From: BLANTON@VAX2.DSEG.TI.COM
Subject:      Slusher/Barnes and Strahler
Message-ID: <9210281434.AA05492@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date:         Wed, 28 Oct 1992 08:23:41 -0600

The names of Harold Slusher and Thomas Barnes have cropped up in these
postings concerning MIOS, the Metroplex Institute of Origin Science.
In his book "Science and Earth History", Arthur Strahler gives
excellent synopses of both men's theories.  For those interested in
the creation/evolution controversy, this is THE book.  At around $40
it is a bargain by one of the top science textbook writers.  It is a
thick, large format, hard-bound book with lots of illustrations.  It's
from Prometheus Books, the publishing company owned by Paul Kurtz of
CSICOP.  If you are an NCSE member you can order it from them at a
discount.

Someone asked how to join the NCSE and get their newsletter.  If you
haven't received a reply yet, drop me a note and I will fill you in
when I get back from my meeting (around noon).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Blanton                                                    |
| Secretary, North Texas Skeptics                                 |
| blanton@mcopn1.dseg.ti.com                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+




From: BLANTON@VAX2.DSEG.TI.COM
Subject:      Slusher/Schaum's
Message-ID: <9210281417.AA04656@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date:         Wed, 28 Oct 1992 08:07:40 -0600

As part of my follow up I purchased a copy of the Slusher/Wells
Outline.  As far as I could tell, the authors provide a
creditable treatment of undergraduate physics.  The examples and
the problems are meaningful and clearly stated.  There is no
coverage of quantum mechanics or relativity, but I would
recommend the book to any undergraduate studying physics or
engineering mechanics. One would never know that one of the
authors holds such a low opinion of the title subject.

I think that McGraw-Hill is doing a disservice listing Slusher as
a Ph.D. on the title page.  Although one could argue that
professional titles are worthless in themselves; it's only the
works of the person that count.  If this is the case, then why
list the professional titles?  Helps to sell books.  This smacks
of false advertising in that case.  The UTEP undergraduate
catalog doesn't list Slusher's Ph.D.  McGraw-Hill should correct
the problem.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Blanton                                                    |
| Secretary, North Texas Skeptics                                 |
| blanton@mcopn1.dseg.ti.com                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+




From: S_MURPHY@VAX2.PHYSICS.MANCHESTER.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Harold Slusher's monograph
Message-ID: <9210281247.AA29739@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date:         Wed, 28 Oct 1992 11:22:00 GMT

After looking at the monographs of Slusher that Taner Edis forwarded I can
only say that I am appalled. The fact that special relativity only applies
to inertial reference frames is something that is normally drummed home in
the first year of an undergraduate course in physics. That someone in Slusher's
position seems to have lost sight of this is, to say the least , disconcerting.
Does anybody know if the Schaum book suffers because of it? (I'm going to see
if I can track a copy down over lunch, but I probably won't have time to do
more than skim over it.)

                                        Sean Murphy.





From: Murray Voight <BI08%UTEP.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject:      Metroplex Institute of Origin Science
Message-ID: <9210280759.AA12798@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date:         Wed, 28 Oct 1992 00:51:12 MST

> Don Patton, chairman of MIOS has informed me that the lecture on
> Tuesday night next week (election day) will be Harold Slusher.  Harold
> Slusher is a well known proponent of "creation science".  He has a
> legitimate master's degree in physics and is the co-author of the
> Schaum's Outline "Physics for Engineers and Scientists" (I believe
> that is the title).  He claims to have a Ph.D. in geophysics from
> Columbia Pacific University.  He is an assistant professor of physics
> at the University of Texas at El Paso.  Here is some additional
> information:  1)  He lists his "Ph.D." on the title page of the
> Schaum's Outline, but the UTEP undergraduate catalog does not list any
> Ph.D.  2) I can't find "Columbia Pacific University" in any college
> reference.  3)  He is the author of a monograph titled "The Origin of
> the Universe:  An Examination of the Big Bang and Steady State
> Cosmogonies" in which he generally bashes modern cosmology and makes
> some bizarre statements concerning special relativity.
>
> Can anyone on this forum provide me with additional information
> regarding Slusher and his claims?  I plan to attend the MIOS meeting
> on Tuesday and make a first hand assessment.  I would appreciate any
> assistance.

I received my B.S. from U. T. El Paso.  I took a course under
Harold Slusher and two courses under Dr. Thomas Barnes (who is
also a proponent of creationism.)

Both men are intelligent and both teach their courses with almost
no reference to creationism.

They understand that had they pushed their personal ideas in the
classroom they would probably have been fired.

Barnes taught the best two courses in E&M I ever had.

Both can follow the status quo very well and understand it perfectly,
but it seems they feel that they have had some special insight into
the "TRUE" nature of the universe that only they have had.

Years ago I approached both privately on the subject of creationism.
They became very animated and really tried to explain the essence of
their understanding.  (It didn't take.)

Out of several hundred students, maybe four or five "understood" and
became members of their fold.  Which to them was just right.  Only the
elite really understand.

This of course allows them to be impervious to all attacks.  They
consider all attacks as coming from ignorance and misunderstanding.

They have created their own confortable, secure little world and
are happy therein.

I would only attend a lecture of this nature if I had not been
previously exposed to a creationist.

Murray Voight
BI08@UTEP.BITNET




From: Taner Edis <edis@ETA.PHA.JHU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Harold Slusher's monograph
Message-ID: <9210280104.AB20018@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date:         Tue, 27 Oct 1992 17:38:16 EST

        Assuming that it is of some interest, I'll share the excerpts
from Slusher's stuff that was sent to me, and my comments on them.
Pretty typical creationist abuse of physics.

> From: BLANTON@VAX2.dseg.ti.com
>
> Here are two excerpts from Slusher's monographs on the origin of the
> universe.  I have tried to type them in accurately (noting minor typos
> in the original), so if you see major grammatical disconnects you
> should attribute them to me.
>
> The first section is from an argument using the third law of
> thermodynamics (pretty standard for creationists).  In my opinion, it
> starts out not half bad.  I wish my high school physics text had given
> as good a treatment of the subject.  The part that seems puzzling to
> me is the delta-entropy equation toward the end.  You might skip to
> there if you want.
>
> The second section is from Slusher's Appendix A, in which he discusses
> a theory of Herbert Dingle.  Admittedly this is not Slusher's own, but
> he endorses it and uses its arguments.  My own impression is that
> Dingle seems to overlook the consequences of the accelerating frame of
> reference in the earth orbital example.  I have had the standard
> graduate E&M course from Professor Rindler here at UT Dallas, so I
> know not to make rash assumptions about the expected observations of
> moving charges (and masses, too).  However, I do not have the ability
> to fully analyze Dingle's argument.  Any suggestions?

        Both suspicions are correct, i.e. his thermodynamics fails on
account of making up a nonsensical equation, and his relativity
totally ignores the acceleration.  The details follow after Slusher's
arguments:

> Here is Slusher on thermodynamics:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> The entropy increases that occur in natural processes measure the
> increased disorder, a total entropy increase is associated with a lost
> opportunity to obtain useful mechanical work.  When a process leads to
> an increase in the total entropy, some energy which could have been
> used to perform macroscopic mechanical work has been degraded to a
> form in which it is unavailable for work.  Natural processes occur in
> a direction such that, on a scale of unavailability, energy runs
> downhill.
>
> All conceivable processes can be conveniently divided into three
> classes:
>
> 1) Natural processes, for which dS = S - S0 > 0.
> 2) Reversible processes, for which dS = S - S0 = 0.
> 3) Unnatural processes, for which dS = S - S0 < 0.
>
> Natural processes are spontaneous, irreversible processes that
> actually take place in the cosmos.  An unnatural process may be
> thought of as the exact opposite of some natural one.  Examples of
> unnatural processes are the flow of heat from a cold body to a hot
> body, a gas compressing itself to a smaller volume, a mixture
> separating itself into pure substances, etc.  Unnatural processes are
> unnatural only in closed systems.  They can always be brought about if
> outside agents act on a system.
>
> It is claimed by some that somehow highly complex bodies with much
> information can arise in parts of an isolated system even though the
> total entropy of the system increases.  It is contended that if the
> places where entropy decreases are more than offset by regions of
> increasing entropy the Second Law is not violated.  It has been argued
> that if a place is "open" to energy the entropy can be reduced and
> order and complexity arise.  This would appear to be nonsense.  Dr.
> David R. Boylan in the excellent monograph published by the Creation
> Research Society, "Thermodynamics and the Development of Order" (pp.
> 52-54), argues against this scheme in the following manner.
>
> For a system the total entropy change is given by
>
>      dS[total] = dS[random] - dS[order].
>
> The first term on the right of the equation is the entropy change in
> the system due to random effects and the second term that of entropy
> change due to increasing order.  As Dr. Boylan emphasizes, the two
> entropy terms are from different "types" of energy transfer, and the
> exchange of energy between the system and its surroundings must be of
> the same "kind."  In other words, as Boylan maintains: "The decrease
> in entropy due to increasing order cannot be financed by an increase
> in entropy in the sun or in any other random process in the
> surroundings.  It can only be financed by energy from an equivalent
> 'quality' source."  If the parts of an auto in a junk yard were made
> open to the sun, or to the uiverse [sic], this would not lead to an
> automobile.  Only the introduction of a certain "kind" of ordered
> energy could make the auto.  An automobile mechanic is necessary.

        Separation of entropy into "random" and "order" parts is bad
enough (I'd like to see what distinction is to be employed), and it is
made worse by pulling what amounts to a "conservation of order" law
out of a hat.  This is garbage, and has only a tenuous connection to
real statistical mechanics.
        As usual, what is attempted is a rephrasing of the classical
argument from design, but in quasi-physical language.  Unfortunately,
the evolution of functional complexity in dynamical systems that can
be described quite simply has been known for a while now.  Natural
selection in a biological context is but one (early) example of
general "self-organizing" behavior.
        Entropy is a concept very strongly tied to information and
complexity.  Perhaps a description of how a "2nd law" operates in
informational terms can be useful:
        All "microscopic" physical theories we currently think well of
have an "information-preserving" quality: complexity is not created
(say by random injection of new particles) or destroyed (which is just
creation in a time-reversed sense).  The natural question is how can
so many of our *macroscopic* theories be very successful, when they
very often include an irreversibility in time?  Slusher's
natural/unnatural event description assumes this: normally things run
down and decay (entropy is increased, complexity lessened), while some
events he "explains" by invoking design involves generation of "order"
(entropy goes down, complexity goes up).
        The standard reply is that nothing in a global picture of
increasing "disorder" prevents local fluctuation.  This is entirely
correct, and not affected by bogus conservation laws, but there is
more to the story, i.e. how we can get irreversibility in a seemingly
reversible universe.  It would seem that global entropy does not
change at all!
        What saves the day is the observation that humans and similar
information processors cannot handle the infinite amounts of
information necessary to perfectly track the time evolution of most
physical systems.  *The presence of dynamical randomness -- chaos --
will create irreversibility from the point of view of a finite
information processor*.  In fact, one can justify many irreversible
phenomenological equations that are irreversible (such as diffusion),
based on reversible dynamics that possess a positive Kolmogorov-Sinai
entropy (a relative of conventional entropy that is useful for chaos).
        In other words, a physical theory that posits a constant
complexity can still give rise to increases and decreases in "order,"
at a macroscopic level where only finite computational resources are
available.  A macroscopic decrease in entropy is not the same thing as
a microscopic complexity increase.  Self-organization can and does
occur, just like disorganization does, neither are "unnatural."
        Slusher's distinction between "kinds" of entropy is
ill-defined (reminding me of the creationist "kind" concept in their
version of biology), and no conservation law of the form invoked
exists.

> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> Here is Slusher on Dingle on relativity and Doppler shift
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Efforts to deny Professor Dingle's contention as discussed in this
> Appendix were ably refuted by him in two very important papers:
> "Observatory," No. 949, December, 1965, pp. 264, 265; No. 953, August,
> 1966, pp. 165-167.
>
> Some years ago, the late professor Herbert Dingle [1, 2] pointed out a
> most profound effect that the acceptance of Einstein's postulate of
> relativity would have on current ideas in cosmology and cosmogony.
> This effect is seen in the interpretation of the Doppler shift.  The
> Doppler effect is a relation between the relative motion of a source
> of light and the spectrum of that light as recorded for instance on a
> spectrometer.  If a source and an observer are approaching each other,
> the spectrum is shifted to shorter wavelengths; but the shift is to
> longer wavelengths if they are receding from each other.  These shifts
> are measured relative to position of the spectrum of the light when
> the source of light and the observer have no relative motion.  This
> paper is a discussion of Dingle's examination of the meaning of the
> Doppler shift in the light of the postulate of relativity.  Dingle's
> examination is little known but of tremendous significance and
> therefore the subject of this paper.
>
> Dingle proceeded in the following manner in proposing a simple but
> far-reaching problem regarding Doppler shift.  Suppose that initially
> the source and observer are stationary with no motion toward or away
> from each other and are separated, being a distance s apart [reference
> here to a figure].  Then suppose the source begins to move with speed
> V toward the observer [reference to the figure].  The light-waves will
> be compressed and, thus, shifted toward the blue side of the spectrum
> that existed before this motion began.  However, this Doppler shift
> should not begin to be detected until a time s/c after the motion
> began, since it would take this long for the effect caused by the
> motion of the source to reach to observer at a distance s away; c is
> the speed of light.
>
> But now suppose that the source is stationary and the observer (say a
> spectrometer on Earth) begins to move with a speed V toward the source
> [refers to figure].  The spectrum will be shifted to the blue side an
> identical amount as before; but the shift will be detected
> immediately, since the Doppler shift is caused by the observer
> encountering the waves with a greater frequency.  The amount of shift
> is the same in both cases.  The only observable difference between a
> Doppler shift caused by a speed of the source towards the observer and
> an equal speed of the observer towards the source is that in the first
> case, there is a delay in detection of the Doppler shift, while in the
> second case its detection is instantaneous.  Synchronized clocks
> placed at the source and observer should show which has moved since
> the time of movement of the source or the observer and the detection
> of the Doppler-shifted light can be determined.
>
> In Einstein's hypothesis, the relativity postulate maintains that
> there can be no observable difference between the motion of the source
> towards the observer and that of the motion of the observer towards
> the source.  Only the relative motion can be detected.  So either
> observation of the motion causing the Doppler shift is instantaneous
> in both cases or there is a time delay in both cases.  There cannot be
> two answers.  Common experience should tell us which of these answers
> we must take.
>
> Consider the orbital motion of Earth about the Sun and observations of
> a distant star.  There will be an oscillation of the spectral lines of
> that distant star as the Earth revolves in its orbit.  Superimposed on
> this oscillation of the spectrum due to Earth's orbital motion will be
> a shift due to the relative motion of the solar system and the distant
> star.  This however, does not affect the oscillation of the spectral
> lines.  The Doppler effect corresponding to this orbital motion is
> synchronized with the orbital position of the earth.  The Doppler
> shift of the light from the distant star caused by Earth's orbital
> motion is instantaneous in its detection.  As shown in [reference to
> figure], the Doppler effect is a maximum (in opposite senses) at
> positions (2) and (4) and a minimum at positions (1) and (3).  The
> expected Doppler shift synchronizes immediately with the positions of
> the Earth.  According to the relativity postulate, the Doppler effect
> of the motion of the star then must likewise show up immediately;
> otherwise there would be an observable difference between the two
> cases.  The relativity postulate says that phrases "when the star
> moves" and "when the observer moves" are meaningless phrases and only
> a phrase like "when the relative motion occurs" is proper.  Two
> answers are not possible according to the relativity postulate.  We
> know that for the observer moving the Doppler shift is instantaneous.
> Therefore, this answer must apply regardless of which body moves if
> the postulate of relativity is to stand.  Thus, the Doppler shifts of
> stars and galaxies must give the speeds which exist when the
> observations are made, no matter how far away the sources of the light
> are.
>
> Dingle's singling out of this problem regarding the postulate of
> relativity and/or modern cosmology is little known but obviously of
> tremendous significance.  For it would seem to imply that the red
> shifts of the spectra of distant galaxies give velocities existing
> now, not millions or billions of years ago as generally accepted.  So,
> if the relativity postulate is accepted, then a radically different
> interpretation must be placed on the Hubble law.  The Hubble law (V=
> Hr), a prediction of relativistic cosmology, says the distance of an
> object is proportional to its velocity which is found from its red
> shift.  This velocity presumably was that of the object years into the
> past.  Of course, today, there is a great deal of question as to
> whether red-shifts are truly Doppler effects at all.  If the postulate
> of relativity is not accepted so as to eliminate this problem, a vast
> reconstruction must be made of modern cosmology and cosmogony since
> they are laid down on the assumption of the validity of the hypotheses
> of special and general relativity.  Both the hypotheses of special and
> general relativity and their child, modern cosmogony, have several
> distinct failures when attempting to represent the real Universe.
>
>
>
> 1,2 Dingle, Herbert, 1960.  The Doppler effect and the foundations of
> physics, (I) and (II) British Journal for the Philosophy of Science XI
> (41) 11-31 and (42) 113-129.  In this article Dingle remarked: "It is
> doubtful if there is a serious rival to the Doppler effect as the
> department of modern science in which the experimental basis is
> slightest in comparison with the structure raised on it."

        Special relativity declares that only relative motion is
meaningful for *inertial* frames of reference, i.e. those at
*constant* velocity.  Once acceleration (or, equivalently,
gravitation) is present, it is general relativity that must be
invoked.  Dingle's argument fails on this count, in that the purported
illegal distinction between frames is entirely based on the
acceleration, invalidating the assumption of inertiality.
        There is a very closely related, but more dramatic puzzler
about special relativity, the "Twin Paradox."  This is traditionally
sprung on undergraduates just when they think they conceptually
understand relativity, after having performed a few Lorentz
transforms.  Remember the well-known illustration of time dilation
(where the elapsed time between events depends on the relative
velocities), that of the astronaut zooming through space close to the
speed of light?  Well, she comes home after a year of her time, in
which her twin has aged twenty years.  But then, you spring the
question on the unsuspecting (they never do) students: if only the
relative velocity of the frames (rocket and earth) matter, is it not
the case that the earth twin is traveling very fast relative to the
one in the rocket?  In this case, why doesn't the earth twin age one
year to the rockets' twenty?
        Again, the distinguishability, allowing us to point at one
twin as getting older than the other, has to do with acceleration --
special relativity doesn't apply.  If the twins were on separate
rocket ships all their lives, going at constant velocity, fine, except
that they'd never meet again.  In order to meet again, the rocket twin
has to decelerate at some point in his journey, reverse velocities,
and head back to the home planet.  At this point, you can roughly
calculate the aging difference from special relativity, but the
equivalence of frames is destroyed -- by the huge mass of the earth.
        The Doppler shift pseudoproblem is essentially the same thing,
and is no argument against special relativity.  And in cosmological
questions, it is general relativity that is indispensable, where the
general Doppler shift is related also to the curvature in space-time.
        Talking about Doppler shifts giving the velocities at the time
of observation is nonsense, and not only because of Dingle's
misunderstanding of the theory he criticizes: it smuggles in a notion
of a "now" that is the same across the universe -- the time of
observation -- that is at best a conceptual roadblock in a
relativistic universe.

        Taner Edis





From: "Orville G. Marti" <OMARTI%TIFTON.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Metroplex Institute of Origin Science
Message-ID: <9210271415.AA18699@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date:         Tue, 27 Oct 1992 08:57:56 EST
On Mon, 26 Oct 1992 10:50:34 -0600 <BLANTON@VAX2.DSEG.TI.COM> said:

>               He claims to have a Ph.D. in geophysics from
>Columbia Pacific University.  He is an assistant professor of physics
>at the University of Texas at El Paso.  Here is some additional
>information:  1)  He lists his "Ph.D." on the title page of the
>Schaum's Outline, but the UTEP undergraduate catalog does not list any
>Ph.D.  2) I can't find "Columbia Pacific University" in any college
>reference.
>

    Columbia Pacific University is a "diploma mill", but I think it is
"better" (if I can use that word) than most.  Rather than merely mailing
you a diploma in return for your check, they actually go thru the motions
of providing some instruction.  For a Ph.D., for example, you are supposed
to conduct research at your location (not at theirs) and enlist the
aid of a local expert in your field, all the while maintaining contact with
your CPU advisor.  In due course, you will receive your degree.

>+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>| John Blanton                                                    |
>| Secretary, North Texas Skeptics                                 |
>| blanton@mcopn1.dseg.ti.com                                      |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Orville G. Marti, Jr.       OMARTI@TIFTON               Dick Marti

........................................................................
"...the world is not to be narrowed till it will go into the
understanding (which has been done hitherto), but the understanding is
to be expanded and opened till it can take in the image of the world."
       .....Francis Bacon        from        "The Parasceve"
************************************************************************







From: BLANTON@VAX2.DSEG.TI.COM
Subject:      Metroplex Institute of Origin Science
Message-ID: <9210262058.AA23087@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date:         Mon, 26 Oct 1992 10:50:34 -0600

In Dallas there is a local creationist group called the Metroplex
Institute of Origin Science (MIOS).  The hold monthly meetings at
which they preach the evils of evolution and host lectures generally
aimed at discrediting legitimate science, particularly as it supports
1) biological evolution of species, 2) modern concepts in geology (old
age of the earth, natural processes accounting for geological
phenomena, etc.) and 3) modern concepts in cosmology (Big Bang, etc.).
They seem to believe emphatically that the earth is about 6000 years
old, the flood of Noah was a real event just as described, and humans
and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously, as evidenced by the so-called
"man tracks" in Cretaceous limestone in the Paluxy River about 90
miles west of here.

Don Patton, chairman of MIOS has informed me that the lecture on
Tuesday night next week (election day) will be Harold Slusher.  Harold
Slusher is a well known proponent of "creation science".  He has a
legitimate master's degree in physics and is the co-author of the
Schaum's Outline "Physics for Engineers and Scientists" (I believe
that is the title).  He claims to have a Ph.D. in geophysics from
Columbia Pacific University.  He is an assistant professor of physics
at the University of Texas at El Paso.  Here is some additional
information:  1)  He lists his "Ph.D." on the title page of the
Schaum's Outline, but the UTEP undergraduate catalog does not list any
Ph.D.  2) I can't find "Columbia Pacific University" in any college
reference.  3)  He is the author of a monograph titled "The Origin of
the Universe:  An Examination of the Big Bang and Steady State
Cosmogonies" in which he generally bashes modern cosmology and makes
some bizarre statements concerning special relativity.

Can anyone on this forum provide me with additional information
regarding Slusher and his claims?  I plan to attend the MIOS meeting
on Tuesday and make a first hand assessment.  I would appreciate any
assistance.

Fellow North Texas Skeptic, Ron Hastings, will hopefully be there, as
well.  Ron has a (real) Ph.D. in physics from Texas A&M University,
and he is on the board of directors of NCSE, the National Center for
Science Education.  He is one of the better authorities on the Paluxy
River "man tracks" (see Arthur Strahler's book, "Science and Earth
History").  Even so, we could use some help.

If anybody is interested, please drop me a note.  If you would like, I
can supply you with specific excerpts from Slusher's monograph for
your own evaluation.  Taner Edis, this should be your concern.  It is
the science of physics that's being trashed.


+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Blanton                                                    |
| Secretary, North Texas Skeptics                                 |
| blanton@mcopn1.dseg.ti.com                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+




From: BLANTON@VAX2.DSEG.TI.COM
Subject:      More on young earth creationists
Message-ID: <9301271739.AA19647@lll-winken.llnl.gov>
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:24:38 -0600
In my previous post I didn't explain my relief at encountering
old earth creationism.  Our problem here (Dallas area) is not
only countering anti-evolution propaganda but also having to
argue that the Cretaceous limestone that abounds in these parts
is really more than 6,000 years old.  Local creationists seem
to have given up entirely on science.

Speaking of local creationists, I will be attending the meeting
of MIOS, the Metroplex Institute of Origin Science, on Tuesday.
If anyone in the area is interested I can provide directions.

John Blanton
Secretary, North Texas Skeptics
blanton@lobby.ti.com