Martin Gardner's Review of The Urantia Book

[Rob]

What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

-- In a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.

The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle--these constitute falseness. (The Urantia Book, p. 555.1)

When we rely upon a so-called opinions of experts based upon their claim that they "carefully" evaluated a subject, such as the Urantia Book, and that they examined it "in depth," we run the risk of committing the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" if we neglect to do our own due dilligence and confirm that they got their facts straight, and that the facts actually are valid enough to support their conclusions.

The question is, did Gardner "carefully [and] in depth" evaluate the Urantia Book, did he get his "facts" correct, the very facts he uses to reach his conclusions? In other words, did he build upon "reliable authentic data or is the author going off on some wild tangent? "

I believe the evidence will reveal, with regards to numerous individual claims of fact, that Gardner actually never even did his homework, that he got many of his facts wrong, even ignored some which he was well aware of, and contradicted his own previous statements on certain facts that he then turned around and played in the exact opposite way just so he could justify his own a prioria conclusions. In otherwords, don't confuse me with the facts, I already know the truth and have reached (prejudged) my conclusions.

And I will present both the facts and evidence that backs up these assertions conclusively.

The Urantia Book, according to Mr Martin Gardner, who investigated the issue in depth ...

I must admit that when I read these words a smile came across my face. This is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, and anyone who likes debating cannot help but feel a little smile when one's opponent opens mouth and inserts foot. And that is just what Dilittante has done claiming that Gardner "investigated the issue [The Urantia Book] in depth." That is patently false, and I am going to prove it beyond a doubt, and have fun doing so.

Now don't get me wrong, I have a respect for Gardner, and was truly saddened to see him get his hackles up when he ran into some readers who were frankly ignoramuses, and in their enthusiasm, which some can't distinguish from fanaticism, made complete fools of themselves. I tend to believe him when he says the following, because I have seen some pretty foolish behavior from readers too:

The foregoing chapter is a much revised version of the column as it first appeared. I had many mistakes in that column. Irate believers in the Urantia Book were quick to point them out in angry letters. It was the passion in these letters that aroused my further interest in the Urantia movement and started me on a research project that has led to my preparing a book about the cult. (On The Wild Side, The Great Urantia Book Mystery, p. 71)

Irate ad hominem practicing readers of the Urantia Book? Well, we have all seen them, have we not? But then, there are some pretty fanatical fundamentalists who read the Bible, but most people are wise enough to not throw the baby out with the bath water and to make the mistake of evaluating the Bible based upon the fanatical ravings of lunatics. Sadly, Gardner did just that. He transferred his anger and desire to get even to his efforts to evaluate the Urantia Book, and in so doing lost his intellectual objectivity and ability to evaluate the facts honestly, without extreme bias (we all have bias), even to the point that he sacrificed integrity and truthfulness, and I am going to present overwhelming evidence that this is the case.

The following examples are taken form an unpublished book I have written, called The Flight of Reason: Debunking Pseudo Skepticism, a parody on Gardner's book The Flight of Peter Fromm, in which, oddly enough, Gardner rejects his fundamentalist beliefs he grew up with and eventually finds a form of theism that lead him to say, "For a theist, evolution is God’s way of creating. It conflicts with no religion, only with primitive Christianity that takes every sentence of Genesis as literally true. (Gardner 1983: 373)"

In his book The Flight of Peter Fromm (FPF), a fictionalized auto-biographical novel, Gardner describes how he entered the halls of higher learning a Christian of the fundamentalist mindset, doubting the theory of evolution, and while studying geology came to realize the error of Creationist arguments such as the “flood theory of fossils,” and went through an ensuing “painful transition” in which he lost his belief in Christianity. Gardner muses that perhaps it was this painful conceptual revolution that aroused his interest in debunking pseudo-science.

Despite the loss of his childhood beliefs, Gardner managed to retain a form of religious belief called “fideism,” a theological position that asserts the primacy of faith over reason, which he describes as a form of “theological positivism.” In his book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (WPS) Gardner presents his arguments for belief in theism and the concept of a personal God and immortality—personality survival after death. Gardner notes that Carnap’s philosophy had a major influence on his approach to theology, and persuaded him that “metaphysical questions are ‘meaningless’ in the sense that they cannot be answered empirically or by reason. They can be defended only on emotive grounds.” To quote Gardner (my emphasis):

Fideism refers to believing something on the basis of faith, or emotional reasons rather than intellectual reasons. As a fideist I don't think there are any arguments that prove the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. More than that I think the better arguments are on the side of the atheists. So it is a case of quixotic emotional belief that really is against evidence. If you have strong emotional reasons for metaphysical belief and it's not sharply contradicted by science or logical reasoning, you have a right to make a leap of faith if it provides sufficient satisfaction. (Michael Shermer, 1997. Why People Believe Weird Things, Pseudoscience, Superstition, and other Confusions of our Time, p. 276. Transcript of Interview by M. Shermer, August 11.)

To research material for writing The Flight of Reason I read practically everything Gardner ever wrote, including articles while he was a student. Now that took work, believe me, as I had to contact his university and inquire from rather arcane research librarians who pulled stuff out of rather dusty archives. After all, Gardner has been around a long time. You see, I did not just want to debunk Gardner, I wanted to understand him, to really understand him, and why he would make such a sad and tragic mistake near the end of his life after such a great career. And I don't say it was a sad and tragic mistake because he critiqued the Urantia Book, for if he critically yet honestly examined it, even if the critique was negative, I would see it as worthy of consideration. But he did not do this, as he betrayed his own values and standards, and the values and standards of the very movement and organization he helped to form, the modern Skeptical movement

Largely due to Gardner’s 1952 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science he has become known as the founding father of the modern Skeptical movement. Michael Shermer, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com), says the following about Gardner:

In 1950 Martin Gardner published an article in the Antioch Review entitled "The Hermit Scientist," about what we would today call pseudoscientists. It was Gardner's first publication of a skeptical nature …. In 1952 he expanded it into a book called In the Name of Science, with the descriptive subtitle "An entertaining survey of the high priests and cultists of science, past and present." … It has come down to us as Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, which is still in print and is arguably the skeptic classic of the past half a century.

[Gardner bemoans] that some beliefs never seem to go out of vogue, as he recalled an H. L. Mencken quip from the 1920s: "Heave an egg out of a Pullman window, and you will hit a Fundamentalist almost anywhere in the U.S. today." Gardner cautions that when religious superstition should be on the wane, it is easy "to forget that thousands of high school teachers of biology, in many of our southern states, are still afraid to teach the theory of evolution for fear of losing their jobs." Today creationism has spread northward and mutated into the oxymoronic form of "creation science." (Michael Shermer, Scientific American. Vol. 286, No. 3. (March 2002). p. 36-7.)

In an interview in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine (A Mind at Play, March/April 1998.) Martin Gardner says "I think of myself as a journalist who writes mainly about math and science, and a few other fields of interest." Gardner’s "main interests are philosophy and religion, with special emphasis on the philosophy of science." He majored in philosophy at the University of Chicago and graduated with the class of 1936.

He is described as having a mind that is "highly philosophical, at home with the most abstract concepts…." He has received numerous awards and praise from both scholars and scientists alike. To quote Frazier’s interview in the Skeptical Inquirer:

Douglas Hofstadter has said, "Martin Gardner is one of the greatest intellects produced in this country in this century." Stephen Jay Gould has said you have been "the single brightest beacon defending rationality and good science against the mysticism and anti-intellectualism that surround us."

Gardner states that "Philosophy gives one an excuse to dabble in everything. Although my interests are broad, they seldom get beyond elementary levels. I give the impression of knowing far more than I do because I work hard on research..." He likes to think that he is "… unduly harsh and dogmatic only when writing about pseudo-science … and when he is expressing the views of all the experts in the relevant field…." But notes when "… there are areas on the fringes of orthodoxy, supported by respected scientists, I try to be more agnostic." Anyone who has devoted a substantial amount of time studying the history of science, would I think, question just how reasonable it is to presume to express "the views of all the experts in the relevant field." Gardner sometimes likes to speak in absolutes, unlike most of the scientists he presumes to be speaking for, who seldom themselves speak in absolute dogmatic terms.

And so, in the next few posts we are going to examine just how "in depth" and "carefully" Gardner "perused" the Urantia Book, because the intergrity of his review hinges on whether or not he was an honest skeptic, or just an angry old man playing the part of the carping critic, a trifling skeptic who did not even take the time to read not only the book, but even some paragraphs (as will soon become painfully obvious), he claims to have "carefully" examined.

Nothing could persuade me to read every line of this monstrous mishmash of claptrap interspersed with puddles of pious platitudes, but I have perused it carefully enough to get the drift of its wild science-fiction themes..... Indeed it may be the largest, most fantastic chunk of channeled moonshine ever to be bound in one volume." (Notes of a Fringe-Watcher by Martin Gardner: The Great Urantia Mystery, in Skeptical Inquirer, Winter 1990, p. 124)

Gardner has made his career as a journalist and author. His writings have championed the truth of clear reason informed by sound science, and exposed the false and misguided logical fallacies so often used by those who espouse such pseudo-scientific beliefs as PKI and Creationism. As a professional writer and journalist, having been trained in philosophy, Gardner should be well acquainted with those all essential journalistic standards of accuracy, integrity, and fairness.

Accuracy demands that the information conforms to reality and is not misleading or false. It demands not only careful and thorough research, but a disciplined use of language. Integrity demands that the information is truthful; not distorted to justify a conclusion. Fairness demands the information reports or reflects equitably the relevant facts and significant points of view; it deals fairly and ethically with persons, institutions, issues, and events.

-- David Hall, DePauw University Examines the Question Readers Fairly Ask: Can Journalists Get Things Right, And Fairly Right? Intellectual Honesty Poses the Test. Reporting Standards: Reflections by DePauw University. Directions in Journalism. Vol. 1, No. 1, April 2, 2002. And Journalistic Standards and Practices. CBC Canada, 2001.

Honest critical examination of the Urantia Book and its teachings should be welcomed by its readers; it is also fair to expect such a critique to be factually accurate, fair, and honest to context when quoting, summarizing, and paraphrasing to assure the original meaning is not distorted in any way by adding or subtracting from it.

The spirit of the following passage, which is attributed to Jesus, would be good advice for readers of the Urantia Book and Skeptics alike:

True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one's belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor's attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals." (Urantia Book 1641)

[Rob]

Scientists are interested in truth. They want to know how the world really is, and they want to use that knowledge to do things in the world. In the earth sciences, this has meant developing methods of observation to determine the shape, structure, and history of the earth and designing instruments to measure, record, predict, and interpret the earth’s physical and chemical processes and properties. The resulting knowledge may be used to find mineral deposits, energy resources, or underground water; to delineate areas of earthquake and volcanic hazard; to isolate radioactive and toxic wastes; or to make inferences and predictions about the earth’s past and future climate. The past century has produced a prodigious amount of factual knowledge about the earth, and prodigious demands are now being placed on that knowledge.

The history of science demonstrates, however, that the scientific truths of yesterday are often viewed as misconceptions, and, conversely, that ideas rejected in the past may now be considered true. History is littered with the discarded beliefs of yesteryear, and the present is populated by epistemic resurrections. This realization leads to the central problem of the history and philosophy of science: How are we to evaluate contemporary science’s claims to truth given the perishability of past scientific knowledge? This question is of considerable philosophic interest and of practical import as well. If the truths of today are the falsehoods of tomorrow, what does this say about the nature of scientific truth?

— Oreskes, Naomi (1999) The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science. Oxford University Press

Reginald Aldworth Daly, Professor of Geology at Harvard University, thought that geology could advance only ‘through the erection and testing of competing hypotheses; in other words, through speculation…. Science progresses by systematic guessing in the good sense of the word’ (Daly, 1926:xx). (Le Grand 1988: 109)

— Le Grand, H. E. (1988) Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Like children, the sciences alternate brief periods of rapid growth with long intervals of stability. Examples of such bursts of renewal are the introduction of the Bohr-Rutherford atom model in physics and the deciphering of the genetic code in biology. Consolidation follows, and the startling ideas of yesterday become the conventional wisdom of today, until once more the intuitive and sometimes seemingly irrational processes of a revolution replace the traditionally orderly approach of scholarship. Each time, the field emerges refreshed and matured from the turmoil. (Tjeerd 1985: 85)

The triumph of uniformity over catastrophism early in the nineteenth century and the Darwinian theory of evolution half a century later were geology’s first revolutions. Long stability followed; the education of a geologist in the 1950s was not much different from that of the 1920s. Today, another revolution lies just behind us; tempers have cooled, and the new basic concepts are well enshrined. In many areas, however, notably in earth history, the consequences of the revolution in large part still remain to be explored. (Tjeerd 1985: 85)

The revolution had its precursor, and his fate is informative. Beginning in 1912, and culminating in a book in 1915, Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane, the German meteorologist Alfred Wegener noted, as many had done before him, the similarity of the opposing coasts of the Atlantic, and he undertook to test with geological evidence the notion that a single great continent had shattered and drifted apart. He especially desired to do away with the need to postulate sunken lands and vanished landbridges, commonly invoked then to explain intercontinental fauna connections, but incompatible with isostasy. This incompatibility was known at the time to geophysicists but widely ignored by geologists and paleontologists. Wegener, who amassed an impressive set of geological matches across oceans, received a surprised but sympathetic hearing in Europe, but on the other side of the Atlantic the climate was cold. In 1926, at a meeting in Atlantic City, American geologists almost to a man, read him out of the company of acceptable thinkers. (Tjeerd 1985: 85)

Evidently, continental drift was an idea whose time had not yet come, and it languished for decades. The reluctance among geologists to consider drift seriously was instinctive and emotional rather than factual. Wegener’s failure to provide a suitable mechanism for drift, for example, had been severely criticized, but when the great British geologist Sir Arthur Holmes provided one shortly afterward, no one listened. Geologists on the southern continents continued to turn up supporting evidence, but their remoteness denied them proper attention. It did not help that Wegener was not a certified geologist, but more important was that, to most geologists, the flaws and cracks in the existing scientific structure still seemed small. Having just learned to live with the abyss of time, they were not yet prepared to deal with the uncertainty of place that is inherent in a world of drifting continents. (Tjeerd 1985: 85-6)
Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) first presented his theory of continental displacement in 1912, at a meeting of the Geological Association of Frankfurt…. The work came to the attention of American geologists when a third edition [The Origin of Continents and Oceans.], published in 1922, was translated into English. (Oreskes 1999: 54)

— Tjeerd, van Andel, 1985. New Views on an Old Planet. Continental Drift and the History of the Earth. Cambridge University Press.

This book has its origins in a series of seminars held at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in the summer of 1966 to discuss the scientific applications of satellite tracking. At the time each of the camera-equipped tracking stations in the equatorial network could be located to an accuracy of plus-or-minus ten meters. The substitution of lasers for cameras was expected to increase the accuracy to the centimeter range and, for the first time, make possible direct measurements of global crustal movements.

As my contribution to the seminars I was invited to assess the possibilities of measuring continental drift. The subject held a special interest for me because, imprinted with a classical education, I had originally viewed continental drift as a geological chimera that had been securely laid to rest. My earliest field experiences, however, were with my husband in South America and Africa where we learned to our astonishment that geologists took continental drift for granted. Neither our laughter nor serious arguments in the name of geophysics carried any persuasive force with our friends in the southern hemisphere. After returning home we broached the subject to numerous colleagues who, I now remember, laughed heartily but said very little, except to point to the lack of a mechanism.

In preparing for my seminar in July 1966 I reviewed with mounting excitement the recent results of paleomagnetic studies and the matching of dated contacts between Africa and South America. Nevertheless, fair as I tried to be in my presentation, the audience noted a distinct bias against continental drift. But by November, when the manuscript was due, I had switched my allegiance.

Overwhelmed by the evidence—most of which was so new it had never been available to the pro-drifters in the southern hemisphere—I had become a “drifter.” That experience led me to wonder very curiously about the early history of the drift controversy and factors and personalities that had caused acceptance of the hypothesis by some geologists and its total rejection by others from the same body of scientific evidence….

My researches have altered many preconceptions. They have, for example, inspired a profound respect for Alfred Wegener, whose reputation as a scientist still suffers in North America despite some attempts at rehabilitation. I have also learned to admire the accomplishments of many an earlier scientists who, working without computers or remote sensing equipment, perceived the planet as a whole in terms very similar to our own. Are not those scientists and detectives most brilliant who deduce the nature of things from the fewest clues? (Marvin 1973: Forward)

During the interchange between Simpson, du Toit, and Longwell, Bailey Willis entered the fray with his article “Continental Drift: Ein Marchen,” from which we quoted in our introduction. Willis felt that the time had come to call a halt to the use of scientific time, talent, and periodical space for further consideration of this fairy tale. (Marvin 1973: 119)

It is interesting that almost no critic from whom we have heard so far regarded Alfred Wegener as a colleague of his own discipline. Köppen, the meteorologist, and Schuchert, the paleontologist, called him a geophysicist; Jeffreys, the geophysicist, and Longwell and Daly, the geologists, called him a meteorologist; and Termier, director of the Geological Survey of France, implied that he was a poet. W. B. Harland, in 1969, reviewing four books on continental drift, called Wegener a total scientist. Harland was close to the mark. (Marvin 1973: 119)

Willis was certainly wrong in his judgment, yet little or no new evidence for continental drift was presented between 1935 and 1955. The debate languished, with all but a tiny minority of workers believing the issue was closed for good and all. Continental drift as an idea declined into a state of limbo, not a little disreputable, and perilously close to the status of science fiction. ( Marvin 1973: 119)

— Marvin, Ursula B. (1973) Continental Drift: The Evolution of a Concept. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

The Rejection of Drift: Lack of a Causal Mechanism?

Given the history, the absence of a causal explanation of drift can hardly be the singular cause of its rejection. To accept the existence of continental drift without knowing its cause would have been well within the mainstream of geological tradition…. Longwell said, quoting from American geodesist Walter Lambert, “Let us therefore re-examine some of our own evidence, to see whether it is compelling. If it is,” he concluded, “then physical geologists should be content to accept the fact of displacement, and leave the explanation to the future.” (p. 64)

Longwell’s prescription came true when plate tectonics was established. As Ursula Marvin explained in 1973, in the wake of the new theory, “Today, we stand rather close to where Wegener stood. The clear evidence of plate motions may be seen at every hand [although] no adequate driving mechanism has been agreed upon.” (….) Even today, the driving force of plate tectonics is poorly understood. In the words of one leading geophysicist: “Although the theory of plate tectonics is well established, the engine that drives the motions of the lithospheric plates continues to defy easy analysis.” Or more pointedly: “Plate tectonics … describes the motions of the plates, but not the forces driving those motions.” The situation was summarized by geologist Vincent Saull, writing in 1986 in a leading geological journal: “Popular acceptance of plate tectonics is not based on knowing the mechanism that moves the plates.” (p. 64-65)

The American Response to Drift: Rejection

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the discussion on continental drift in the United States was its vitriolic quality, particularly as compared with its counterpart in Great Britain. There, reaction to Wegener’s theory was divided but animated, with much of it cautiously favorable…. In the United States, reaction to Wegener’s theory was almost entirely negative. Drift was the subject of articles in the American Journal of Science, the Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, and the publications of the Carnegie Institution of Washington—all adverse. The most important and widely known hearing Wegener received in the United States was the symposium convened by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) in New York City in 1926. Of all the speakers at the meeting, only one, W.A.J van Waterschoot van der Gracht—the convenor—spoke strongly in favor of the theory. Chester Longwell argued for reservation of judgment. All the others spoke strongly against. In part because of the almost uniformly negative response in New York, van der Gracht solicited additional, more sympathetic papers for the conference proceedings, published two years later. These came from Wegener himself and from John Joly, G.A.F Molengraaf, and J.W. Gegory—an Irishman, a Dutchman, and a Scot. (p. 125-126)

Not for Lack of a Mechanism

By 1929, three powerful theories—Daly’s gravity sliding, Joly’s periodic fusion, and Holmes’s subcrustal convection currents—had been developed to explain the kinematics of drift. All were consistent with the known physical properties of the earth. Moreover, Daly and Holmes offered dynamic explanations as well. None of the theories came as an ad hoc adjustment to Wegener’s proposals: Joly’s theory predated Wegener’s and came only gradually to be linked with it; Daly’s theory incorporated evidence derived from his experience in the Appalachians and his knowledge of igneous rocks; Homles’s theory derived from geochronology and the study of radiogenic heat. All three were developed by prominent and eminent scientists; all were published in readily accessible form; and all were widely known and discussed at the time. (p. 119-120)

Together, the three theories incorporated the fundamental aspects of modern theory: a rigid moving surface riding on convection currents in a weak zone beneath, with portions recycled into the substrate. Not one of these theories required the continents to plow through the rigid ocean floor. The pieces of the puzzle, as geologists understand it today, were assembled by the end of the 1920s. Geologists had a phenomenon, they had evidence, and they had a mechanism. What was hailed as breakthrough knowledge in the 1960s—albeit on the basis of different evidence and with different justification—was proposed in the 1920s. (p. 120)

— Oreskes, Naomi (1999) The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science. Oxford University Press.

[Rob]

Evidence is hard to come by, it is largely circumstantial, and there is never enough of it.

--J. Hoover Makin

In the previous posts, I have provided a wide selection of evidence regarding the history of Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. This evidence comes from eminent scientists, the very scientists who participated in both Wegener's day, and those who participated in the more recent so-called revolution of plate tectonics.

I will be basing my argument that with regard to the question of continental drift upon the numerous citations already provided. It is clear that the statements made by the authors Bain et al. fairly and accurately represent the actual facts of this history. Their statements regarding the history of continental drift are supported by the authors above, and I have gone out of my way to gather evidence from other sources than they used themselves (i.e., Le Grand, who supports the same claims as the authors above), and all conclusively show that Bain et al. got their facts right.

The first fact to be noted, is the typical arguments being put forth by popular science writers, educators, and from such magazines as the Skeptical Inquirer and the Skeptic, tend to repeat each other's arguments, and like our educator above, sometimes get their facts very wrong. Now that is not a problem, but when they insist in repeating their moldy old arguments, "Wegener's theory was rejected because there was no mechanism," which may have been excusable in the early period after the initial review of Wegener's theory in the US, but is no longer tenable or even credible given the vast overwhelming amount of historical material refuting this claim that has been forthcoming since the rise of plate tectonics, and which continues to come out even to this day, they have become dogmatists, and stagnant pseudo-skeptics unwilling to self-correct in the face of new facts and evidence. Hardly paradigms for true science, so who then, are they speaking for?

The second fact to be noted is the manner in which Gardner misrepresents the statements and meaning of Bain's article. Gardner does not quote Bain's article in context in GCM, because if he did, his misquoting and misrepresentation would be obvious, and he would have been unable to distort Bain's meaning for his own argumentative purpose. I have quoted the entire text from Bain's article which Gardner was reviewing, so that the full context can be compared to Gardner's characterization of it.

In a 35 page booklet written by Richard Bain, Ken Glasziou, Matt Neibaur, and Frank Wright are the following comments regarding the Urantia Book’s statements on continental drift:

The Urantia Book states unequivocally that all land on earth was joined together in one huge continent that commenced to break up 750 million years ago, and was followed by a long period of continental drifting during which land bridges were repeatedly formed and broken. The story of the movements of the continents and concomitant effects upon developing life is described in considerable detail in the book. (Bain 6)

The concept of continental drift was rejected by most geologists and geophysicists until examination of the ocean floor at the mid-Atlantic Ridge during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s revealed that the Earth’s crust is being melted and forced upwards resulting in ocean floor spreading, hence continental drift. However the theory of continental drift did not become generally accepted in North America until the mid 1960’s (see H.E. Le Grand).

Until recently, the date of commencement of break up on the single continent was placed at about 200 million years ago. Currently this date has been revised and pushed back to between about 600 and 800 million years ago as stated in The Urantia Book. (Bain 6)

— Bain, R., & Glasziou, K., et. al. The Science Content of The Urantia Book (SCUB).

See the following for their complete statements:

http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/bain/bain.pdf

Later in the same booklet an expanded version of the above comments on continental drift is provided:

CONTINENTAL DRIFT

The Urantia Book states quite categorically that all land on earth was originally a single continent that subsequently broke up, commencing 750 million years ago (p. 663), followed by a long period of continental drifting during which land bridges were repeatedly formed and broken. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)

Wegener’s theory

The idea of continental drift was mooted in the 19th century and first put forward as a comprehensive theory by Wegener in 1912. It was not well accepted, being classified as pseudoscience. For example Rollin T. Chamberlin wrote in 1928 just 6 years prior to receipt of the Urantia Papers: "Wegener’s theory in general is of the foot-less type ... It plays a game in which there are few restrictive rules." (Bain et al. 1991: 15)

Chamberlin went on to list 18 points that he considered were destructive of the drift hypothesis, and actually began his book with, "Can we call geology a science when there exists such a difference of opinion in fundamental matters as to make it possible for such a theory as this to run wild." The theory remained discredited in the opinion of most geologists until the 1960’s. I can still remember attending a geology lecture at Sydney University in 1951 when the lecturer dismissed the concept of continental drift with the comment that there were no known forces that could wrench continents apart. The story of the earlier conflict and later acceptance of continental drift has been recently recorded by science historian H. E. Le Grand. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)

New evidence

The change in attitude by geologists, particularly in America, was initiated by the careful bathymetric, paleomagnetic, and seismological surveys in the region of long mountain ranges on the ocean floors, such as the mid-Atlantic ridge that stretches from Iceland to Antarctica. During the 1960’s, geophysical surveys of the ocean floor revealed that the rock from the earth’s mantle is being melted, then forced upwards resulting in sea floor spreading. This upwelling would be expected to push the continents apart, and thus provided the missing evidence for a physical mechanism that could bring about continental drift. Gradually the term continental drift was replaced by a new terminology and today it is known universally as plate tectonics. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)

Against the current!

The Urantia Papers that mention continental drift were presented in 1934, and published in book form in 1955. The writers of the papers could not have been unaware of the very tenuous nature of the theory and would have known that it was held in disrepute by most American geologists. Hence, unless these writers had access to pre-existing knowledge, they would appear to have been doing a very foolish thing in going against strongly-held scientific opinion. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)

The Urantia Book is at variance with many published estimates of geological time, for instance for the Carboniferous and Devonian periods where the discrepancy may be about 100 million years. In some areas there is good agreement, for example the Book (p.683) talks of the disappearance of land bridges between the Americas and Europe and Africa in the era between 160 and 170 million years ago, and an article in Scientific American [June 1979 issue]4, places this break at 165 million years ago. However land bridges connected these continents again at later times via Greenland, Iceland, and the Bering Straits, and also connected South America to Australia via Antarctica, and directly to Africa (Urantia Book, pp. 694, 695, 698; Science and the Citizen: The Migrating Marsupial. Scientific American, January 1983, 248(1): 73). (Bain et al. 1991: 15)

Time of break-up of continents

A most remarkable aspect of The Urantia Book accounts is the statement that the breakup of the supercontinent commenced 750 million years ago. Wegener placed it at 200 million years ago. The 1984 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica’s ’Science and Technology’ presented what was then purported to be an up-to-date series of maps depicting the progress of continental drift from 50 to 200 million years ago which is at variance with a similar portrayal in … Scientific American [April 1985 issue] by about 100 million years in aspects of the progression.

Nevertheless, both versions still placed the commencement of continental drift in the vicinity of 200 to 250 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 15-16)

Somewhere around 1980 some geologists were having a rethink about the commencement of continental drift, and in a book entitled 'Genesis', published in 1982, J. Gribbin reported the view that there may have been a pre-existing continent, Pangea 1, roughly 600 million years ago that had broken up into 4 new continents by about 450 million years ago, at the end of the Ordovician age. Then about 200 million years ago, the continents were thought to have converged to form Pangea 2, which quickly broke, first to Laurasia and Gondwanaland, then further breakup occurred at the end of the Cretaceous to give an appearance much like the present world. A different opinion was expressed in an article in Scientific American (1984) 250 (2), 41 which stated the view that a breakup occurred in late Ripherian times between 700 and 900 million years ago, but a 1987 article (Scientific American 256, 94) is more conservative and placed the breakup of Pangea 1 at somewhere near the beginning of the pre-Cambrian, in the order of 600 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)

How could it be?

So, 30 years after publication of The Urantia Book with its statements about continental drift and the breakup of a single supercontinent commencing 750 million years ago, Wegener's much maligned theory has now become accepted by virtually all geologists. Furthermore, the date of commencement of the breakup of the original supercontinent that for many, many years was assumed to have started only about 200 million years ago,-has, by virtue of information coming to hand in the 1980’s, now been pushed back to beyond the pre-Cambrian era, and in the vicinity of the time stated in the Urantia Papers in 1934 as 750 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)

It is quite impossible to calculate the odds against being right about such a matter 50 or even 30 years ago. Perhaps one chance in a million would be an underestimate. But considering both the predictions regarding neutrinos, the w-particle, the undiscovered strong force, and neutron stars, together with this remarkable statement on both the time of commencement of continental drift and the factuality of its existence, it is exceedingly difficult to do other than to assume that the authors of the Urantia Papers had access to pre-existing knowledge, at least in respect to these topics. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)

CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND LAND ELEVATION

The Urantia Book account of the geological history of our planet tells us that following the breakup of the supercontinent about 700 million years ago, there have been repeated cycles of land elevation and submergence. Between approximately 400 and 200 million years ago, the periodicity appears to average very roughly 25 million years, with periods of much more frequent cycling during the Carboniferous and Cretaceous periods. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)

Changes in sea level have often been attributed to advance and retreat of the polar ice caps, but this would not appear to account for the movements described in The Urantia Book. More recently a mechanism has been proposed involving the accumulation of heat beneath the great land masses that is thought to cause the elevation, doming, and breakup of continents, and their subsequent rejoining.5 Although the concept has been put forward dominantly to account for transverse movement, it also provides a physical mechanism that could explain the vertical movement described in The Urantia Book account. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)

The mechanism proposed indicates a relatively slow build up of heat, but the subsequent blow off can occur in a number of ways, hence considerable deviation from sine wave periodicity would be expected. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)

This new theory will be of interest to Urantia Book readers who have been puzzled by its account of the alternate elevation and depression of continents on such a large scale. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)

Following is a link to an article by Mark McMenamin that addresses the Urantia Book's statements regarding continental drift, in which he places them in historical context, and notes the 750 Ma date given for the breakup of Rodinia:

http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/mcmenamin/mcmenamin.pdf

I note, McMenamin is a scientist who acknowledges the fact the 750 Ma date was not known as late as 1955, and notes there were other facts unknown as well (for those to whom the facts actually matter see the link above), yet Gardner, who was fully aware of the 750 Ma date purposely ignored it, arguing that Bain's main point was the fact that continental drift was a rejected theory, and that because of this the Urantia Book was "prophetic." This is false; Bain did not make this argument; this is Gardner misquoting and misrepresenting Bain statements to create a "Straw Man" argument. Gardner then goes on to do his little flip-flop, contradicting what he already had stated about Wegner's theory in Order and Surprise, arguing that continental drift was a "respected" theory, and that Bain et al. got their history wrong. In truth, Gardner was distorting history and twisting truth (he knew the truth, he wrote about it already, and Bain personally informed him of the main point, the 750 Ma date) for his own rhetorical purpose. Bain's characterization of the historical treatment of continental drift is collaborated by all the scientists and historians above, but that was only the backdrop, or context, for the main point, which was the 750 Ma date for the break-up of a supercontinent that was not even known to exist and which could have only been a "wild guess" even in 1955.

Consider the way in which the four authors strive to convince readers that the UB (663) exhibited foreknowledge by defending the theory of continental drift long before it became part of mainstream geology....[1] [T]they maintain, Wegener’s theory had been strongly rejected by geologists at the time the UB papers were written.[2] Therefore, they argue, the UB was genuinely prophetic in accepting the theory.[3] (GCM 197)

Unfortunately, the four authors did not trouble to check on the history of Wegener’s guess. In early 1920s, when the first Urantia Book papers were coming through … continental drift was a controversial but widely respected theory. Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) first proposed continental drift in a 1912 paper. (GCM 197 )

In 1915 Wegener published The Origins of Continents and Oceans. This 94-page book went through three revised and expanded German editions and was translated into French and English. Nature favorably reviewed the book in 1922.[4] Its theory was supported by many top geologists around the world, especially Holland. Wladimir Köppen, a distinguished German astronomer, was an early convert.[5] Harvard geologist Reginald Daly, South African geologist Alexander du Toit, and Arthur Holmes, of Edinburgh, were among other enthusiastic allies. Du Toit even wrote a book titled Our Wandering Continents, published as late as 1957, that is dedicated to Wegener. As Michael Friedlander says in the chapter on continental drift in his At the Fringes of Science (1994), Wegener’s theory “remained in a state of suspended credibility until after World War II…. For good histories of Wegener’s theory, see Continental Drift (1983), by U. B. Marvin, and Continents in Collision (1983), by Russell Miller.” (GCM 197-8 )[6]

A 1926 symposium on the theory was held in my home town of Tulsa. Its papers (most of them opposing Wegener) were later published as a book, with a long introduction supporting the theory, and a closing essay opposing it. Sir James Jeans, in his popular book Through Space and Time (1934), calls Wegener’s theory “more interesting” than an older theory of continental alteration, “although it [Wegener’s theory] has not yet gained acceptance from scientists.” (GCM 198 )[7]

Opposition to the theory, especially in the United States, did not start to build until the mid-twenties.[8] It culminated in the early fifties … It was in the late fifties that evidence supporting plate tectonics provided for the first time a plausible mechanism for the drift, and opinions favoring the theory were revived. (GCM 198 )

Today's theories about continental drift depart in many ways from both Wegener and the UB. Plates of the earth's crust do not drift on liquid basalt. They are pushed apart by molten rock that wells up from the great depths to solidify and shove the plates. "Seafloor spreading" it is called, a hypothesis proposed by Robert Dietz in 1961. The movement of continents is much slower than Wegener supposed. (GCM 198)[9]

--Martin Gardner (1995) Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery. (GCM)

[1] The authors did not use the theory of continental drift as evidence of "foreknowledge." Gardner is misrepresenting the facts, as anyone who reads Bain's actual words above can see. Bain did note the history of continental drift and he did note that it would be against the then currently accepted ideas in the United States, even as late as 1955, to argue in support of the theory. This fact is consistent with the historical facts I have provided independent of Bain or Gardner. Gardner chose to ignore the real point of Bain's article though, which was the timing of the break-up of the continents, and thereby distort and twist the truth of what Bain was really saying and what the real point of his article was. A real scientist, one who recognizes the moral and professional obligation to represent the facts in context and honestly, would note the significant fact of the 750 Ma date that was really the point of Bain's statements, just as McMenamin did in his chapter which included comments on the Urantia Book. Gardner, even after having been personally told by Bain that this was misrepresenting his statements, nevertheless went on to misquote and distort what was actually said.

[2] Another of Gardner's falsehoods; Bain never uses the word "strongly," or anything like it, but he does carefully and accurately represent the historical facts surrounding the response to Wegener's theory in the United States, and its status between its introduction and the 1960s. The historical record shows that Bain got his facts right; Gardner distorted the truth for his own argumentative purpose.

[3] Gardner makes no mention of the 750 Ma date. Why is that? Because it doesn't suit his argumentative rhetorical needs, as it is counter-evidence to his argument. And that is why he did not fully quote Bain's article in context in GCM (required I note by the standards of professional journalism), an article he read and knew full well the real point of which was the fact of the 750 Ma date given for the break-up of the first supercontinent.

[4] This is again, a distortion and misrepresentation of the actual facts. Wegner's book was not published into English until 1924. In the early years prior to its translation in English only a few English reviews were forthcoming, and most of those from the US were overwhelmingly negative.

[5] Here, Gardner distorts the truth that Wegener's theory was rejected on emotional grounds, not scientific fact, overwhelmingly by the US geological community; Wladimir Köppen was Wegner's father-in-law! I guess Gardner just decided not to mention that, so he could keep up this farce that Wegener's theory was "favorably" received and "supported by many top geologists around the world." I note how Gardner downplays the truth about the outright rejection of Wegener's theory by the United States geological community. See Naomi Oreskes' statements in this thread regarding the rejection of Wegener's theory in the US and especially the vitriolic attacks on Wegener witnessed at the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) meeting in 1926, which Gardner, also misrepresents.

[6] Apparently, Gardner did not read Marvin, or he overlooked her statement,

"My researches have altered many preconceptions. They have, for example, inspired a profound respect for Alfred Wegener, whose reputation as a scientist still suffers in North America despite some attempts at rehabilitation. [No doubt due to the likes of pseudo-scholars like Gardner.] I have also learned to admire the accomplishments of many an earlier scientists who, working without computers or remote sensing equipment, perceived the planet as a whole in terms very similar to our own. Are not those scientists and detectives most brilliant who deduce the nature of things from the fewest clues? (Marvin 1973: Forward)

"During the interchange between Simpson, du Toit, and Longwell, Bailey Willis entered the fray with his article “Continental Drift: Ein Marchen,” from which we quoted in our introduction. Willis felt that the time had come to call a halt to the use of scientific time, talent, and periodical space for further consideration of this fairy tale. (Marvin 1973: 119)

"Willis was certainly wrong in his judgment, yet little or no new evidence for continental drift was presented between 1935 and 1955. The debate languished, with all but a tiny minority of workers believing the issue was closed for good and all. Continental drift as an idea declined into a state of limbo, not a little disreputable, and perilously close to the status of science fiction." ( Marvin 1973: 119)

Clealy, Marvin does not agree with Gardner; why didn't he report the facts accurately? Perhaps he didn't read Marvin either. It seems Gardner likes to write with absolute confidence about things he hasn't read and posses little real knowledge about.

[7] See my personal communication with Naomi Oreskes regarding Gardner's characterization of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) meeting in 1926.

[8] How ludicrous; the book was not published in English until 1924, so that would mean that "Opposition to the theory" existed right from the start, just as the facts show when viewed in light of the actual histories as told by the scientists and historians I have quoted extensively.

[9] Once again, Gardner shows his ignorance of the history of science, and his propensity to make things up to suit his argumentative needs. Gardner states, the Plates of the earth's crust do not drift on liquid basalt. They are pushed apart by molten rock that wells up from the great depths to solidify and shove the plates. Gardner is obviously unaware of the historical fact that Arthur Holmes proposed the same mechanism that would later come to be called "seafloor spreading." Naomi Oreskes states, "Holmes also argued [1931] that new oceanic crust would be created at the mid-ocean ridges by basalt intrusion and submarine lava flows.... Holmes theory was not vague, it is specific.... Arthur Holmes had proposed a mechanism for creating and destroying oceanic crust, and it was the same mechanism as that later proposed by Harry Hess. In denying Holmes credit for the work he had done, Dietz ironically credited Hess with work he had not done." (Oreskes 1999: 270-271) And Wegener incorporated Holmes work into his own theory as any good scientist would have. This information was available at the time Gardner was writing GCM, but of course, only someone who really cared to fairly represent the facts, and therefore, took the time to do real research would have known this.

Lets do a comparative summary of Gardner’s past and recent statements:

The concept of continental drift was rejected by most geologists and geophysicists until examination of the ocean floor at the mid-Atlantic Ridge during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s revealed that the Earth’s crust is being melted and forced upwards resulting in ocean floor spreading, hence continental drift. (Richard Bain, Ken Glasziou, et. al., The Science Content of The Urantia Book )

Every devotee of a fringe science should read Kitcher’s pages on Alfred Wegener, whose theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists. (Martin Gardner, (1983) Order and Surprise.)

In his previous statements made in his book Order and Surprise, Gardner agrees with Bain et al., that Wegener's theory was "long rejected by geologists." This statement is accurate, and supported by the overwhelming body of evidence I have presented above.

But apparently when Gardner decided to review Bain et. al., he changes his tune rather suddenly:

Consider the way in which the four authors strive to convince readers that the UB (663) exhibited foreknowledge by defending the theory of continental drift long before it became part of mainstream geology.... [T]hey maintain, Wegener’s theory had been strongly rejected by geologists at the time the UB papers were written. Therefore, they argue, the UB was genuinely prophetic in accepting the theory. (Gardner, GCM 197 )

Unfortunately, the four authors did not trouble to check on the history of Wegener’s guess. In early 1920s, when the first Urantia Book papers were coming through … continental drift was a controversial but widely respected theory. (Gardner, GCM 197 )

First, Gardner mischaracterizes Bain's statement by claiming Bain states Wegener's theory was "strongly rejected by geologists at the time the UB papers were written." Bain actually said, "The concept of continental drift was rejected by most geologists and geophysicists until examination of the ocean floor at the mid-Atlantic Ridge during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s," which is a factually true statement in perfect agreement with the statements of the above scientist/historians. Not only does Bain not use the word "strongly," but Gardner himself previously says, "Wegener, whose theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists," which is exactly what Bain et. al. said!

Then Gardner goes on to claim that "continental drift was a controversial but widely respected theory," which is not only contradicted by his own statement that Wegener's "theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists," but is refuted by the actual historical record, much of which was available at the time of Gardner's review.

Gardner's remarks raise another very interesting question; how inconsistent is it to accuse Bain et. al. of sloppy work by saying they "did not trouble to check on the history of Wegener’s guess," when Gardner is 1) contradicting his own words, 2) his flip-flopped position is refuted by the historical record, which means he was too lazy to "check on the history" and get his facts correct, and finally, he refers to Wegener's theory as a "guess," which frankly is ludicrous and could only be made by someone who is ignorant of the actual historical facts.

It is obvious that the ‘four authors’ did a better job of checking the history of Wegener’s hypothesis (which Gardner refers to it as little more than a guess) than Gardner did. Or in light of his statements that the "theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists" in Order and Surprise, and then his seemingly opposite statement that "continental drift was a controversial but widely respected theory" in GCM, that he is less than honest and misrepresents (manipulates) the facts to suite his argumentative needs of the moment.

Bottom line; Bain et al. got their facts right; continental drift was rejected in the United States at the time the papers were being compiled and published, and their assertions accord with reality, unlike Gardner's misrepresentation of the facts for his own rhetorical purposes.

Finally, Gardner's characterization of the "1926 symposium" (which he claims to have read) on continental drift held in the United States is a gross mischaracterization of the actual facts and events that took place, as is evidenced in a personal communication with Naomi Oreskes in which I shared with her the following:

Gardner attempts to argue that "Opposition to the theory, especially in the United States, did not start to build until the mid-twenties." I don't think Wegener's book was even translated into English until the mid-1920s -- 1924 to be exact -- at which time it received a wider exposure within the United States' scientific community. Response to Wegener I believe was hostile from the beginning once it was seriously discussed by the United States' geological community. Gardner mischaracterizes the tone and degree of opposition of the 1926 symposium, in my opinion, to downplay the negative response to Wegener's theory for his own self-serving argumentative purpose; which apparently is to debunk the claims of Bain et al. regarding statements made in The Urantia Book on continental drift.

Her reply was the following:

Your reading of Gardner is correct. Most Americans did not read W. until the 1924 English translation, and then, as you say, the reaction was almost uniformly hostile. The same is true of Tulsa. The book version of the conference is more balanced than the meeting was, because van der Gracht solicited additional papers for the book--from W. himself, Joly, and Molengraaf--all non US. No one in the US except Reginald Daly was really supportive. I think you are quite right: Gardner was trying to make the whole thing seem fairer and calmer than it actually was, which is the same thing Kitcher has done.

Against the current!

The Urantia Papers that mention continental drift were presented in 1934, and published in book form in 1955. The writers of the papers could not have been unaware of the very tenuous nature of the theory and would have known that it was held in disrepute by most American geologists. Hence, unless these writers had access to pre-existing knowledge, they would appear to have been doing a very foolish thing in going against strongly-held scientific opinion. (Bain et al. 1991: 15)

(....)

Time of break-up of continents

A most remarkable aspect of The Urantia Book accounts is the statement that the breakup of the supercontinent commenced 750 million years ago. Wegener placed it at 200 million years ago. The 1984 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica’s ’Science and Technology’ presented what was then purported to be an up-to-date series of maps depicting the progress of continental drift from 50 to 200 million years ago which is at variance with a similar portrayal in … Scientific American [April 1985 issue] by about 100 million years in aspects of the progression.

Nevertheless, both versions still placed the commencement of continental drift in the vicinity of 200 to 250 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 15-16)

Somewhere around 1980 some geologists were having a rethink about the commencement of continental drift, and in a book entitled 'Genesis', published in 1982, J. Gribbin reported the view that there may have been a pre-existing continent, Pangea 1, roughly 600 million years ago that had broken up into 4 new continents by about 450 million years ago, at the end of the Ordovician age. Then about 200 million years ago, the continents were thought to have converged to form Pangea 2, which quickly broke, first to Laurasia and Gondwanaland, then further breakup occurred at the end of the Cretaceous to give an appearance much like the present world. A different opinion was expressed in an article in Scientific American (1984) 250 (2), 41 which stated the view that a breakup occurred in late Ripherian times between 700 and 900 million years ago, but a 1987 article (Scientific American 256, 94) is more conservative and placed the breakup of Pangea 1 at somewhere near the beginning of the pre-Cambrian, in the order of 600 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)

How could it be?

So, 30 years after publication of The Urantia Book with its statements about continental drift and the breakup of a single supercontinent commencing 750 million years ago, Wegener's much maligned theory has now become accepted by virtually all geologists. Furthermore, the date of commencement of the breakup of the original supercontinent that for many, many years was assumed to have started only about 200 million years ago,-has, by virtue of information coming to hand in the 1980’s, now been pushed back to beyond the pre-Cambrian era, and in the vicinity of the time stated in the Urantia Papers in 1934 as 750 million years ago. (Bain et al. 1991: 16)

Consider the way in which the four authors strive to convince readers that the UB (663) exhibited foreknowledge by defending the theory of continental drift long before it became part of mainstream geology.... Therefore, they argue, the UB was genuinely prophetic in accepting the theory. (GCM 197)

It is obvious that when Gardner's characterization of Bain's argument is viewed in context, that it is a gross mischaracterization to claim that Bain was arguing that the UB "exhibited foreknowledge by defending the theory of continental drift long before it became part of mainstream geology." What Bain did argue was that for the authors to argue in support of Wegener's theory at that time would have put them in opposition to the consensus of the United States geological community, which is a historically accurate and factually true statement. Gardner, on the other hand, goes out of his way to portray continental drift as a respectable theory, even though he had previously argued that Wegener's "theory of continental drift was long rejected by geologists." He also failed to cite the real point of Bain's article, which was the 750 date for the break-up of the first supercontinent. Again, at some point, any honest observer is lead to ask, "Why isn't Gardner accurately and fairly representing the facts?"

I note McMenamin states,

The last quotation in this chapter's epigraph describes the Proterozoic breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia. This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually appear in the scientific literature until many decades later. This unusual source is The Urantia Book. The name Urantia refers to planet Earth. (McMenamin 1998: 173)

(....)the anonymous members of the Urantia Corps hit on some remarkable scientific revelations in the mid-1930s. They embraced continental drift at a time when it was decidedly out of vogue in the scientific community. They recognized the presence of a global supercontinent (Rodinia) and superocean (Mirovia), in existence on earth before Pangea.

(....)the concept of a billion-year-old supercontinent (the currently accepted age for the formation of Rodinia) that subsequently split apart, forming gradually widening ocean basins in which early marine life flourished, is unquestionably present in this book. (McMenamin 1998: 174)


Orthodox scientific arguments for such a proposal did not appear until the late 1960s, and a pre-Pangea supercontinent was never described until Valentine and Moores made the attempt in 1970. The Urantia Corps not only had the age of the formation of Rodinia approximately correct at 1 billion years, but they also were first to link breakup of Rodinia to the emergence of animals (even if the mode of appearance was implantation by extraterrestrials). Furthermore, they even got the timing of that approximately correct at 650 to 600 million years ago ("These inland seas of olden times were truly the cradle of evolution"). (McMenamin 1998: 174-175)

I obtained a copy of the book from the Smith College library and noted the 1955 (eighth edition 1984) publication date. What could possibly explain such precocious insight from such an unexpected corner? (McMenamin 1998: 175)


(....) [O]ne wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans, 30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any inkling that Rodinia existed. The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of Wegener’s ideas on continental drift.... Whatever the identity of the author, this person proceeded to speculate about the relationship between evolutionary change and the breakup of a Proterozoic supercontinent in an exceptionally fruitful way. Perhaps this was because the thought and the writing of this person were not fettered by the normal constraints of the (too often highly politicized) scientific review process. (McMenamin 1998: 175-176)

Cases such as this one (which is by no means unique) are an exercise in humility for me as a scientist. How can it be that discovery of Rodinia, plus a fairly sophisticated rendering of the evolutionary implications of the rifting of Rodinia, falls to an anonymous author engaging in a work of religious revelation decades before scientists find out anything about the subject? Perhaps this is an important aspect of religion-a creative denial of certain aspects of reality in order to access a deeper truth. (McMenamin 1998: 176)

I am not advocating an abandonment of a disciplined scientific peer review process, but I can’t help but wonder whether science would benefit by having scientists themselves or friends of science systematically scan the various nonscientific literatures for writings such as those appearing in The Urantia Book. Scientists would ordinarily ignore and dismiss such writings, but a discerning eye might pick up some gems. (McMenamin 1998: 176)

The concept of Rodinia therefore has a shockingly unexpected intellectual pedigree. When does the concept finally enter the conventional scientific channels? In articles published in the early 1970s, James W. Valentine and Eldridge M. Moores traced the geological history of the continents and spoke of a Precambrian supercontinent.10 This continent was subsequently called proto-Pangea, pre-Pangea, Pangea I, the Late Proterozoic Supercontinent, ur-Pangea, or simply the Precambrian supercontinent. While writing The Emergence of Animals, Dianna McMenamin and I grew weary of these cumbersome names and proposed the name Rodinia for the ancient supercontinent. The corresponding superocean also needed a name, and we decided to call it Mirovia.... Curiously, The Urantia Book also refers to Mirovia, the "world ocean." (McMenamin 1998: 176- 177)

http://www.bizmota.com/wegener/mcmenamin/mcmenamin.pdf

Now I have no problem replacing the 1934 date with the 1955 date, for in fact this does not change the historical facts or truth of McMenamin's statements at all. And as the statements of an actual scientist whose expertise is in the field of Earth Sciences, clearly, Gardner chose to ignore this information too, which he was well aware of, and instead misrepresent the facts and truth for rhetorical purposes.

No scientist would long survive in any one of the scientific fields if they distorted and misrepresented the facts such as Gardner has done with regards to Bain's article; peer review would inevitably weed out such claptrap passed off as "careful" and "in-depth" research. And when it is done intentionally, as it was since Gardner was informed of the facts, but chose to ignore them, then one is left with no other option to serious question Gardner's credibility when it comes to the issue of his review of Bain's work and the Urantia Book as well.

Gardner was aware that, by the 1980's, geologists had begun to shift Wegener's 'about 200 million years ago' proposal for commencement of breakup of a supercontinent to somewhere between 500 and 800 million years. He cannot deny his awareness since, in his book, he quotes from a paper on the science content of The Urantia Book which remarks on the book's claim for a 750 million years ago start of land mass break-up. Gardner attempts to divert attention from this remarkable "prediction" by claiming that Wegener's theory was acclaimed by some geologists in the early 1920's....

At the present time, geologists have now modified their views to a commencing time for drift at about 750 million years ago, the same as given in the Urantia Paper received in 1934. And now, in a letter to me dated Novemeber 21, 1995, Gardner acknowledges the convergence of those dates for commencement of drift but ignores their significance and again attempts to divert attention by referring to a statement in the book that 500 million years ago was the start of the long and slow westward drift of north and south America. Gardner says that this is twice the age assigned by geologists for this event.

However, once more Gardner has missed the boat. In the December issue (vol. 270, no. 5242) of the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science we read, "Geologists have been mystified by the wanderings of North America during a crucial period 500 million years ago, when many of the life forms known today were evolving. Now a chunk of crust in western Argentina is turning out to be North America's calling card. Dropped off in western South America nearly 500 million years ago, it pins down the errant North America to within a few thousand kilometers of South America's west coast."

-- Ken Glasziou, Cosmic Reflections. A response to some of the Gardner criticisms. Innerface, vol. 3 no. 1.

Gardner was fully informed of the relevant facts; he just chose to ignore them. Honest criticism, fair and balanced criticism, which acknowledges facts, is one thing; but it is less than forthright to distort facts, omit information, and to otherwise misrepresent the facts relevant to any issue.

Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth.... The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle--these constitute falseness. (555.1)

[Rob]

What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them. (Martin Luther, quoted in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.)

A person’s character and actions are certainly relevant to their credibility: the degree to which someone’s having said something constitutes a reason to think it is true. We should, for example, be on our guard against believing the claims of people whom we know to be dishonest…. There is certainly a higher probability that someone who is not disinterested will deliberately resort to techniques of sham-reasoning in their attempts to persuade us of the truth of their claims; for they have more to lose if their arguments are not accepted. This probability increases with the degree to which the person is unscrupulous. In such cases we should check the reasoning carefully, and we should not take their having advanced a premise as a reason, in itself, to think it true. This is not, however, to say that we should positively assume their reasoning to be faulty or the premises false. That would be committing the ad hominem fallacy. We should never lose never lose sight of the need to assess the argument on its own account. If the argument is found to be valid or inductively forceful, or the premises true, the character of the arguer is irrelevant. (p. 122)

-- Bowell, Tracy and Kemp, Gary (2002) Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. Routledge.

Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth…. The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle—these constitute falseness. (Urantia Book 555)

When asking whether or not the Biblical creation story of Genesis can be converted into a scientific account, Joyce Arthur justifiably asks “can it be done honestly and with integrity?”

In her essay Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience she provides a “close examination of the tactics” of a well know and influential creationist Dr. Duane Gish, and presents persuasive evidence for her argument that Gish (and other creationists) use distortion and scientifically unethical tactics to promote their anti-scientific religious beliefs under the oxymoronic banner of “creation science.”

She notes that many scientists failed to realize it was not facts, evidence, or theories that are the driving motive of creationists, but strong religious beliefs—preconceived prejudices based upon dogmatic literal interpretations of the scriptures.

Scientists have implied or stated that creationists use distortion and deception when promoting creationism (Kitcher 1984; Godfrey 1984). Tim Berra, a zoology professor at Ohio State University has stated: “The arguments of these fundamentalist missionaries often involve tortured logic, a stubborn denial of the evidence, a shallow understanding, or a reckless disregard for the truth” (1990: 125-126).

Arthur notes that she “examined many of Gish’s published writings, as well as transcripts and tapes of his debates, and discovered countless examples of questionable tactics and misleading arguments. The majority of Gish’s arguments I found to be a morass of errors, omissions, misquotes old data, distortions, and non sequiturs.” She goes on to point out how Gish, even after having been publicly corrected, goes on to repeat the same erroneous arguments in his later debates and writings, and notes that Gish’s debates are canned—he repeats more or less the same stories and arguments from debate to debate and in his books and articles. In his debates and writings Gish either ignores public corrections or has appears to knowingly promote false information.

-- Arthur, J. 1996. “Creationism: Bad science or immoral pseudoscience?” Skeptic, 4(4): 88-93.

Arguments of anthropologists, biologists, chemists, geologists, astronomers, physicists, and engineers are reinterpreted or taken out of context. (Godfrey 1984: 170)

The primary tactic of the scientific creationists is to find controversy, disagreement, and weakness in evolutionary theory—by no means a difficult task. Having demonstrated problems with various aspects of evolutionary theory (some fabricated, some real), the creationists then conclude that we must accept the Judeo-Christian biblical account of creation as the only possible, logical alternative. Thus scientific creationism proceeds by constructing an artificial dichotomy between to models—evolution and creation—both incorrectly represented as monolithic…. Oddly, the creationist tactic if discovering controversies within evolutionary biology amounts to discovering that evolutionary biologists are guilty of doing science—posing, testing, and debating alternative explanations…. Biologists seek answers to many diverse and intriguing questions about evolutionary processes. They debate the rate and pattern of evolutionary change, its directionality or lack of directionality, and most importantly, its causal mechanisms…. Creationists are decidedly uninterested in the merits of any of these arguments and, indeed, in the issues themselves. But they are interested in convincing the public that the concept of evolution is utterly bankrupt. By citing and falsely reinterpreting excerpts from a vast and complex scientific literature, they have built for their constituency a false (though superficially plausible) picture of what the issues really are. (Godfrey 1984: 170-172)

Creationist Gary Parker wrote an essay on neocatastrophism that circulated in the October 1980 issue of Acts & Facts, the free monthly newsletter of the ICR. Reading this article, one cannot avoid the conclusion that Raup and Gould consider the creation model tenable, if not actually preferable to evolutionism. Here is a passage from Parker’s essay:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin,” writes David Raup of Chicago’s famous Field Museum, “and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.” [Parker cites a 1979 article by Raup.] Did this wealth of new data produce the “missing links” the Darwinists hoped to find? “… ironically,” says Raup, “we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” Rather than forging links in the hypothetical evolutionary chain, the wealth of fossil data has served to sharpen the boundaries between the created kinds. As Gould says, our ability to classify both living and fossil species distinctly and using the same criteria “fit splendidly with creationist tenets.” “But how,” he asks, “could division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?” [Parker cites a 1979 Natural History article by Gould.] “… we still have a record which does show change,” says Raup, “but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. “ The change we see is simply variation within the created kinds, plus extinction.

The arguments Parker presents outside as well as inside the quotation marks seem to be those of Raup and Gould. Given these selected tidbits, there is no way to interpret the statements of Raup and Gould except within the framework of the creation model. The reader is not told what Raup and Gould are arguing but is left instead to surmise, incorrectly, that evolution itself is under attack. (Godfrey 1984: 175-76)

Those familiar the Raup’s research will not be surprised to find that his article is a treatise concerning problems with Darwinian gradualism. Raup first deals with the complex, uneven record of evolutionary change. His point, quoted more fully, is that “some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be a much more complex and much less gradualistic. (Godfrey 1984: 177)

Gould’s article is also about problems with Darwinian gradualism…. Gould and his colleges are widely cited by creationists in their effort to establish that the fossil record documents “no transitions.” To creationists this is taken to mean that there are no evolutionary links between “created kinds.” But Gould, Eldredge and Stanley are talking about the failure of the fossil record to document fine-scale transitions between pairs of species, and its dramatic documentation of rapid evolutionary bursts involving multiple speciation events—so-called adaptive radiations. They are not talking about any failure of the fossil record to document the existence of intermediate forms…. Nor are Gould, Eldredge, and Stanley talking about the failure of the fossil record to document large-scale trends, which do exist, however jerky they may be. Furthermore, fine-scale transitions are not absent from the fossil record but are merely underrepresented. Eldredge, Gould, and Stanley reason that this is the unsurprising consequence of known mechanisms of speciation. (Godfrey 1984: 177)

“It’s so utterly infuriating to find oneself quoted, consciously incorrectly, by creationists,” Gould has said. “None of this controversy within evolutionary theory should give any comfort, not the slightest iota, to any creationist.” (Godfrey 1984: 179)

-- Godfrey, Laurie R. 1984. Scientific creationism: The art of distortion. In Science and Creationism, ed. by Ashley Montagu, pp. 167-181. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kitcher, Philip (1984) Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Raup, David M. 1979. Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology. Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History 50:22-29. Chicago.

Gould, Stephen J. 1979. A quahog is a quahog. Natural History 888( 8 ) :18-26.

[McCulloch]

Rob quoted Bowell,

A person’s character and actions are certainly relevant to their credibility: the degree to which someone’s having said something constitutes a reason to think it is true. We should, for example, be on our guard against believing the claims of people whom we know to be dishonest…. There is certainly a higher probability that someone who is not disinterested will deliberately resort to techniques of sham-reasoning in their attempts to persuade us of the truth of their claims; for they have more to lose if their arguments are not accepted. This probability increases with the degree to which the person is unscrupulous. In such cases we should check the reasoning carefully, and we should not take their having advanced a premise as a reason, in itself, to think it true. This is not, however, to say that we should positively assume their reasoning to be faulty or the premises false. That would be committing the ad hominem fallacy. We should never lose never lose sight of the need to assess the argument on its own account. If the argument is found to be valid or inductively forceful, or the premises true, the character of the arguer is irrelevant.

So, are you trying to argue that since Gardner can be shown to have been dishonest, then his assessment of the Urantia Book must be false?

[Rob]

Rob quoted Bowell,

A person’s character and actions are certainly relevant to their credibility: the degree to which someone’s having said something constitutes a reason to think it is true. We should, for example, be on our guard against believing the claims of people whom we know to be dishonest…. There is certainly a higher probability that someone who is not disinterested will deliberately resort to techniques of sham-reasoning in their attempts to persuade us of the truth of their claims; for they have more to lose if their arguments are not accepted. This probability increases with the degree to which the person is unscrupulous. In such cases we should check the reasoning carefully, and we should not take their having advanced a premise as a reason, in itself, to think it true. This is not, however, to say that we should positively assume their reasoning to be faulty or the premises false. That would be committing the ad hominem fallacy. We should never lose never lose sight of the need to assess the argument on its own account. If the argument is found to be valid or inductively forceful, or the premises true, the character of the arguer is irrelevant.

So, are you trying to argue that since Gardner can be shown to have been dishonest, then his assessment of the Urantia Book must be false?

If only life were that simple No, I am not arguing that at all. Let me give you an example I have frequently seen in the Creation-Evolution debates.

Above, you see the evidence that even after repeatedly being informed that some quote they are using is a gross misquote and distortion of what the author actually said, nevertheless there is evidence they will ignore this information and continue to misquote out of context and distort the true meaning of some scientists words.

The arguments of these fundamentalist missionaries often involve tortured logic, a stubborn denial of the evidence, a shallow understanding, or a reckless disregard for the truth. (Berra 1990: 125-126)

-- Berra, Tim M. 1990. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Creationism is wrong; totally, utterly, and absolutely wrong. I would go further. There are degrees of being wrong. The creationists are at the bottom of the scale. They pull every trick in the book to justify their position. Indeed, at times they verge right over into the downright dishonest. Scientific Creationism is not just wrong, it is ludicrously implausible. It is a grotesque parody of human thought, and a downright misuse of human intelligence. In short, to the believer, it is an insult to God.

-- Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended.

Berra and Ruse, if they had not backed up these assertions with facts and evidence of just such "tortured logic, a stubborn denial of the evidence, a shallow understanding, or a reckless disregard for the truth," could be accussed of ad hominem. But they did back up their assertions with evidence, and therefore, their statements are statements of truth, and relevant to the Creation-Evolution debate.

These facts of behavior and conduct are relevant to the history of the debate; they indicate a form of debate tactic which is, after having been repeatedly informed of the misquote yet repeated again and again, a disingeneous and unethical debate tactic, but this fact does not in and of itself obsolve the scientists from responding to the fallacious arguments and discrediting them based upon logic, reason, facts and evidence.

The immoral and unethical behavior is part of the evidence of the lack of willingness to honestly face facts and acknowledge truth. It is a real issue when one's opponent is unable to admit the earth is round, and raises serious questions about their credibility, does it not?

Nevertheless, we should rally those facts and that evidence that refutes the false claims of Creationism, or any other fallacious argument for that matter.

I find Bowell's statement reasonable and fair, and he certainly does not argue we should dismiss an argument solely on the basis of the unethical behavior of the arguer, but that it should give one pause as to their motives and credibility. That seems like honest common sense to me.

Scientists cannot help it that some Creationists, rather than providing facts and evidence for their Creationist claims, resort to distorting the truth, misrepresenting the facts, misquoting their opponents out of context, intentionally as the evidence in some cases shows, and otherwise dragging the debate down to this decadent level. And neither can the scientists help it that there is a consistent and repeated pattern in the use of these forms of debate tactics.

But they are not wrong for pointing them out, and I note they do not stop there and rest on this simple fact to refute Creationist claims, but rather rally a mountain of evidence and facts to refute Creationist false claims and to support the facts of evolution.

Now these principles and standards apply to all; creationists and scientists alike; skeptics and religionists alike; UB readers and UB critics alike, do they not?

So, if Gardner shows a similar pattern with specific regard to his review of the Urantia Book, than that would be relevant in the same way as above, but does not obsolve me from presenting the facts and the evidence that proves this pattern and refutes his false claims. And I have started presenting them one by one.

But then, that takes time and hard work. It is not easy to amass one's facts and evidence, and I am only just getting started. I note too, that those who like to rely on Gardner's work make apparently not one iota of effort to check his facts, or support his (and defacto their claims via the fallacy of "appeal to authority") claims based upon evidence. They are simply repeating his mouldy old arguments, which in many, many, instances are flat out false, rather than really putting forth the work required to confirm if Gardner actually got his facts right on any specific instance of any specific statement which he critiques. And without basing the critique on specific facts, it is little more than innuendo and uninformed opinion.

[Cathar1950]

I don't think Rob read the book or he is being dishonest and using a minor point to refute Gardner's critic and point. Gardner used Wegener's theory as an example of UBers claiming scientific "facts" for knowledge. His point was to show that the theory was around and being debated at the time or before the UB written and published. He also shows the other claims are the same, they were reflecting the knowledge of the times and the debates. Now he balances this claim of the UBers statement or claim that the science is limited to our times and the beings giving the information can't go beyond the science of our time. Clearly a contradiction to have for knowledge we are not suppose to have. What Gardner points out that this is a win win proposition. It it gets facts wrong that's ok they didn't think we needed it and were limited in what they could tell us and if they get them right that just proves it is a revelation of facts. It is kind of eat your pie and cake too and have some one else desert.
It seems Rob has provided support to Gardner's contention and missed his point or conveniently over looked it. I provided the list of Fallacies at the bottom. Did I miss any?
Rob wrote:

Now don't get me wrong, I have a respect for Gardner, and was truly saddened to see him get his hackles up when he ran into some readers who were frankly ignoramuses, and in their enthusiasm, which some can't distinguish from fanaticism, made complete fools of themselves. I tend to believe him when he says the following, because I have seen some pretty foolish behavior from readers too:

Is that an

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (abusive): mudslinging - you are a terrible person, so why should I listen?

Or is he just calling people names that like Gardner's book?

I think in his posts he is committing:

IGNORANTIO ELENCHI: if accused of X, then deny Y (politicians love this one!)

and

REFUTE THE EXAMPLE: attack the illustration, not the idea behind it (or ATTACK TRIVIAL POINTS).

Fallacies provided by:
http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/answering.htm
And Bro Rob.

[Rob]

I don't think bob read the book or he is being dishonest ...

Cathar, you are ignorant of what I have or have not read. In fact, I have in my library, not only a copy, but copies, as I check each edition for updates and additions, to watch how Gardner corrects his many misquotes without ever formally acknowleging he has done so. In the scientific field, one is obligated to note when their assertions are found to be erroneous, and to note new facts. Of course, such ethical standards need not apply to pseudosketpics, who minimize such ethical standards by characterizing such miquotes and misrepresentations as only "minor points." Isn't that interesting, the truth or falsity of specific claims are only a "minor point." How Ludicrous to argue that the fact and truth is only a "minor point" with regards to the question under debate.

Is this ad hominem how you think you are engaging in intelligent debate?

[Jose]

I don't think bob read the book or he is being dishonest ...

Cathar, you are ignorant of what I have or have not read. In fact, I have in my library, not only a copy, but copies, as I check each edition for updates and additions, to watch how Gardner corrects his many misquotes without ever formally acknowleging he has done so. In the scientific field, one is obligated to note when their assertions are found to be erroneous, and to note new facts. Of course, such ethical standards need not apply to pseudosketpics, who minimize such ethical standards by characterizing such miquotes and misrepresentations as only "minor points." Isn't that interesting, the truth or falsity of specific claims are only a "minor point." How Ludicrous to argue that the fact and truth is only a "minor point" with regards to the question under debate.

Is this ad hominem how you think you are engaging in intelligent debate?

Uhh....Cathar, did you mean "bob" or "rob"? Rob seems to infer that you meant rob when you said bob, but perhaps you meant bob when you said bob, though, of course, rob and bob are often interchangeable. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to the debate that we sling our mud at the topics of debate, and not at each other. Cathar, or any other, may criticize the UB or any other book to whatever extent desired, and any of us may criticize said criticism howsoever we choose--provided we don't call each other nitwits, and provided we don't simply assert that whatever we say is true just because we said it.

Let's stick to support for our claims.

Let's drop the personal attacks.

If anyone feels personally attacked when their book is attacked, be assured that this is merely an invitation to examine the basis on which you hold your book to be valid--and to examine the basis on which others do not. Who knows? They may be right. Alternatively, you may be--in which case you won't convince them by petulance.

[Rob]

I don't think bob read the book or he is being dishonest ...

Cathar, you are ignorant of what I have or have not read. In fact, I have in my library, not only a copy, but copies, as I check each edition for updates and additions, to watch how Gardner corrects his many misquotes without ever formally acknowleging he has done so. In the scientific field, one is obligated to note when their assertions are found to be erroneous, and to note new facts. Of course, such ethical standards need not apply to pseudosketpics, who minimize such ethical standards by characterizing such miquotes and misrepresentations as only "minor points." Isn't that interesting, the truth or falsity of specific claims are only a "minor point." How Ludicrous to argue that the fact and truth is only a "minor point" with regards to the question under debate.

Is this ad hominem how you think you are engaging in intelligent debate?

Uhh....Cathar, did you mean "bob" or "rob"?

Jose,

He means Rob. It is direct personal attack upon my person when he says

I don't think bob read the book or he is being dishonest ...

is it not?

Nonetheless, it is pertinent to the debate that we sling our mud at the topics of debate, and not at each other. Cathar, or any other, may criticize the UB or any other book to whatever extent desired, and any of us may criticize said criticism howsoever we choose--provided we don't call each other nitwits, and provided we don't simply assert that whatever we say is true just because we said it.

Jose,

I have provided a large volume of evidence from not only scientists/historians, even from the very scientists that participated in the founding of plate tectonics, and from many, many historians of science, who refute beyond a doubt Gardner's fallacious characterization of the history of continental drift.

I have provided quotations from both Gardner's own book and scientists to support my argument. Yet, I note for the record, that Cathar has not provided a single quote or shred of evidence to back up his claims and assertions and accusations, despite your noting that one of the rules of this debate forum is to do so and you saying, "provided we don't simply assert that whatever we say is true just because we said it.

I also note Cathar has a history of engaging in this form of ad hominem diatribe on this site.

Let's stick to support for our claims.

Let's drop the personal attacks.

All Cathar seems willing or capable of doing is engaging in personal attacks and unsupported (no facts or evidence) innuendo. He is not supporting his claims nor refraining from personal attacks. It is a truth that he is ignorant of what I have or have not read. I ask the modertors to restrain his behavior. This is not his first time.

If anyone feels personally attacked when their book is attacked, ...

Excuse me Jose, but are you saying that calling someone a liar as Cathar does,

I don't think bob read the book or he is being dishonest ...

has anything to do with the content of the book? Let me be perfectly clear; Cathar is accusing me of being a liar when I say I have read Gardner's book, which I note I qoute above, and that ad hominem personal attack, has nothing to do with the topic of this debate. Nor does my requesting that the moderators require Cathar to abide by the rules of this forum have one iota to do with his so-called criticism of the book, which by the way I note he does not support with a shred of evidence.

I have not only read Gardner's book, but own and have read every edition published. This is ludicrous for any moderator to overlook the gross ad hominem by Cathar above, or to minimize it in any way.

... be assured that this is merely an invitation to examine the basis on which you hold your book to be valid--and to examine the basis on which others do not.

Jose, have you read the entire thread? Do you know what the debate question is? Perhaps you are confused as to the topic of this debate forum, and therefore the nature of evidence that is relevant thereto.

I have already asked Otseng to keep this thread on topic, and he said,

Also, I've been asked by Rob to keep this thread on topic. Which I think is a reasonable request. So, to reiterate the thread question:

Rob wrote:
The quesion is, did Gardner "carefully [and] in depth" evaluate the Urantia Book, did he get his "facts" correct, the very facts he uses to reach his conclusions? In other words, did he build upon "reliable authentic data or is the author going off on some wild tangent? "

I note Jose, for the record, that I have throughout this thread gone to great pains to provide evidence in the form of numerous quotations from scientists, historians, and others to support my claim that Gardner got his history wrong. I quote Gardner, to provide evidence, which is what the rules of this site require. I note Cathar has not provided a shred of evidence, not one quotation, not one citation, to back up his claims, which are even a misrepresentation of Gardner's own statements.

Who knows? They may be right. Alternatively, you may be--in which case you won't convince them by petulance.

So Jose, are you saying that it is ok to call people liars, make claims and assertions without providing a shred of evidence, a single citation, or reference, and call that debate?

Isn't it reasonable to expect someone to provide support for their claims before we assume them correct? "Petulance"? Let me see Jose, you appear to be minimizing ad hominem personal attacks which call people liars, and who make claims without providing a evidence, as somehow appropriate for a debate forum.

I wonder Jose, do you know the rules of this site? Do you know the difference between an ad hominem personal attack and a well formed argument?

Now, is it unfair to ask of you Jose that you require Cathar to refrain from ad hominem personal attacks and to support his claims with citations and evidence, just as you yourself say individuals should do, and as the very rules of this forum require?

For the record, Cathar's litany of ad hominem diatribe:

I hate going places where no one wants you. I know when I am not wanted and I usually leave an hour after when I have eaten the food and all the damage is done.

-- Cathar1950, DebatingChristianity.com, Other Religions, Is the Urantia Book a Branch of Christianity, 11/26/2005

Here Cathar uses innuendo to imply 1) that anyone who reads the UB is not welcome on DebatingChristianity.com, and 2) more importantly, they are not welcome because they somehow "damage" the tone of this site. That is interesting, when one looks at Cathar's consistent ad hominem below.

I think that is crap.... I am sure some UB nut ....

-- Cathar1950, DebatingChristianity.com, Other Religions, Is the Urantia Book a Branch of Christianity, 11/30/2005

I cannot seem to find any redeeming value or intelligent evidence or facts supporting his "crap" statement? Jose, are you overlooking his statement, that anyone who questions his arguments, which contain no evidence, but only words like "inane," "crap," "silly," "weird," etc., is a "UB nut"? Now that is good old condescending ad hominem.

The UBers remind me of Amway distributers only weird. Not that Amway is not weird.

-- Cathar1950, DebatingChristianity.com, Other Religions, Is the Urantia Book a Branch of Christianity, 11/28/2005

Here, he again uses ad hominem characterizations by comparing UBers (a gross ad hominem stereotype of an entire group) as "only weird."

Quote:
But, is it a branch of Christianity?
I would think if they say they are, yes. A weird branch maybe.

-- Cathar1950, DebatingChristianity.com, Other Religions, Is the Urantia Book a Branch of Christianity, 12/1/2005

Ah, his favorite group stereotype which is little more than ad hominem: "A weird branch ..."

There is a very consistent record of ongoing ad hominem attacks here. No doubt I have missed others, as they have largely been ignored for the "claptrap" that they are.

And now the latest, he resorts to calling people liars,

I don't think [Rob] read the book or he is being dishonest ...

Is this what passes for intelligent debate?

Who knows? They may be right. Alternatively, you may be--in which case you won't convince them by petulance.

Hum, I wonder in light of the historical record of Cathar's ad hominem diatrabe above, if you really think that just anyone's assertions are equally valid, and should be uncritically accepted without due consideration of the facts and evidence provided to support their claims, or the nature of ad hominem personal attacks they consistently engage in?

[Cathar1950]

I think it was Rob. Sorry bob. Freudian slip on my part.

Cathar, you are ignorant of what I have or have not read. In fact, I have in my library, not only a copy, but copies, as I check each edition for updates and additions, to watch how Gardner corrects his many misquotes without ever formally acknowleging he has done so.

I would think I should be ignorant of what you have or have not read.
But you seem to not address Gardners point he was making a chose to complain that he said it was widely accepted or or not by scientist. His point was that the science that is presented was always science of the times and they had access to the theories and that the UB claims to not have anything beyond our Urantia science but if it get something right it claim proof. In you argument against Gardner you supported his argument while trying to make some mute point to what degree scientist accepted Alfred Wegener's theory. So some did and some didn't or they wouldn't have debated it. You first set him as dishonest up by quoting Luther
and then other ad hominem fallacies disguised as quotes for calling someone dishonest. Yet You took his statements out of context and his point was made. I was pointing out by asking if you were dishonest or had not read the book as sarcasm against your charge and

BOGUS DILEMMA: if you do X, then EITHER a bad thing will happen OR a worse thing will happen. (In fact there are usually other, less severe alternatives)

I think with all the quotes you may have another fallacy at work:

BLINDING WITH SCIENCE: JARGON; get to territory where they think you know more than they do. Works every time. (Whoops - not that I ever use this trick of course...

Of course then you toped it all off with a quote from the UB.
UB wrote:

Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth…. The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle—these constitute falseness. (Urantia Book 555)

Is that suppose to be:
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM: appeal to so-called "expert"s.
????
Now I have to go change bob to Rob.
Sorry about the mistake.
I think I will start collecting Fallacies including my own.