2007 Articles Index
America Can Be Better
Monday March 12, 2007
Mr. Chisum Replies
Re Marshall Hall's Fixed-Earth Cosmology
From: Annette Glass On Behalf Of District88 Chisum
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 1:32 PM
To: my email address
Subject: RE: Marshall Hall's Fixed-Earth Cosmology
Mr. Chisum does not subscribe to any of the statements you have outlined below.
Annette Glass, Legislative Aide
Rep. Warren Chisum
FLASH!
HEADLINES!
The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.
The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.
Today's cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".
The whole scheme from Copernicanism to
Big Bangism is a factless lie.
The headlines above are things you need to know, according to Marshall Hall, the president of The Fair Education Foundation, Inc. You can find out more at http://www.fixedearth.com/. In summary, the Big Bang theory is derived from the "Pharisee Religion's 'holy book' Kabbala", evolutionism is a truth-killing virus, the theory of evolution rests on the counterfeit Copernican model that says that the earth is rotating and moving around the sun, and somehow or other superstring physics is derived from the Kabbala.
Sites of this sort are nothing unusual, and this one is as amusing as most. What makes this one worthy of mention here is that it seems to reflect the understanding of Georgia State Representative Ben Bridges. A news headline on KTRH (AM 740, Houston) this morning announced that a lawmaker was drawing criticism for saying that the teaching of evolution was a Jewish conspiracy. Such rantings are always amusing, right before you remember how disgusting they are, but some are more interesting than others. This one got my interest because the link from lawmaker to Jewish Conspiracist was so direct. Not six degress of separation, not even three. Just one.
A quick Google search found the story at Fox News. It's all over the internet. A memo characterizing the teaching of evolution as a myth propagated by an ancient Jewish sect was distributed to legislators in a number of states. The author of the memo, Marshall Hall, claims that Representative Bridges approved of the memo. A link in the article leads to Hall's website, http://www.fixedearth.com/, where you will learn such things as are declared in the banner lines reproduced above.
It will be intersting to see how this plays out. It may well be true than Representative Bridges goes along with Mr. Hall and his conspiracy-based view of how the Copernican System and the Theory of Evolution came to exist. (I am waiting for Representative Bridges' response to my email asking if that is true.) So also may a Texas Lawmaker, State Representative Warren Chisum, whose role was not made clear in the Fox News article. (I am also waiting for his response.) Presumably, he distributed the memo to some texas legislators. The Houston Chronicle SciGuy says more about Chisum and this issue at http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/02/warren_chisum_h.html.
A quick review of legislation introduced or supported by Mr. Bridges in 2005 (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/mbrs/bridgesben10th.htm) did not make it obvious that Mr. Bridges would go to quite the extremes that Mr. Hall does, although the wording in two proposed bills (or "substitutes to", which I did not take time to decode) is guaranteed to catch the interest of anyone following the battles over teaching religion in schools. See them at http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb158.htm and http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb179.htm.
His "substitue to HB 158" could possibly be intended to facilitate the teaching of religious doctrine in some manner, but in and of itself, frankly, it seems innocuous. In fact, it seems a shame that such legislation should be seen as necessary at all by anyone on either side of this issue. The first sentence of it proposes that "No school or school system receiving state funds shall prohibit, restrict, or require the use of historical documents in classrooms for educational purposes on the basis that such documents contain or make reference to God or the Creator."
In other words, you cannot prohibit or require a document based on the presence or the absence of certain references to God or the Creator. It should not be necessary even to say such a thing. If a historical document is relevant to a subject, it is relevant, period. Any reasonable person would present the document and use it as a key to the thinking or belief of the documents' author or authors. That's history. History, taught properly, should help us find the truth, whatever that is. If there is a "certain reference", that's news. If there is not a certain reference, that's just different news. And in either case it could be simply irrelevant.
The other proposal, House Bill 179, is more troubling. It proposes that "Whenever any theory of the origin of humans or other living things is included in a course of study offered by a local unit of administration, factual scientific evidence supporting or consistent with evolution theory and factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or not supporting the theory shall be included in the course of study."
One place you might encounter a theory of the origin of humans or other living things is in a course on the history of science. Any reasonable approach to the history of science will surely show why people thought one thing at one time and how they came to think something else later. However, that is not the same as presenting "factual scientific evidence inconsistent" with the later understanding. There may not be any, unless you elevate the observation that "the sun appears to move across the sky" to the level of "factual scientific evidence", for example.
Another place you might encounter such a theory is in a science class. Here is where we could have a problem. To see the problem in biology, which this particular legislation would affect, first consider instead chemistry or physics. If this requirement (to include "factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or not supporting") were introduced for these sciences, then it would mean that in chemistry (whenever any theory of the composition of matter and interactions at the atomic or molecular level is included) or in physics (whever any theory of the propagation of light at a constant speed is included), you would be forced, by law, to present "factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or not supporting" the theory. The results would be ludicrous and wasteful. These bodies of knowledge are well established, and any evidence in contradiction to current teachings would be of interest to historians or researchers, not practitioners.
So, too, evolution in biology. When a body of knowledge becomes established past a certain point, it is no longer of interest or use to spend time on teaching what preceded it. That belongs in classes on the history of science. There is also no point in teaching what might refute it, at least not at the elementary, although perhaps at the secondary, level. More poperly, that would go at the college level, presumably for those training up to pursue the contradictions and figure out which interpretation of the evidence is correct.
The language in House Bill 179 addresses only theories of the origin of humans or other living things. It does not limit its requirement only to "history of" classes, which would be egregious enough. This one seems clearly intended to inject what Mr. Bridges might regard as "factual scientific evidence" "inconsistent with" evolutionary theory into a science class. If there were some, it certainly wouldn't harm anyone to include it. It also wouldn't serve much purpose in a straight science class, except as noted previously. Facts are facts, and scientists, when addressing scientific issues and evidence, cannot officially care which side of an issue is supported by the facts. Personally they may get pretty steamed up, but professionally they are obligated to accept the facts and adjust their mental model if necessary.
There, of course, is where the core problems arise. What is scientific? If there were not a large effort under way to present as scientific what is in fact supposition, there would be no problem here. There is such an effort, so there is a problem.
The bill goes on to say that it is "intended to strengthen the analytical skills of students" and not "to authorize or promote the presentation of religious beliefs." It sounds so good. You can't possibly object to that. And if there were not a large effort under way to present as scientific fact what is in fact creation myth, there would be no problem here. There is such an effort, so there is a problem.
All of this is why it is worth taking a few minutes to study the language of a bill (or a substitue for a bill) proposed by a representative in the state legislature of Georgia. It is also worth finding out what he is willing to say in public about a memo circulated to him and legislators in other states, "informing" him and them that "Indisputable evidence -- long hidden but now available to everyone -- demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion. This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic 'holy book' Kabbala dating back at least two millennia."
The words are Mr. Hall's, but Mr. Bridges and Mr. Chisum seem to find some substance in them. When Mr. Bridges and Mr. Chisum reply to my inquries, I will post the unedited answers and consider their words as well.
Any reply will be informative.
At the Fox News website this morning I found (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252623,00.html) an article reporting that Marshall Hall claims you approved of the writing of his memo that characterizes the teaching of evolution as derived not from science but from writings in the Jewish Kabbala.
I would like to publish any remarks you care to make at AmericaCanBeBetter.com. (http://www.americacanbebetter.com). Did you approve of the content of the memo before it was distributed to legislators in other states? Did you approve of its distribution to legislators? Do the remarks at Mr. Hall's site (http://www.fixedearth.com/) reflect your understanding of Copernicanism and Darwinishm as myths derived from writings in the Kabbal rather than from scientific investigation?
I will be happy to publish your unedited remarks, in order to provide you an opportunity to respond with confidence that you will not be misquoted.
Thank you.
Charles R. Wannall
AmericaCanBeBetter.com
Congressman Chisum's Reply of 2/21/2007:
"Rep. Chisum has offered profuse apologies for distributing the memo. He has admitted that he did not look at it carefully and did not check out the website. He truly regrets acting in haste based on performing a courtesy for a fellow member of the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). Seeing the hurt that this has caused has been a grief to all of us, especially those of us who have worked for him for a long time and know that the memo does not in any way reflect his beliefs.
"Sincerely, Annette Glass, Legislative Aide Rep. Warren Chisum"
Mr. Bridges:
I recently wrote to you asking if you had approved of the writing and distribution of the Marshall Hall memo that caused a disturbance with its reference to Jewish mysticism and the Kabbala. I will be very grateful to receive your reply to this question.
Today, however, I have a I have a different question, more closely related to the content of the memo itself, as opposed to its effect on others. Do you subscribe to the fixed-earth cosmology that Mr. Hall outlines at his site, http://www.fixedearth.com/ At that site, Mr. Hall offers the following introduction to his cosmology:
1. The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.
2. The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.
3. The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.
Could you tell me if you agree with any or all of the statements shown above and authored by Mr. Hall?
Thank you.
Mr. Chisum:
Thank you for replying (via your assistant Annette Glass) to my recent inquiry about approving and distributing Marshall Hall's memo. I think it is commendable that you have been very prompt and direct in your apology for the unintended effects.
I have just one other question, more closely related to the content of the memo itself, as opposed to its effect on others. Do you subscribe to the fixed-earth cosmology that Mr. Hall outlines at his site, http://www.fixedearth.com/? At that site, Mr. Hall offers the following introduction to his cosmology:
1. The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.
2. The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.
3. The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.
Could you tell me if you agree with any or all of the statements shown above and authored by Mr. Hall?
Thank you.
Charles R. Wannall
Thank you.
