March 1989 'BASIS', newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics Bay Area Skeptics Information Shee

-------------------------------------------------------
March 1989 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
-------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 8, No. 3
                Editor:  Kent Harker



DEGREES OF FOLLY: PART II
by William Bennetta

[Part I of this article ran in our February issue. Here is a
summary:]

By law, no postsecondary school in California can award degrees
unless the school has been certified by a recognized accreditation
agency or has been approved by the superintendent of public
instruction (the chief of the State Department of Education). To
gain his approval, the school must show academic resources and
programs comparable to those at accredited schools that offer the
same degrees. 

In 1981, when the superintendent was Wilson Riles, the Department
approved the granting of MS degrees in biology, geology,
"astro/geophysics" and science education by the ICR Graduate School
(ICRGS), an arm of the Institute for Creation Research. The ICR is
not a scientific institution. It is a fundamentalist religious
organization and is avidly committed to creation-science, the
fundamentalist effort to devise quasi-scientific "evidences" that
the Bible is an accurate book of history and of science. In its
literature, the ICR calls itself a complex of "ministries" and
lists the ICRGS as one of these. The president of the ICR and the
ICRGS is Henry Morris, a preacher and former engineer.

In 1987, after the superintendency of the Department had passed to
Bill Honig, the ICR sought renewed approval. During the preceding
few years, "creation-science" and the men who purveyed it had been
repeatedly discredited by scientists and jurists. An especially
potent analysis had been issued in 1982 by Judge William Overton,
of the federal district court in Little Rock, when he ruled
unconstitutional an Arkansas law that would have put "creation-
science" into public schools. Overton showed that "creation-
science" was simply biblical religion in disguise, and he denounced
specific misrepresentations made by preachers from the ICR. By
1987, nobody could have made a serious inquiry into the ICR or
"creation-science" without finding that both had been exposed as
fakes.

In August 1988, the Department sent a five-man committee to assess
the ICR's degree programs. The committee's report, dated 5 August,
was baloney. It omitted or obscured anything that might have
disclosed the nature or aims of the ICR and the ICRGS, and it
promoted the fiction that the ICR did scientific work. It mentioned
"creation-science" only once, in a throw-away line; it never told
what "creation-science" was. It never told that the ICR itself
called the ICRGS a religious ministry. It attributed "academic and
research capabilities" to the ICRGS's faculty, even though no
academic or research achievements had been claimed in the ICRGS's
application. It ended with: "The committee recommends to the
superintendent by a vote of 3 to 2 that full institutional approval
be granted." 

                             PART II

The farcical report by the committee that had visited the ICR was
signed (on its last page) by six men; and even the way in which it
was signed was fatuous. The five members of the committee were
denoted by their names alone, with nothing to tell who they were,
what their professions were, where they worked, or why they might
have been able to assess degree programs in science or science
education. The reader learned only that they were "Dr. George F.
Howe, Dr. Stuart H. Hurlbert, Dr. Robert L. Kovach, Dr. G. Edwin
Miller, Dr. James A. Woodhead."

The signature of the sixth man, Roy W. Steeves, bore the cryptic
note "For PPED." Steeves was in fact an assistant director of the
Private Postsecondary Education Division of the State Department
of Education, and he not only had recruited the committee but had
managed its proceedings. The report did not tell this, nor did it
describe the proceedings. 

The report was not the last word, however, nor had integrity drawn
its last breath. The two committee members who had voted against
approval -- Woodhead and Hurlbert -- decided to furnish Bill Honig
with individual accounts of what they had seen.

On 16 August, Woodhead sent to Honig a two-page letter. It was on
stationery of the Department of Geology at Occidental College, and
its signature block identified Woodhead as the chairman of that
department. The text said, in part: "One problem with the course
of study at ICR is that the curriculum is quite restricted in each
of the science departments, apparently as the result of the small
size of the faculty. (1) A more serious problem is that course
titles . . . do not actually represent course contents as indicated
by the corresponding syllabi. The result is that students'
transcripts must be misleading to other educators or potential
employers.

"The major problem . . . is that the teaching of scientific method
is entirely ignored. Laboratory equipment and computing facilities
are almost entirely lacking, and hardly any classes include
laboratory components. A glance through the catalogs of any of the
schools the ICR considers to be comparable shows that in every
instance laboratory work is an essential part of the scientific
curriculum. (2) Yet students working for advanced degrees at ICR
do so without laboratory segments in their classes. . . .

"On another level, though, I wondered how ICR can expect its
students to successfully challenge the results of modern science
if they are not taught scientific method. For that reason I spent
a large part of my time during the three days of our visit perusing
masters' theses. . . . I looked at seven or eight . . . and found
them, as a group, to be dreadful. . . .

"The topics chosen were, in general, much too broad for masters'
theses, and their scientific contents were much too thin. For
instance, how can second-year graduate students be expected to
debunk all of the current understanding of geochronology,
sedimentation or the propagation of light. . . ? In the first
example, the student exhibited a near total misunderstanding of the
principles of radioactive decay as applied to geochronology and
[had] obviously never done any geochronological work; in the
second, the student used the time-honored technique of `proof by
blatant assertion' to place all of sedimentation within a
catastrophist framework; (3) and in the third, the student's
argument for the existence of an `ether' to support the propagation
of light in a vacuum was just plain stupid. . . . At worst, the
students cannot write decent theses because, first, they do not
understand scientific method, probably because the faculty members
do not understand it themselves or are precluded from teaching it
by the tenets of ICR, (4) and second, they do not have the
requisite background in mathematics, physics and chemistry. . . ."

The other dissenting member of the committee, Hurlbert, sent his
observations to Honig, on 26 August, in a 37-page document showing
all the features that had been absent from the committee's own
report: clarity, candor, rigor and care. The document was on plain
paper, but its title sheet identified its author as a professor in
the Department of Biology at San Diego State University. 

In his introduction, Hurlbert repudiated the report of the
committee, saying that he had had little influence on its content
and that he did not consider himself to be an author of it. The
rest of his text comprised twelve major sections. Here are some
items:

On page 2, in his section "Flaws in the review process," Hurlbert
noted that the review involved very complex issues, yet the
Department had invoked its standard procedure: "Five persons who
were unknown to each other . . . were asked to meet, discuss,
interview, reflect, read, analyse, argue, deliberate, and write a
final report, all within a 48-hour time period. . . . Perhaps such
a schedule suffices for reviews of more traditional organizations.
But ICR is a politically controversial, radically unconventional
institution with marginal qualifications and an anti-science
philosophy." 

On page 3, in the same section, Hurlbert told that the materials
distributed to committee members before their visit did not include
curricula vitae of the ICRGS's faculty. So ". . . about ten days
before our site visit, I requested that the [Department] arrange
for a full set of complete curricula vitae to be sent to each VC
[visiting committee] member. I was told this was not possible. .
. ."

"Three sets were made available to us at ICR and we scanned them
as time permitted. However, most . . . were very incomplete, many
being nothing more than one-page summaries of the sort that might
be given to a journalist preparing an article on ICR. . . . ICR
seems not enthusiastic about having complete curricula vitae of
its faculty members inspected by outsiders."

On page 5, under "Problems in the report of the Visiting
Committee," Hurlbert told how the report had not disclosed the
ICR's major purposes and had naively parroted the ICR's claim to
having programs in science. Yet the primary purpose of both the ICR
and the ICRGS were clear in documents that the committee had seen:
"to teach `creation science'; to increase the number of `creation
scientists' with conventional (in name) graduate degrees in
science; to foster the teaching of `creation science' in private
and public schools by increasing the number of teachers trained in
the subject. . . ."

On page 7, in the same section, Hurlbert noted how the report said
that the ICRGS's courses "attempt to present a two-model evaluation
addressed to the origin of life." He commented: "This is the most
misleading statement in the VC report. It suggests there is a
balanced and fair presentation of the evidence and the differing
interpretations of it. Virtually all of the documentation and
testimony support exactly the opposite conclusion. . . ."

Starting on page 12, Hurlbert quoted from eight statements
indicating "that the highest scientific, educational and judicial
bodies in North America are in full agreement that `creation
science' is non-scientific." One statement was the decision by
Judge Overton. The others came from such bodies as the National
Academy of Sciences, the Academic Senate of the University of
California, and the American Chemical Society. All had been issued
before 1986. 

(Hurlbert did not say, but maybe should have said: All those
statements were in the public record and had been available to Roy
Steeves. If Steeves had made any effort to prepare the members of
the committee, he surely would have furnished significant material
from the existing literature about their subject: At the very
least, they deserved to be warned that they would be visiting a
known den of charlatanry. But Steeves had made no such effort.)

On page 17, under "Conventional scientific interpretations are NOT
`fairly presented in ICR courses,'" Hurlbert told this: "One of
the students interviewed misinterpreted a QUESTION from the VC
about WHETHER a fair balance of viewpoints on origins, etc. was
presented. . . . He thought we were SUGGESTING such balanced
presentations should be the norm. He objected strongly to the
supposed suggestion, and seemed unaware that -- according to the
claim in ICRGS's Application (p. 3) -- he had been the recipient
of balanced presentations." (5)

On page 21, under "Purposes of ICRGS are religious, not
scientific," Hurlbert said: "ICRGS's claim that its purpose is `to
discover the truth about the universe by scientific research. . .'
is inaccurate. By ICR's own testimony, all the major truths
relating to `origins' are already known and are given in the Bible
and in the ICR tenets. . . . The Absolute Truth is already known
to them and ICR's primary purpose is to disseminate it." 

On page 24, under "Misrepresentations of weaknesses in ICRGS
program": "Most of the faculty members have doctoral degrees,
though often not in the fields in which they are teaching and
advising students. The archetype in this regard is Dr. Henry
Morris. His doctorate is in civil engineering. Yet he teaches a
course (Advanced Studies in Creationism) that treats the `origin
and history of the universe, of the solar system, of life, of the
various forms of life, and of man and his cultures . . . using data
from paleontology, astronomy, biochemistry, genetics, . . .' Dr.
Morris has no formal training or practical experience in any of
these fields."

On page 25, in the same part: "According to [the dummy catalog
submitted with the ICR's application], `The Master's program in
Biology trains students in the nature and origin of the living
state through a broad background in all areas of vertebrate
biology.' The statement is quite odd. One would not expect the
study of vertebrates to shed much light on the origin of life. But
of course from ICR's point of view, each `kind' of vertebrate
originated fully formed from the hand of God. That is the only
opinion that ICRGS staff and students are allowed to hold."

"It is complete misrepresentation, however, to claim that the
program provides `a broad background in all areas of vertebrate
biology.' Aside from the course in Human Biology, ICRGS does not
offer a single course in vertebrate biology. Not one!" (5)

After explaining more misrepresentations mounted by the ICR,
Hurlbert said: "The ICRGS program severely violates the trust
placed in it by the students. The students are misled into thinking
that with the skeletal curriculum and facilities provided by ICRGS
they can put a small stone in a sling and upend some nasty,
humanistic, evolutionistic Goliath, some large body of conventional
scientific evidence and theory.

"[Henry Morris] was quite frank in stating to the VC that he likes
the students to take on these big topics because the resultant
theses can then be used to produce creationistic publications. .
. ." 

"The students are deceived in many ways. They are encouraged to
think that the selective quoting of `authorities', selective
neglect of evidence, setting up and demolishing of straw men, and
adhering to prescribed opinions regardless of the evidence all are
valid modes of scientific analysis."

So the truth was known. Woodhead and Hurlbert had told it. And
Hurlbert -- by describing the ICR's antics in detail, and by
supporting his account with examples and quotations -- had written
the report that the committee should have written. (6) Indeed, he
had written what the committee probably WOULD have written if the
committee had been responsibly prepared for its task and had been
allowed to operate with diligence, integrity and care. 

(I learned about the operation of the committee when I sought
answers to obvious questions: Given that the committee's report was
incompetent, false and misleading, why had Hurlbert signed it? Why
had Woodhead signed it? Why had ANYONE signed it? I shall tell the
answers, and shall tell the real objective of the committee's work,
in Part III of this article.)

Honig evidently did not see the committee's report, or the
dispatches from Woodhead and Hurlbert, until late October or early
November. That is what he said when, on 10 November, he met in
Sacramento with three members of the committee: Woodhead, Hurlbert
and Howe. (He had invited all five members, but Kovach and Miller
could not attend.) 

Honig was not pleased. He knew that something was foul; he seemed
intent on ensuring that the ICR would not gain approval if its
programs were bogus; and he wanted the committee members to
reconsider what they had seen and how they had voted.

It was unlikely that anything could make Howe reconsider, for Howe
was the ICR's man. (Indeed, he had been among fifteen people whom
Henry Morris, in a letter sent to the Department on 7 June 1988,
had recommended for the committee.(7) He brought to the November
meeting a 17-page document, addressed to Honig, that purported to
refute Hurlbert's account. It was typed on plain paper. It showed
Howe as its author, described him in a footnote as "a research
scientist," but did not cite any affiliation. (Howe worked at The
Master's College, a religious school in Newhall.)

Howe's text had two parts: a statement in which he urged Honig to
approve the ICR, then a 13-page letter from Henry Morris. (The
letter was addressed not to Honig but to Howe, at Howe's residence;
again, there was no hint of his affiliation.) Morris, pretending
to answer some of Hurlbert's charges, repeated some of the ICR's
usual evasions and throw-away lines. Example: ". . . we have only
a small resident faculty, but each member has a terminal degree in
his fields, plus extensive research and teaching experience."
(Recall: Hurlbert's issue was not whether the ICR men had degrees
in "their fields" but whether "their fields" were the fields in
which they were teaching. As for their experience: Where were the
curricula vitae that would describe and document it? Morris did
not say.)

The meeting did not yield any definitive changes, but it evidently
confirmed Honig's suspicions, bolstered his determination to avoid
participating in a sham or a scam, and suggested that he might
resolve the case by turning to Kovach, the professor of geophysics
at Stanford. Kovach already had seen Hurlbert's dissent; and in
late November, the Department sent to him other documents providing
information that had not been presented (or had not been
considered) during the committee's proceedings in August. Kovach
would examine those documents before talking with Honig.

                         End of Part II

                             NOTES:

1. The ICR's application to the Department showed a "regular
faculty" of eleven men, including the librarian. These eleven
ostensibly ran three departments of natural science and a
department of education. 

2. In its application, the ICR had to name, for each of its
programs, an accredited institution that offered a comparable
program. In science education, the ICR compared itself to the
University of Wisconsin; in geology, to San Jose State; in biology,
to San Diego State; and in "astro/geophysics," to the University
of Toronto, the University of Colorado, the University of Texas at
El Paso, Colorado State University, and the University of
California at San Diego!

3. "Catastrophism," in the lingo of "creation-science," means
explaining geological phenomena as relics of Noah's Flood. The
Flood itself is disguised as "a catastrophe" or "a worldwide
catastrophe."

4. All functionaries of the ICR must make an annual commitment to
the tenets of both "scientific creationism" and "biblical
creationism," as listed in the ICR's bylaws. The tenets of
"scientific creationism" include declarations that life did not
originate through natural processes but was made directly by a
supernatural Creator; that "Each of the major kinds of plants and
animals was created functionally complete" and did not evolve; and
that the first humans were specially created in fully human form.

5. Emphasis in the original.

6. For a free copy of Hurlbert's document, write to him at the
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA
92182. 

7. When I talked with Roy Steeves on 17 January 1989 about the
recruiting of the committee, Steeves was not sure whether he had
got Howe's name from Morris's letter or had independently found
Howe by surveying college catalogs.