DOCSLIB.ORG

Bigfoot and Other Wild Men of the Forest. by Eugenie Scott. San Fransisco: FORA.Tv, Episode 113, January 13, 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bigfoot and Other Wild Men of the Forest. by Eugenie Scott. San Fransisco: FORA.Tv, Episode 113, January 13, 2009 The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 1:87-92 (2012) Video Review Bigfoot and Other Wild Men of the Forest. By Eugenie Scott. San Fransisco: FORA.tv, episode 113, January 13, 2009. 84 min 55 sec. http://fora.tv/2009/01/13/Eugenie_Scott_Bigfoot_and_Other_Wild_Men_of_the_Forest Something “must be seriously wrong” FORA.tv presents the poorly tested medical and psychotherapeutic Web's largest collection practices.1 That a professional anthropologist of conference and event would make a serious address on such a videos drawn from top controversy-laden topic as Bigfoot is in itself conferences, universities, noteworthy, and for that Scott is to be and public forums. commended. However, as will be seen, the Among their listings is a inaccuracies, selectivity and superficiality of recording of a talk the content fall short of what might be delivered in the Ask a expected of such a scholarly presentation. Scientist lecture series. The series is an The title and emphasis of this review draw informative, entertaining, monthly event, held from the repeated statement by Scott that, “If at a San Francisco cafe. It was first launched these creatures [Bigfoot] exist, an awful lot of in 2003, by Juliana Gallin, a graphic designer what we know from other basic sciences must and native of San Francisco. In 2009, Dr. be seriously wrong. Given the probabilities, I Eugenie Scott delivered a presentation in the know what side I come down on.” She series titled, Bigfoot and Other Wild Men of implies that this is the crux of the matter at the Forest. Scott is the Director of the hand. This statement rests on two assumptions National Center for Science Education that I suggest cannot be ultimately justified. (NCSE; 1986-present). She is a physical The first is that what we (i.e. scientists) anthropologist by training and served as a past “know” is uniformly and unquestionably president of the American Association of reliable. Scientific knowledge is inherently Physical Anthropologists (AAPA; 2001- tentative and likely to be revised, elaborated, 2003), among her numerous accolades. For or altogether overturned in the light of new this presentation she was acting in the capacity revelations. A growing litany of editorials and of President of the Bay Area Skeptics. They articles decry the pervasive unreliability of describe themselves as a local interest group, many published scientific studies2. At the independent of all other organizations, striving to encourage critical thinking and accuracy in 1 http://www.baskeptics.org/about. the media and in schools, particularly 2 Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research regarding such topics as claims of the findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/ journal.pmed.0020124. paranormal, pseudoscience, and untested or © RHI 88 culmination of a lengthy debate about the pros Afterward I confronted her and challenged and cons of peer-review conducted by Nature, the premise of that statement. Let me state that one of the premier multi-disciplinary journals, I teach a course on evolution in my an editorial opined that “Scientists understand department; I recognize evolution as the that peer review per se provides only a explanation of the mechanism of the origin minimal assurance of quality, and that the and diversification of life through time; I public conception of peer review as a stamp of follow and support the activities of the NCSE; authentication is far from the truth.”3 but I also embrace the distinct role of faith and The second assumption implicit to this religion in addressing Aristotle’s final cause statement is that the potential existence of (i.e. metaphysics). I pointed out that her sasquatch has no reasonable context within statement rested upon the assumption of a modern scientific knowledge, whether particular concept of God and creation, i.e. fiat paleontological, bio-geographical, or creation; that she presumed to know how a ecological. This betrays both a bias of divinely authored creation would, or would preconception of the nature of sasquatch and a not, appear. How might one expect the divine handicap of misconception of the possible signature on the creative canvas to look to us context for such a species. Specifically posited today? What if in reality God operates through – Is the proposition of a large relict hominoid natural law, as held by many believing in North America so out of context as to persons, including a significant fraction of justifying its rejection a priori? I maintain that scientists? What if the “creation” unfolded it is not so. Offering a very different through the operation of natural processes that perspective, a fellow paleontologist once were bound to produce a suitable stage upon pointed out that one must wonder why there which life’s drama might proceed? She wouldn’t be a great ape in North America. acknowledged this alternate view as a Scott’s thinking here reminds me of a possibility. At a more recent symposium in conversation I had with her in 1998, at the which she made a similar presentation, held at AAPA meeting held in Salt Lake City. She the American Association for the had chaired a symposium on the teaching of Advancement of Science (Pacific Division) evolution and creationism in public schools. In meetings, I recognized a much more tempered her introductory remarks she cautioned the and conciliatory attitude in this regard. attendees that they should be sensitive to their However the underlying mindset of the students’ beliefs and preconceptions. They former outlook is resurrected in the shouldn’t simply walk into a classroom and remarkable epistemological parallelism of the flatly state that God didn’t create the Earth statement, “If these creatures [Bigfoot] exist, and life on it. Rather, one might explain that it an awful lot of what we know from other basic certainly doesn’t appear that a deity was sciences must be seriously wrong.” responsible. In other words, she is suggesting This review waxes perhaps a bit – If God exists, then an awful lot of what we philosophical, but this is unavoidable when know in science about Earth’s natural history the organizers of the Ask A Scientist lecture is seriously wrong. (And given the series invited the sitting president of a skeptics probabilities, she knows what side she comes group to deliver an evaluation of the evidence down on). bearing on the question of sasquatch. Lacking familiarity with the primary evidence, she largely turns to philosophizing about the 3 Jennings, CG (2006) Quality and value: The true purpose of peer review. Nature doi:10.1038/nature nature of various kinds of evidence, rather 05032. than the merits of the specific evidence. Her 89 lack of acumen with the primary data is around the Earth, that the universe was betrayed by the numerous errors of fact and geocentric. Galileo’s telescopic observations misleading statements. For example: Roy didn’t fit the existing paradigm, were flatly Wallace should be Ray Wallace; Dale Wallace rejected, and yet were true. is Ray’s nephew, not his son; the Bossburg Against this standard, Scott professes to tracks come from Washington, not California, critically consider three aspects fundamental and are 17.5 inches long, not 13; she to any species’ adaptation and survival: incorrectly asserts there were no reports of size/scale, niche/habitat, and population size. Bigfoot before the 1950’s; she incorrectly While emphasizing an excessive height of asserts that few animal footprints have well- 12 feet (far above average reported estimates), formed toe impressions; she exhibits uncritical she criticizes the “awfully human-like” reliance on internet sources; she inaccurately appearance of descriptions of Bigfoot. Such an states that Meldrum “believes” Bigfoot exists; enormous animal would exhibit adaptations to she overstates the blurriness of the Patterson- its large size incontrast to human proportions. Gimlin film; she accepts that Roy [Ray] Height estimates more consistent with the Wallace told Patterson and Gimlin where to majority of sightings would be in the range of go to film; she states that hair identified as 7 – 9 feet. Bigfoots upright posture is the most bison came from Ontario, when in fact it came human-like characteristic other than those from the Yukon. There are other errors not shared generally with primates. Otherwise, directly relating to the sasquatch question, descriptions typically call attention to the such as stating that a basking shark is really a remarkable non-human features: hair cover, whale; that a plesiosaur is a dinosaur; that the immense bulk, muscularity, longer upper Middle Pleistocene was 4-5 million years ago. limbs, shorter lower limbs, short neck, etc. These may seem on the surface to be trivial The description does convey indications of faults, but they betray a pattern of adaptation of scale to its larger body mass. superficiality and lack of familiarity with the Furthermore, the footprints indicate a greater substance and specifics of the pertinent breadth to length ratio than that in humans, evidence. If you are going to allege that you providing greater surface area to scale with can’t put a square peg [i.e. Bigfoot] in a round larger body mass.4 hole [i.e. a scientific context], then you must Regarding habitat, she opines that Bigfoot have a realistic sense of the true shape of the are encountered “all over the place.” Unlikely peg and the dimensions of the hole. This is sources of credible encounter locations such precisely her stated objective, as she goes on as Nebraska and west Texas are repeatedly to inform her audience that the way to use given special mention and attention. In fact, science and to think critically is to ask this very few reports emanate from those question first and foremost – How does the seemingly unlikely areas, and those instances new information fit with what we already may have more in common with Elvis know in science? I question this premise and sightings, as she suggests, than with her apparent reliance on this standard of encounters with an unrecognized hairy upright evaluation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chupacabra Mystery
    SI May June 11 CUT_SI new design masters 3/25/11 11:29 AM Page 45 Slaying the Vampire Solving the Chupacabra Mystery The mysterious vampire beast el chupacabra is said to have terrorized people around the world since at least 1995. A five-year skeptical investigation reveals the surprising origin of this monster, finding that there’s more to this vampire than meets the eye. BENJAMIN RADFORD approximately four-feet tall that had igfoot, the mysterious creature said to roam the thin arms and legs with three fingers or North American wilderness, is named after what it toes at the end of each (Corrales 1997). leaves behind: big footprints. Bigfoot’s Hispanic It had no ears or nose but instead two B small airholes and long spikes down its cousin, el chupacabra, is also known for what it leaves behind: back (see figure 1). When the beast was dead animals mysteriously drained of blood. Goats are said later reported in other countries, it took to be its favorite prey (chupacabra means goat sucker in Span- on a very different form (see figure 2). A few were found dead (for example, in ish), and it is the world’s third best-known mystery creature Nicaragua and Texas), and the carcasses (after Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster). turned out to be small four-legged an- imals from the Canidae family (such as El chupacabra first appeared in 1995 mense confusion and contradiction” dogs and coyotes). after Madelyne Tolentino, an eyewit- surrounding el chupacabra, making it The next step was identifying and ness in Puerto Rico, provided a detailed “almost impossible to distinguish fact analyzing the central claims about el description of the bloodsucker.
    [Show full text]
  • Bigfoot at 50 Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence
    B I C F O O T Bigfoot at 50 Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence The question of Bigfoot's existence comes down to the claim that "Where there's smoke there's fire. " The evidence suggests that there are enough sources of error that there does nc have to be a hidden creature lurking amid the unsubstantiated cases. BENJAMIN RADFORD hough sightings of the North American Bigfoot date back to the 1830s (Bord 1982), interest in Bigfoot Tgrew rapidly during the second half of the twentieth century. This was spurred on by many magazine articles of the time, most seminally a December 1959 True magazine article describing the discovery of large, mysterious foot- prints the year before in Bluff Creek, California. A half century later, the question of Bigfoot's existence remains open. Bigfoot is still sought, the pursuit kept alive by a steady stream of sightings, occasional photos or foot- print finds, and sporadic media coverage. But what evidence has been gathered over the course of fifty years? And what conclusions can we 4mw from that evidence? / SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Manh/Apr**^ 29 Most Bigfoot investigators favor one theory of Bigfoot's ori- gin or existence and stake their reputations on it, sniping at oth- ers who don't share their views. Many times, what one investi- gator sees as clear evidence of Bigfoot another will dismiss out of hand. In July 2000, curious tracks were found on the Lower Hoh Indian Reservation in Washington state. Bigfoot tracker Cliff Crook claimed that die footprints were "for sure a Bigfoot," though Jeffrey Meldrum, an associate professor of bio- logical sciences at Idaho State University (and member of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization, BFRO) decided that there was not enough evidence to pursue the matter (Big Disagreement Afoot 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biography of America's Lake Monster
    REVIEWS] The Biography of America’s Lake Monster BENJAMIN RADFORD obert Bartholomew and his broth- er Paul grew up near the shores Rof Lake Champlain, which not The Untold Story of Champ: A Social History of America’s only sparked an early interest in the Loch Ness Monster. By Robert E. Bartholomew. lake monster said to dwell within the State University of New York Press, lake but also steeped them in the social Albany, New York, 2012. ISBN: 978-1-4384-4484-0. and cultural context of the mysterious 253 pp. Paperback, $24.95. beastie. In his new book, The Untold Story of Champ: A Social History of America’s Loch Ness Monster, Robert, a sociologist, Fortean investigator, and former broadcast journalist, takes a fresh look at Champ, long dubbed “America’s Loch Ness Monster.” Roy Mackal, and others who con- the Mansi photo, “New Information There have only been a handful of vened a 1981 conference titled, “Does Surfaces on ‘World’s Best Lake Mon- other books dealing in any depth or Champ Exist? A Scientific Seminar.” ster Photo,’ Raising Questions,” May/ scholarship with Champ, among them The intrigue between and among these June 2013.) Joe Zarzynski’s Champ: Beyond the Leg- researchers is interesting enough to fill Like virtually all “unexplained” phe- end, and of course Lake Monster Mys- several chapters. nomena, the history of Champ is in teries: Investigating the World’s Most There are several good books about part a history of hoaxes, and the book Elusive Creatures, coauthored by Joe the people involved in the search for examines several of them in detail, in- Nickell and myself.
    [Show full text]
  • Mistaken Memories of Vampires: Pseudohistories of the Chupacabra As Well-Known Monsters Go, the Chupacabra Is of Very Recent Vintage, First Appearing in 1995
    Mistaken Memories of Vampires: Pseudohistories of the Chupacabra As well-known monsters go, the chupacabra is of very recent vintage, first appearing in 1995. However, some writers have created pseudohistories and claimed a false antiquity for the Hispanic vampire beast. These examples provide a fascinating look at cryptozoological folklore in the making. BENJAMIN RADFORD ost people assume that the chupacabra, like its acy-laden Frankenstein scenario. Not coincidentally, these two origin stories cryptozoological brethren Bigfoot and Nessie, dates are identical to those of Sil, a chupaca- Mback many decades or centuries. However, as dis- bra-like monster in the film Species (see Figure 1 and Radford 2014). cussed in my book Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire The alien/Frankenstein’s monster Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore and in the pages of the explanation, though embraced by SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, the origin of the mysterious vampire many Puerto Ricans and others soon after the chupacabra’s 1995 appear- beast el chupacabra can be traced back to a Puerto Rican ance, was unsatisfactory (and perhaps eyewitness who saw the 1995 film Species, which featured too outlandish) to some, who then offered their own histories of the a nearly identical monster. Though both vampire legends vampire beast. A blank slate history and “mysterious” animal predation date back many centu- creates an information vacuum easily ries, there seems to be no evidence of any blood-sucking filled by mystery-mongering specu- lation. (For analysis of historical ch- “chupacabra” before the 1990s. upacabra claims since the 1950s, see my SI columns “The Mystery of the The beast turned twenty last year, accounts of encounters with unknown Texas Chupacabra” in the March/ and its recent vintage poses a thorny corporeal creatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the New Distributive Model of Evolution Instruction
    JUDGING DARWIN: UNDERSTANDING THE NEW DISTRIBUTIVE MODEL OF EVOLUTION INSTRUCTION Louis J. Virelli III TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 82 II. THE EVOLUTION INSTRUCTION DEBATE ................................. 86 A. Religiously Explicit Policies ............................................. 89 B. Facially Neutral Challenges ............................................. 92 III. THE DISTRIBUTIVE MODEL ...................................................... 98 IV. THE DISTRIBUTIVE MODEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ......... 106 A. Administrative Law Principles ....................................... 106 B. Administrative Features of the Distributive Model ...... 111 C. The Distributive Model and the Establishment Clause ............................................................................. 117 V. NEW ISSUES UNDER THE DISTRIBUTIVE MODEL .................... 123 A. Political Legitimacy ........................................................ 123 B. Additional Questions ..................................................... 132 1. Judicial Review ........................................................ 132 2. Delegation ............................................................... 136 a. Procedural Due Process ................................... 138 b. Municipal Liability and Qualified Immunity .. 141 VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 143 Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law; J.D.,
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Wars Science and Its Disputers Oprah's Gullibility How
    SI M/A 2010 Cover V1:SI JF 10 V1 1/22/10 12:59 PM Page 1 MARTIN GARDNER ON JAMES ARTHUR RAY | JOE NICKELL ON JOHN EDWARD | 16 NEW CSI FELLOWS THE MAG A ZINE FOR SCI ENCE AND REA SON Vol ume 34, No. 2 • March / April 2010 • INTRODUCTORY PRICE U.S. and Canada $4.95 Climate Wars Science and Its Disputers Oprah’s Gullibility How Should Skeptics Deal with Cranks? Why Witchcraft Persists SI March April 2010 pgs_SI J A 2009 1/22/10 4:19 PM Page 2 Formerly the Committee For the SCientiFiC inveStigation oF ClaimS oF the Paranormal (CSiCoP) at the Cen ter For in quiry/tranSnational A Paul Kurtz, Founder and Chairman Emeritus Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow Richard Schroeder, Chairman Massimo Polidoro, Research Fellow Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO Benjamin Radford, Research Fellow Bar ry Karr, Ex ec u tive Di rect or Richard Wiseman, Research Fellow James E. Al cock, psy chol o gist, York Univ., Tor on to David J. Helfand, professor of astronomy, John Pau los, math e ma ti cian, Tem ple Univ. Mar cia An gell, M.D., former ed i tor-in-chief, New Columbia Univ. Stev en Pink er, cog ni tive sci en tist, Harvard Eng land Jour nal of Med i cine Doug las R. Hof stad ter, pro fes sor of hu man un der - Mas si mo Pol id oro, sci ence writer, au thor, Steph en Bar rett, M.D., psy chi a trist, au thor, stand ing and cog ni tive sci ence, In di ana Univ.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution Vs. Creationism: an Introduction of the Country Where There Is Still an Ongoing Dolphin Mysteries Is Awell-Written, Inter (2Nd Edition)
    BOOK REVIEEWS ELIZABETHCOWLES, DEPARTMENT EDITOR $l gE i Sl Er [@ l l 13iE 1 !A of species presented) as well as notes to the text, a glossary, and a bibliography. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction of the country where there is still an ongoing Dolphin Mysteries is awell-written, inter (2nd Edition). By Eugenie C. Scott. 2009. debate about restricting the teaching of evolu esting book on several levels. The authors' Greenwood Press. (ISBN 978-0-313-34427 tion. Luckily for us, we have Eugenie Scott's fascination with their subjects and respect 5). 351 pages. Hardback. $49.95 scholarly writing to support the teaching of for their habits and habitats are in evidence Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the evolution while it continues being targeted by throughout the text.Much of dolphin behav National Center for Science Education, is the antievolution movement. ior remains mysterious; the authors vividly one of the leading authorities in discuss convey the difficulties of the study of swift ing the controversy around the teaching of moving underwater animals. However, many Jose Vazquez behaviors are so clearly described and illus evolution. The second edition of her book Master Teacher Science of trated that the reader feels as if real dolphins includes recent developments in the evo Liberal Studies Program lution/creationism controversy in schools, had swum across the pages of the book, New York University playing with seaweed, displaying affection such as the Dover trial. This book is hard New York, NY 10003 or aggression, and at times being as curious Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/71/7/436/55238/20565349.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 ly an introduction; it is the equivalent of [email protected] an encyclopedia since she covers so much about the researchers as the humans are of ground, and includes plenty of reference them.
    [Show full text]
  • Chupacabra Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    CHUPACABRA PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Roland Smith | 304 pages | 20 Jun 2016 | Scholastic US | 9780545178181 | English | United States Chupacabra PDF Book Though goats are said to be its favorite prey chupacabra means "goat sucker" in Spanish , it has have also been blamed for attacks on cats, rabbits, dogs, chickens, and other animals. Visit the state elections site. The name comes from the animal's reported vampirism —the chupacabra is said to attack and drink the blood of livestock , including goats. Retrieved 26 July She noticed some significant differences between the animal and her "Texas Blue Dog. Each of the animals was reported to have had its body bled dry through a series of small circular incisions. External Websites. These chupacabras were smaller and stood upon four feet. El Vocero. Wizards of the Coast. Chupacabra , in Latin American popular legend , a monstrous creature that attacks animals and consumes their blood. See Article History. Parapsychology Death and culture Parapsychology Scientific literacy. Dead chupacabras were subjected to DNA tests and in every instance the body has been identified as a dog, coyote, raccoon, or other common mammal — usually stricken with a parasitic infection that caused the animal to lose its fur and take on a gaunt, monstrous appearance. Forum posts. They characterized it has having large oval red eyes that sometimes glowed, gray skin, a long snake-like tongue, fangs, and long spinal quills that may double as wings. Archived from the original on 14 September For the Nov 3 election: States are making it easier for citizens to vote absentee by mail this year due to the coronavirus.
    [Show full text]
  • Raising the Bar for Investigating Paranormal Claims ROBERT CARROLL
    SI Sept/Oct pgs_SI MJ 2010 7/22/10 4:42 PM Page 56 B O O K R E V I E W S Raising the Bar for Investigating Paranormal Claims ROBERT CARROLL Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. By Benjamin Radford. Rhombus Publishing Co., Corrales, New Mexico, 2010. 311 pp. Softcover, $16.95. n a chapter on how not to investigate Scien tific Paranormal Investigation would the paranormal in his new book, be a valuable addition to the library of IScientific Paranormal Investigation, every journalist and skeptic. But the thou- Benjamin Radford jokes that the entire sands of people who investigate weird or chapter could consist of just two words: mysterious things and the millions of watch television. He could have advised readers and viewers who follow their in - the reader to pick up almost any book vestigations would benefit the most. on ghosts, demons, spirits, aliens, lake I won’t relieve the lazy reader of the monsters, crop circles, the chupacabra, obligation to read Radford’s book by or other “strange and bizarre” things. summarizing the principles of a proper The bar for paranormal investigation in scientific investigation. Here I will sim- the popular media has been set very low, ply note that the goal of a proper inves- as evidenced by the overall poor quality tigation of the paranormal is neither to of work produced so far. Radford hopes prove nor disprove any particular claim. to raise the bar by clarifying and exem- Radford puts it this way: “Good science plifying the standards that should guide regularly reports on his field investiga- is not about advocacy; while all scien- a scientific investigator.
    [Show full text]
  • How Religiously Neutral Are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?
    How Religiously Neutral are the Anti‐Creationist Organisations? Two case studies by Don Batten and Jonathan Sarfati 1) USA’s so‐called ‘National Center for Science Education’ In NCSE Reports 15(2):9, 1995, the Executive director, Eugenie C. Scott, protests against Dr John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research saying the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is ‘an offshoot of the American Humanist Association’. Scott claims confusion could possibly be due to NCSE's journal, Creation/Evolution, being started by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and initially edited by the executive director of the AHA, Frederick Edwords (a philosopher, not a scientist). The journal ‘was later sold by AHA to NCSE’, says Scott. Although humanism is an atheistic religious belief, Scott claims that NCSE was intended from the start to ‘be a religiously‐neutral organization focusing on science and education’. Scott says that NCSE has members from all sorts of religious persuasions, including ‘conservative evangelical Christians’. NCSE is supposedly just interested in ‘science education’. However, it seems strange that the only ‘science education’ NCSE seems interested in is evolution; not chemistry, physics, astronomy, or even experimental biology. ‘Science’ seems to be a euphemism for ‘evolution’, certainly nothing to do with the operational science that put men on the moon, cured diseases, etc. In NCSE Reports 16(1):7, 1996, readers are directed to an article ‘on our web site at http://www.csicop.org’. This is the Skeptics' (USA) web site, the ‘Science and Reason Site’, as the Skeptics claim, which overtly espouses materialism (atheism) with direct links to the Council for Secular Humanism and other atheistic / anti‐Christian sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the Human Body Really Replace Itself Every 7 Years? by Benjamin Radford, Live Science Contributor | April 04, 2011 11:33Am ET
    Does the Human Body Really Replace Itself Every 7 Years? by Benjamin Radford, Live Science Contributor | April 04, 2011 11:33am ET 438 141 18 Submit 151 Reddit Credit: Dreamstime View full size image It's a neat idea, and one that has caught the popular imagination. Here's how the story goes: Every seven years (or 10, depending on which story you hear) we become essentially new people, because in that time, every cell in your body has been replaced by a new cell. Don't you feel younger than you were seven years ago? It is true that individual cells have a finite life span, and when they die off they are replaced with new cells. As The New York Public Library's Science Desk Reference (Stonesong Press, 1995) notes, "There are between 50 and 75 trillion cells in the body.... Each type of cell has its own life span, and when a human dies it may take hours or day before all the cells in the body die." (Forensic investigators take advantage of this vaguely morbid fact when determining the cause and time of death of homicide victims.) Red blood cells live for about four months, while white blood cells live on average more than a year. Skin cells live about two or three weeks. Colon cells have it rough: They die off after about four days. Sperm cellshave a life span of only about three days, while brain cells typically last an entire lifetime (neurons in the cerebral cortex, for example, are not replaced when they die).
    [Show full text]