Category: Resources

Astrology started as a farming calendar thousands of years ago, when people noticed that certain stars appeared in the sky at certain times of the year and thought that there was a relationship between the star and things that happened on Earth.

The Egyptians, for example, thought that the star Sirius caused the Nile to flood every year and that if they didn’t see it, the river wouldn’t flood. In Tudor England it was a treasonous offence to cast the monarch’s astrological chart, lest any badly placed planet result in regicide.

The idea is that the positions of the heavenly bodies at the time of your birth somehow influence your personality, physical characteristics, health, profession and future. Codified by Ptolemy in the second century AD, astrology reflects the Earth-centred nature of beliefs at that time, where everything was supposed to revolve around us, literally.

In the thousands of years since the zodiac was first drawn up, we’ve discovered that the Earth is not at the centre of all things. Also during that time the Earth has wobbled on its axis like a giant top. This “precession of the equinoxes”, as it is called, means that the Sun is no longer in the sign of the zodiac claimed for it.

If you think you’re a fiery Aries ram, you are, in fact, a wet Piscean fish! In the past 300 years, three extra planets were discovered and had to be given special ad hoc powers in the astrological scene. There are, in fact, two extra constellations within the region of the zodiac, but Cetus (the Whale) and Ophiuchus (the Serpent) have been ignored in favour of the mystical total of 12 revered by the Babylonians.

There have been a large number of tests of astrological claims. One involved checking the birthdates of 22,000 scientists. They should have clustered in the two signs said to produce the personality type typical of scientists, but the distribution was as random as the general population.

Much has been made of the “Mars effect” claimed by French researcher Michel Gauquelin, who said that he found sportspeople and politicians were characterised by having Mars in a particular position in their charts. However, analysis indicates that the individuals in his sample sets had been selected to fit the hypothesis.

Different astrologers do star charts in different ways. Some make changes if you’ve been born premature or by Caesarean delivery or out of wedlock (or even if your chart doesn’t suit!). They use a variety of house systems to divide up the chart.

Yet there is no physical mechanism by which the stars or planets can affect a baby. Any infinitesimal magnetic or gravitational effect would be completely swamped by nearby machines or people! Instead of having anything to do with science or astronomy, astrology has a great deal to do with psychology.

It’s easy to believe the things astrologers write. Statements in astrological readings, whether newspaper columns or personalised interviews, tend to be generalisations that apply to almost everyone, positive statements that we like to identify with, or a combination of two opposites so that at least one half will be right: Some examples are:

• You have a good sense of humour but sometimes it is unappreciated.
• You can be very forgiving but can also hold a grudge for a long time.

Psychologists call this the “Barnum Effect” after US showman Phineas T. Barnum. Where a vague, positive generalisation is taken to have a personal, specific meaning to the individual, this is sometimes called “personal validation”. Such statements are almost always couched positively because people are more likely to reject a negative comment.

It is very rare for any specific statements to be made because these are easy to check or be proven wrong. For example, in the week before her death, three major UK astrologers predicted that Princess Diana would marry Dodi and have two children and a happy life!

None gave any warning about a motor accident.

After a major event, some astrologers will change what they had said or claim to have predicted the event beforehand. Famous astrologer Jeanne Dixon is often quoted as having predicted the assassination of US President John Kennedy in Dallas. What she was on record as having predicted in 1956 was that the 1960 election would be won by a Democrat and that he would be assassinated or would die in office, “although not necessarily in his first term”. In 1960, she predicted that JFK would not win the presidency.

The “Jeanne Dixon effect” refers to the media’s tendency to hype or exaggerate a few correct predictions by a psychic, guaranteeing that they will be remembered, while forgetting or ignoring the far more numerous incorrect predictions.

In personal readings, astrologers (and others, like psychics and mediums, who also do these kinds of interviews) can learn a lot from your body language and responses. People will often nod or volunteer more information to a general comment, thus providing a lead which the astrologer can follow. Magicians call this “cold reading” and find it very effective in convincing people that they have psychic powers.

When astrologers find that they have said something you disagree with, they will often find something in your chart which “explains” why you are different (“Oh yes, your Moon is in Cancer, that’s why you’re such a home Scorpio.”). It’s also relatively easy to make informed guesses about a person based on their age, gender, ethnicity, etc., taking advantage of the many common experiences we all share.

Some astrologers genuinely believe that they can use the stars to find out about a person or to foretell the future. Others are more consciously aware of the applied psychology involved. And there are some who are in it for the money and who will use all the tricks available.

Whatever their beliefs, astrology is a form of intellectual dishonesty and stereotyping.

Most skeptics believe that the universe harbours life-forms other than our own, but the evidence for them having visited here, either in the ancient past or in the present, is not convincing.

In 1947, pilot Kenneth Arnold saw nine crescent-shaped objects that “flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water”. A newspaper article used the term “flying saucer”, and people started to report seeing saucer-shaped objects.

In the early 1960s, Betty and Barney Hill reported that they had been abducted by aliens, describing them as men with big noses, dark or black hair and eyes, and a relaxed human appearance. Some years later, when the couple were put under hypnotic regression, they said that the aliens were small, had grey skin, large black wrap-around eyes.

This second description matched an alien character in the science fiction series “The Outer Limits.” The programme had screened 12 days before the interview. It formed the basis for the now-classic “Grey” alien, popularised by writers like Whitley Streiber and Budd Hopkins.

On December 6th 1952, people from all over New Zealand reported seeing two UFOs, making this one of the most well-documented UFO sightings of all time. It was, in fact, a sophisticated hoax planned by some Otago University students and not revealed as such for 20 years.

These three incidents reveal common problems with UFO sightings and alien abductions — misreporting, malleable memory and outright hoaxes.

Misreporting

Surprisingly few people these days are familiar with the night sky, and even experts have difficulty judging the size and distance of objects. It can be easy to mistake the very bright planets (Venus and Jupiter) for objects within our atmosphere, especially when glimpsed from a moving vehicle. About 80% of UFO sightings are thought to be either Venus or Jupiter. Even the Moon can trick people, particularly when seen under unusual conditions. Add to that aircraft, advertising blimps, clouds, flocks of birds and other aerial objects, and you can eliminate the vast amount of sightings as natural phenomena.

Malleable Memory

Memories can change, blending new information with old. This is particularly so under certain conditions, such as hypnotic regression or other techniques used by people “treating” alleged alien abductees. It is possible to produce, for example, the full range of symptoms reported by abductees (such as paralysis, a feeling of being watched, floating, sexual manipulation) through such techniques and via a relatively common experience known as sleep paralysis. An earlier age reported similar experiences but saw them as resulting from visiting demons.

A major problem occurs when no independent verification exists. Confabulations – where false memories are built up from other memories and fantasies – can occur readily and can be difficult to tell from real recall. This area is a very difficult one as it can appear to call into question people’s truthfulness when, in fact, they may genuinely believe in the experience they “remember”. This aspect has obvious parallels with other areas of memory-related inquiry such as “recovered” memory of alleged long-past sexual abuse or Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Hoaxes

There is entertainment to be had in producing a UFO hoax and, these days, the potential for a lucrative income via media sales. Sometimes hoaxes are done for the latter, sometimes by people who want to be accepted in the UFO community and see an encounter as a form of “entry” pass.

A hoax perpetrated by a group of Otago University students in 1952 was regarded as one of the strongest cases for the existence of UFOs for over 20 years, until the carefully planned set-up was revealed.

One set of UFO photographs taken in Venezuela in 1966 by Inake Oses is still often reproduced in UFO books, despite the fact that Oses has stated that he faked them to get revenge on some ufologist friends who had scorned him for not believing.

The often-mentioned MJ12 documents, sometimes called the Majestic Report, which allegedly contains papers relating to a high-powered US cover-up of UFO information, is generally recognised, even by UFO supporters, as fake. However, this doesn’t stop it being referenced regularly.

By the very nature of unidentified flying objects – a less biased name would be unidentified visual phenomena – not all will be identifiable. However, the fact that we can’t tell what 100% of these things are, does not mean that the remaining 1% therefore have to be UFOs. They are merely unidentifiable using the available information.

Surveys of skeptical organisations show that around 80-90% of members believe that there is life on other planets; many support the scientific search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Given the vastness of space and the common existence of the appropriate elements required, it seems reasonable to believe that other life has evolved elsewhere. Skeptics, however, do not generally believe that other lifeforms have visited Earth either in the past (as ancient astronauts) or now.

Some alien abductee proponents claim that as many as 5 million Americans have been abducted. In the past 30 years since the Hills’ alleged encounter, this would amount to roughly one every minute every night of every year. Yet no physical evidence has ever been found. If aliens had visited this planet in the numbers implied, then it would be reasonable to expect some hard evidence by now – not grainy photos, out-of-focus films, uncorroborated encounters and vague skin markings.

Whole books have been written about the alleged crash of an alien craft at Roswell in 1947, where alien bodies were said to have been found by the military. It appears that there had been a cover-up, but of a secret surveillance balloon operation, not of an alien encounter.

Odd-looking materials and strange scripts on recovered artefacts were apparently the product of the factory which produced the balloons for the military. Eyewitness claims have changed or been contradictory; most of the reports are, in fact, second and third hand; basic errors of fact have been accepted without much in the way of questioning. The infamous Roswell autopsy film touted in 1995 is accepted, even by UFO supporters, as most likely a hoax.

Scoring a medium/psychic – a checklist of the most common topics, phrases and techniques used in cold reading-based businesses

Over recent decades, a particularly virulent form of anti-evolutionism has emerged in the United States, but with its adherents here and elsewhere, called Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC). When examined closely, IDC turns out to be the old Argument from Design dressed in modern garb. It is basically a return to Paley, but with emphasis on biological complexity at the biochemical and cellular levels rather than at the organ level. The basic contention of IDC is that natural selection is incapable of accounting for life’s complexity. According to IDC proponents, the only answer is to invoke an Intelligent Designer or Creator.

However, although the focus has changed, much of the flavour of “scientific” creationism is retained in the form of some of the more familiar arguments used by creationists against evolution, such as the alleged lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. There are parallels also in the tactics used. Thus, proponents of IDC are not averse to resorting to selective quotations from the evolutionary literature in their fight against evolution, and the ‘fact’ of evolution continues to be conflated with its chief mechanism, natural selection (see creation “science” page).

The chief architects of the ID movement reside in the United States. Prominent among them are Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution), William Dembski (Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology), Phillip Johnson (Darwin On Trial, and others) and Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution). The central organization of the movement is the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, and the key strategy is called the “wedge”, an attempt “to wedge” IDC into mainstream culture and education.

As Phillip Johnson has expressed it, the purpose of the “wedge” is to “affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the human mind.” Johnson has further written:

“The objective… …is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God.””

The defining concept of the movement is “theistic realism,” and creation science has been superseded by another oxymoron, theistic science, representing a further attempt to undermine evolutionary science by marshalling so-called scientific arguments against it. Thus, contrary to the denials of some of its proponents, the ID movement is religiously, philosophically and politically motivated. Organic evolution merely epitomizes much of what the followers of IDC abhor in society.

One of the cornerstones of IDC, but as we shall see a very unstable one, is the idea of irreducible complexity as conceived by Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor. This is how Behe explains the concept:

“”By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly…… by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.””

Behe describes the humble mousetrap as exhibiting irreducible complexity with respect to its intended function and, as examples of irreducible complexity in the natural world, he cites the blood clotting mechanism and cilia (whiplike structures which function as swimming organelles in many microscopic organisms). At face value, Behe’s argument seems plausible. If the cilium, for example, could not have evolved in functional steps, then it must have been created as a functional entity. The solution to its existence must be intelligent design, not evolution.

However, the question has to be asked, how well does the mousetrap analogy describe reality? A basic flaw in Behe’s argument is that “biochemical pathways did not evolve by the sequential addition of steps to pathways that became functional only at the end. Instead they have been rigged up with pieces co-opted from other pathways, duplicated genes and early multifunctional enzymes.” (J. Coyne, Nature 19 September 1996). In the case of cilia, for example, a series from simple to complex does exist in nature, obviating Behe’s claim of irreducible complexity. Behe’s idea has failed to pass muster in scientific and philosophical circles, and is unlikely to.

Intelligent design

Although Behe appears to accept evolution at visible levels of biological organization, he balks at the efficacy of natural selection at the microscopic level. In promoting his idea of irreducible complexity, he erects a discontinuity where none apparently exists. Bodies, organs, and events and structures at the cellular level appear inextricably linked in both evolution and development.

From the viewpoint of science and science education, any return to Paley and the God of the Gaps would be disastrous. The essence of science is free inquiry. Drawing boundaries, still within the natural world, beyond which science is deemed powerless to penetrate would quickly lead to stagnation in many research areas.

IDC must be rejected as a viable alternative to evolution in science and science education since it has, as an inherent element, an appeal to an entity which lies outside the scope of science. Science deals with that part of reality amenable to empirical inquiry. Alternative explanations must be testable against the natural world.

It is generally accepted in scientific circles that science is based on a necessary methodological materialism, not to be confused with philosophical materialism or naturalism. (Many creationists conflate the two, leading to the false accusation that scientists and science teachers are guilty of the indoctrination of godless belief systems.)

The principle of freedom of belief and expression is a vital one in an open society. What should not be tolerated is the inclusion of non-scientific beliefs as allegedly viable alternatives to evolution in the science classroom. The integrity of science education must be upheld by all who value quality in our education system.

Defined as the “art and science of personal excellence”, this technique claims to cure phobias in as little as 15 minutes, improve learning and memory as well as increase the skills needed to excel at selling and negotiating. Websites advertise that NLP will also improve your skills in seduction. NLP claims to model the way outstanding performers think and act in such a way that anyone can use it to bring about similar outstanding results. Variously called a technology, a series of techniques, a model, an attitude, a system, a methodology, it is said to unlock secrets, but is not generally claimed to be a magic pill.

One of the founders, Richard Bandler, claims that the name NLP was “phrased on the fly from several book titles on the floor of the car one night when a policeman asked his occupation”. From such beginnings, the words now have specific meanings so that ‘neuro’ relates to the fact that all behaviour stems from neurological processes, such as sight, hearing etc., ‘linguistic’ relates to the fact that we use language to order thoughts and behaviour, and ‘programming’ describes the ways we choose to organise ideas and actions to produce results.

There appear to be several ways in which NLP is being promoted — for use by therapists, motivators, or as a self-help programme presented in seminars, books and tapes. As a result, the methods are slightly different, ranging from a type of hypnotism used by therapists in which the therapist holds two fingers in front of the patient’s face and follows a set of eye movements encouraged in the patient while asking certain questions, to question and answer sessions. The hypnosis sessions may last for weeks during which time phobias, childhood trauma, depression and multiple personality disorders are ‘cured’. The therapist matches and mirrors the patient’’s behaviour to gain rapport and gives unexpected responses to the patient’’s statements.

One example quoted by originators Bandler and Grinder, involves shocking a patient who says he wants to commit suicide, by answering “”Wonderful!”” By giving the least expected response, the therapist claims to able to interrupt the patient and gain instant rapport with him. Therapy then proceeds with the therapist asking the patient to wait until he has received three months’ therapy, and if that fails, then the therapist will agree to help the patient commit suicide. He asks such helpful questions such as “”Who would you like to find your body?” “Have you composed your suicide note?” “Would you like me to help you write it?”” Needless to say, the therapist is confident that his therapy will cure the patient within the imposed time limit.

Other techniques used in NLP include reframing, pacing and anchoring. Bandler and Grinder in discussing reframing insist that every experience and behaviour in the world is appropriate, given some context and some frame. An example of a ‘single content reframe’ that they quote involves curing an anorexic by shutting her in a room with family members and ‘a large pot of hotdogs’, which the family is to force her to eat. When their attempts fail after the 15-minute time limit, the therapist orders them out of the room and attacks the patient verbally, saying, ““Now how long have you been using this as a way of getting you family’’s attention?”” They claim that this method cures 80% of anorexics by breaking the anorexic cycle. ‘Pacing’ is gaining and maintaining rapport with another person and ‘joining them in their model of the world’, and ‘anchoring’ is the ‘process by which any stimulus or representation gets connected to and triggers a response’.

NLP is dense with such jargon, no doubt aimed at sounding scientific. Other examples include metaprograms, left-brain, right-brain, inner teams, multiple personalities, enchanted rings (of communication), submodalities, anchors (resource anchors, chaining anchors and collapsing anchors), modal operators of possibilities/necessity, complex equivalence and so on. (Reading an NLP book requires enormous stamina to wade through the jargon and identify anything meaningful, though the anecdotes are amusing at times.)

One of the main tenets of NLP is that people communicate either through visual, auditory or kinaesthetic interpretations and that these can be identified through studying eye movements and auditory cues. If a person looks upwards, he is accessing visual imagery, downwards and he is accessing kinaesthetic or body sensations; if he looks straight ahead he is accessing auditory cues, to the left and he is remembering or to the right and he is constructing. Auditory cues allow a therapist to identify whether he is using visual imagery (““I see a way..””), auditory (““That sounds right”…”), or kinaesthetic (““I feel we should…””). By taking up these cues, therapists are able to communicate better.

There is no evidence that there is any correlation between eye movements and visual imagery or language choices, indicating it is based on at least one flawed theory. The proponents of NLP agree that it is not based on theory, however, but is based on the process of model making. These do not have to be correct or true or even perfectly formed. A model has only to be useful. If it is no’t useful it can be discarded and another one used. There are no controlled studies to prove that these methods are correct. The practice is to ‘pretend that the model works, try it, notice the results and if it does no’t work, try something else’.

Does it work?

A National Research Council committee found no significant evidence that NLP’’s theories are sound or that its practices are effective, and the US Army Research Institute after investigating NLP also concluded that it was ineffective in improving influence or skilled motor performance. Many individuals have expressed incredulity and disgust at the methods used in therapy and stopped after only one session.

NLP appears to be a very lucrative field with certified practitioners in at least 38 countries. Courses available range from an introductory class that may be free, to diploma courses lasting 150 hours spread over 20 days. Special courses aimed at applying NLP to particular areas, such as education, business, music, acupuncture, counselling, psychotherapy and hypnotherapy are available.

Bookstores stock many examples of NLP books, but a local university library is curiously devoid of them, despite having a psychology department. NLP is not mentioned in mainstream psychology textbooks either. It is not a science despite its advertising claims.

---

References

Reframing. Richard Bandler and John Grinder. Real People Press. 1992.

Crazy Therapies. Margaret Thaler Singer and Janja Lalich. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1996.

Introducing Neurolinguistic Programming. Joseph O’Connor and John Seymour. Aquarian/Thorsons. 1990

NLP the new art and science of getting what you want. Dr Harry Alder. Piatkus. 1994

Propolis

Propolis was used as a general cure-all in the 17th century in London and is undergoing a revival with the advent of health food shops and the Internet.

Propolis is made when bees collect various sticky substances such as resins that poplars and conifers exude to protect wounds. Once they are mixed with wax, bees use these to construct and maintain their hives. Propolis has a complex structure that depends on its plant origins. As many plant products do, propolis contains phenolics, and various aromatic compounds, volatile oils and terpenes.

Propolis is harvested from the bees when they encounter a grid placed over the hive entrance. Bees are not too fussy about what they collect, and road tar, drying paint and caulking compounds are collected too. It can accumulate environmental pollutants, such as lead from paints on hives, in metallic hive spacers, in the air from petrol and industry, as well as drugs used to cure bee illness, and hive waste. South American propolis has been reported as having excessive lead contamination. The curative properties of propolis supposedly relate to antimicrobial and anti-tumour flavonoids. Laboratory tests show that its components do have some antimicrobial properties (which are not significant enough to meet the claims made), but most plants contain compounds that would have similar properties.

Propolis is poorly soluble in water but usually soluble in alcohols. Following alcohol extraction and maturation for 50-60 days, propolis is filtered and added to honey (10%), wax extract and peppermint. Such mixtures are used topically to heal wounds but any individual efficacy assessment of propolis would be difficult. When prepared for medicinal use, propolis can cause contact dermatitis, which is well known in apiarists, and other allergic reactions including oral mucositis with ulceration when taken as a lozenge.

Propolis is claimed to strengthen veins, revitalise cells, improve the immune system, and to have antioxidant, anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties. It has been suggested that it can anaesthetise the pains suffered by domestic animals undergoing abdominal surgery. There are no clinical studies that show propolis to be of use to any human condition. However, don’t discourage the bees from collecting propolis – —it has proven efficacy in beehive repair and it can be used to make varnish.

Pollen

Pollen is collected from many plants and screened from the bees’ legs as they return to the hive. It is not a uniform product and can be hazardous for people with allergies. Pollen is renowned for having extremely tough outer casings that keep intact for centuries, so to add credibility to their product, some manufacturers blast the pollen to “potentiate” it, i.e. crack the pollen’s outer coating. Photographs of the results of this process are far from convincing. An Australian experiment showed pollen digestibility was only 50-59%, despite its favourable protein content and amino acid patterns.

Bee pollen is potentially very dangerous due to its potential to cause allergies characterised by asthma, hives, and anaphylactic shock. A major culprit is pollen from Compositae, such as dandelions and sunflowers.

Pollen is claimed to be a stimulant for recovery after illness and an aid for impotence and alcoholism, anaemia and digestive upsets. Studies have failed to prove any benefit for athletes, and the danger of allergy was considered too great for sports medicine doctors to recommend it. All the vitamins and minerals in bee pollen can be gained by eating a balanced diet thereby saving money and getting other nutrients as well.

Royal Jelly

Packaged attractively like shiny (very expensive) jelly beans, royal jelly comprises proteins, sugars and lipids secreted by worker bees to feed the queen, queen larvae and other young larvae.

Royal jelly is said to be antibacterial in humans and may well be cosmetically, but taken orally all the antibacterial properties disappear when the pH is higher than 6 (the human gut is maintained at pH 7.4). There are no controlled experiments that support claims of internal usefulness. Royal jelly claims to increase vitality and energy, produce stronger nails and hair, a more radiant complexion, stress relief, better digestion, improved liver function and relief from insomnia. One bee product paper says that “Royal jelly cannot be imitated by science or its beneficial properties accurately understood, but that there is overwhelming evidence that it improves health. Far from it, deaths have been reported from allergic reactions.

Bee venom

There may be a legitimate use for bee venom in desensitising allergy sufferers, but extensive claims for this product have seen it listed as one of the FDA’s top 10 health frauds.

Bee venom has been variously claimed to cure numerous muscular conditions, arthritis, gout, and multiple sclerosis. More adventurous claims imply that it can treat high blood pressure, asthma, hearing loss and premenstrual tension. Reports of therapeutic success are anecdotal and there are no records of placebo-controlled trials. It is available in topical creams for applying to sore joints or muscles, and as an ingredient in a manuka honey preparation for oral use.

Bee venom consists of approximately 40 compounds including at least two toxins, one of which, mellitin, is the cause of the pain inflicted by bee stings. It also has several compounds that can cause irritation and inflammation, such as histamine, phospholipase A2 and hyaluronidase. Far from being anti-inflammatory as suggested, these compounds are likely to aggravate the effects of the toxins, and produce the “supposedly favourable” reddening and heat observed when used.

Bee venom can cause anaphylactic shock and generally there are warnings of this on the products’ containers. Originally administered to patients by live bees, the venom is said to be especially efficacious if the sting (or injection) is aimed at an acupuncture point.

Usually a bee loses a substantial part of its abdomen when it stings, causing it to die. Bee venom is collected by shocking the bees electrically to encourage them to sting a fine membrane at the entrance to the nest. The bee can retract its sting and the venom is scraped off and processed. Reportedly not too many bees die in the process, though beekeepers can suffer from lung irritation from the dried venom.

Numerous companies in the US have been charged with making false or misleading claims as part of their marketing, and infomercial producers have been fined for misrepresenting their paid ads as news or documentary programs.

---

References

Bee Products: Properties, Applications and Apitherapy. Edited by Avshalom Mizrahi and Yaacov Lensky. Plenum Press New York and London. 1997.

ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture. 40th Edition. Amos Ives Root. 1990

The Complete Guide to Beekeeping. Jeremy Evans

Biodynamic farming and gardening has gained a good deal of attention lately as a reputed means of providing chemical-free produce and humane animal repellents. A high public profile has not been matched by a broad awareness of the history and basis of the biodynamic approach. Despite this, there have been increasing demands for public funding of scientific studies to assess the worth of biodynamics.

The biodynamic approach to farming developed as an offshoot of the Anthroposophical movement of Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner. In the 1920s, Steiner applied his theories of a “spiritual science” to agriculture. He and his followers developed a series of preparations aimed at restoring the “vital life-force” to plants and enhancing their growth through utilisation of “planetary forces”. It is the use of these preparations and the practice of “peppering” that forms the main distinction between biodynamic followers and the more conventional organic farmers.

Biodynamic Preparation 500, for example, involves packing fresh manure into a cow’s horn and burying it over the winter months. The horn is said to reflect planetary forces into the manure, “raying back whatever is life-giving and Astral”, according to Steiner. Burying it ensures that “all the radiations that tend to etherialise and astralise are poured into the inner hollow of the horn”. This causes the manure to be “quickened” with “all that is Ethereal and life-giving”. The manure is then diluted and used as a spray. Preparation 501 uses diluted silica (often powdered quartz) to bestow sense organs upon the plant, “allowing the totality of outer planetary forces to work”.

One Massey University study looked at the differences between soils on seven biodynamically run farms and nine conventionally farmed properties chosen for close proximity so as to match soil types. A range of factors, including bacterial numbers, trace element quantities, organic content and the physical structure of the soil were examined. The biodynamic farms were found to have superior soil quality. However, this was predictable as it is a result of the common organic practices that biodynamic farms undertake, such as green crop manures, composting, soil rotation and the like, rather than being attributable to the “etherialised Cosmic- Astral influences” which biodynamic proponents claim are at work.

There has been little in the way of rigorous scientific testing of biodynamic claims. While biodynamic texts refer to tests done in the 1920 – 40s, few — if any — were conducted in a scientific manner. By far the bulk of evidence supporting biodynamic claims is anecdotal, where keen enthusiasts talk about how well they are doing. This is not to suggest that such proponents are lying, but if we are going to fund and put into place agricultural or pest control practices, it is important to ensure that they are clearly proven to work.

It is all too easy to find people who can make a claim, often sincerely, but that doesn’t make them right. After all, millions of people once believed that the Earth was flat! That’s why it is so important to do the tests in as independent and objective a fashion as possible and, ideally, independently repeating “successes” so that we don’t end up fooled by our own errors and illusions. This is the foundation of science, and it serves as a form of consumer protection for the many ideas that are mooted.

In 1991, The Forest Research Institute was the first organisation in the world to make a solid scientific study of one core biodynamic practice, that of “peppering”. In this, the bodies of unwanted organisms are burnt at a certain time in the lunar cycle. The ashy remains are then diluted down to minute levels and sprayed around a property. This is said to reduce or eliminate the presence of the undesirable organism. Peppering is used by biodynamic followers for everything from clearing land of thistles to repelling possums. When plans were being made for ridding Rangitoto Island of possums, biodynamic adherents approached the Department of Conservation with the suggestion that 1080 drops be replaced by peppering, citing it as a natural, chemical-free approach which would successfully repel possums and, according to some believers, even sterilise them!

Treated and untreated foods were laid out in bait stations and the behaviour of the possums carefully examined. Five “active” and four placebo treatments were tested. The former were provided by a homeopathic company, the Biodynamic Farming & Gardening Association and a biodynamic farmer. FRI also produced their own solution based on instructions from the association. Treatments were coded to reduce experimental bias, and multiple series of tests were run.

Biodynamic proponents predicted that the “possums would not go near the treated areas and they would probably be desperate to get out of the cages”. In fact, there was no discernible reaction. The results were rejected by the Bio Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association of New Zealand.

The scientists involved in the study noted that if there had been any evidence that something was going on, they would have gone further and there would have been keen interest in doing so. As with many pseudo-sciences, peppering has developed its own impressive jargon which can sound reasonable to the non-scientifically literate. In discussing the claim that highly diluted ash can sterilise the pests involved, one biodynamic proposal stated:

“The theory holds that the specific preparation methods produce the negative ’energy’ of the pest’s reproductive force, operating on a vibrational level, not a material one.”

This is a meaningless statement on a variety of levels and it is important to challenge this sort of claim. After all, possums represent a very real threat to New Zealand’’s ecosystem and it is vital that an effective way of dealing with them is identified.

Possum peppering has been clearly demonstrated not to work when tested properly. Given the huge dilutions involved in producing the preparation, about the only way you could deter possums with it is to have a vast amount of the peppering solution (i.e. water) in a firehose and spray individual possums until they fall off a cliff into the sea!

Proposals to use peppering have regularly come up before regional councils and other bodies looking for a way to deal with pests, including most recently the painted apple moth in Auckland. It seems to offer a cheap, quick, easy fix, but there is no such thing when it comes to the real world. A balanced ecological system approach has its place in agriculture. The problems are with the aspects which are said to be beyond the realms of physics and chemistry.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has always provoked much controversy and opposition. Non- acceptance of evolution still has a considerable number of supporters in the USA. . A 2014 Gallup poll revealed that 42% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form, 31% believe that humans evolved but with God’s guidance, while only 19% believe that humans evolved, with God having no part in the process. This rejection of evolution in favour of a recent creation of man indicates a low level of scientific literacy where evolution is concerned.

Active opposition to evolution comes from various fundamentalist religious groups, who see it as a threat to long-held beliefs concerning ultimate origins and our place in the universe. There should be no objection to people clinging to cherished beliefs, but when they unjustifiably claim scientific credence for them, and also insist that they be taught in the science classroom, there is just cause for concern by skeptics and others.

Possibly the most militant of the anti- evolutionists are the “creation scientists”, a group of “young-earth” Christians based in the United States. They wish to see their literal interpretation of the Bible taught in schools as a viable alternative to evolution. Of the strategies devised to achieve this, the one which has found most success is where the religious nature of their belief system is down-played and the language of science used to give an impression of scientific credibility.

The religious nature of “creation science” is especially exemplified in the statements of faith required for membership to the various organisations established in its name – statements, for example, relating to a creator, a universal flood, minimal changes to created “kinds”, and a young earth. “Creation” is taken to mean the bringing into being of the basic “kinds” of organisms as described in Genesis, a process which creationists themselves acknowledge is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

If we are to believe the anti-evolutionists, evolution is “a theory in crisis”, teetering on the brink of oblivion. In reality, evolution in scientific circles has attained the status of fact. This declaration invariably elicits cries of “foul” and “dogmatism” from evolution’s opponents. They ask, how can a theory be fact? The answer is that it is the same way we distinguish between the fact of continental drift and its proposed mechanism, the theory of plate tectonics.

Darwin’s theory comprises two major propositions:

1. evolution (or descent with modification) has occurred
2. the key mechanism of evolution, the “how” of the process, is natural selection

Proposition (1) is a fact, supported by overwhelming evidence from many research fields; proposition (2) is theory.

These two aspects of evolution are often conflated by anti-evolutionists. They cannot resist highlighting conflicting views concerning the mechanism of the process so as to make it appear that evolutionists are questioning the validity of evolution itself. One common argument against evolution is that it is “only a theory”, implying that creationism has equal validity as a different theory. This is a misleading use of the word as, in science, “theory” means much more than conjecture or even hypothesis. “Theory” is used by scientists as a shorthand term for describing an explanatory structure which is broadly based across a range of specialist areas, reasonably secure, and supported by consistent observations and experimentation. The knowledge held within this theory can be organised in a highly formal system using basic underlying priniciples as an explanatory tool from which to explore further.

In declaring evolution a fact, the accusation of dogmatism is unjustified since scientists make no claim to absolute truth (unlike the anti- evolutionists). A fact in science means, as Stephen J. Gould notes, is something “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent”. It is against this bastion of scientific certitude that the anti-evolutionists have mounted their Quixotic attacks, employing invalid arguments and questionable tactics.

The “strawman technique” involves setting up evolution in such a way that the caricature erected is easily demolished. Evolution is portrayed as a process of pure chance or accident. Therefore, any possibility of producing complexity is nil. But evolutionists do not conceive the process in just this way. Chance factors are involved (such as mutation and recombination), but natural selection itself, working on new gene combinations, helps in explaining not only speciation but also the evolution of complexity. The most insidious of creationist tactics is the selective quotation. The creationist literature abounds with extracts lifted from the evolutionary literature in such a way that they then convey meanings never intended by their authors.

Occasionally, creationists will admit that creation “science” depends on faith. But evolution, too, is a religion, they argue. This is nonsense. Prominent skeptic, Michael Shermer, defines science as

“a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past and present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation”.

On the other hand, creationists start with a set of absolute beliefs, and facts or concepts which contradict these must either be declared false, or made to fit a preconceived mould. This is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. Acceptance in science is not a matter of faith or belief, it is a matter of evidence. Evolutionary science meets this criterion.

One of the problems in debating with creationists is in the broad range of arguments that they often employ. Thus in arguing with a geologist, they will concentrate on biological factors, and vice versa.

Does creation “science” deserve a place in the school science classroom? The answer to this question, given its nature and the tactics employed by its proponents, has to be a resounding “NO!”

Understandably, creation “science” poses a much greater threat to the integrity of science education in the USA than it does in New Zealand. But recent reports indicate that creationism has already become established in a number of our schools, so principals, teachers and boards of trustees cannot afford to be complacent over this issue. In an educational climate in which the distinction between science and non-science is becoming more and more blurred, constant vigilance is essential.