and hymns is the cause of violence and permissiveness within society.

Scientific thought is typified by conceptual, right-brain thought patterns.

Skeptics today have the same goals as the Inquisition did in the 15th century.

Spiritual healing has been proved to exist through infrared photography.

Corn laid flat in crop circles has undergone molecular change caused by the spacecraft of visiting extraterrestrials.

An embarrassed medium received a message from a spirit called Rhubarb — it was the nickname of someone’s grandmother: hence proof that spirits exist.

It’s a bit of a worry!

Russel Dear, Invercargill

Randi Update

The following information comes from the Skeptics computer bulletin board, courtesy of Equinox and Phil Anderson

Uri Geller has several lawsuits pending against James “the Amazing” Randi alleging defamation because Randi said that Geller’s alleged psychic powers are not real. Anyone who attempts to answer this question risks becoming a party to litigation.

There is something you can do: Whether or not you agree with Randi, | feel that the skeptics of the scientific community should contribute to his legal defense, which he can ill afford. Randi told me that his lawyer will charge no personal fee, because he feels that arguments like this should not be legal matters in the first place; however, the defense is costly in any case. If you want to help maintain the freedom of public argument, you can contribute to the

James Randi Fund c/o Robert Steiner, CPA, PO 659, El Cerrito, CA 94530

Marvin Minsky, Skeptic, MIT

An article by Paul Kutz in the new Skeptical Inquirer (Winter 1992) has more information about the lawsuits.

It says that James Randi and CSICOP are co-defendants in separate lawsuits by Eldon Byrd (‘paranormal researcher’) and Uri Geller.

It says that CSICOP can’t offer Randi legal support because that would make it look like they accept liability for Randi’s unofficial statements. CSICOP says that the statements in question (whether libellous or not) were made by Randi and were not official CSICOP statements; thus, CSICOP is trying to get itself removed from the lawsuits. It also says that in some legal papers, Randi’s attorneys have claimed that Randi was acting as an official of CSICOP when he make the statements.

Apparently Randi’s lawyers later dropped this claim, according to Randi, on GEnie’s PSI-NET.