Subject: a fact

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:15:49 -0500 (EST)

Here is something I hope you enjoy as much as I did.

Jim

[The story behind this... Apparently, there is a nutball who digs things
out of his backyard and sends his "discoveries" to the Smithsonian
Institute, labeling them with scientific names and insisting they are
actual archeological finds. The bizarre truth is that this guy really
exists and does this in his spare time! Anyway, what follows is a letter
from the Smithsonian Institute in response to his submission of a
recently discovered specimen.]

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D,"
layer seven, next to the clothesline, post Hominid skull." We have given
this specimen careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you
that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof
of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years
ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a
Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children,
believes to be the "Malibu Barbie."  It is evident that you have given a
great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be
quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in
the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings.

However, we feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the
specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin:

1.  The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are
typically fossilized bone.

2.  The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic
centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified
proto-hominids.

3.  The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with
that of a common domesticated canine (dog) than it is of the "ravenous
man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that
time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing
hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but
the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it.

Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

A.  The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has
chewed upon.

B.  Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your
request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the
heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to
carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic
record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced
prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly
inaccurate results.

Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National
Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning
your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino."
Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance
of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the
species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like
it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating
specimen to the museum.  While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil,
it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of
work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that
our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the
display of the specimens you have previously submitted to this
Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you might
happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your
backyard.

Additionally, we eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital,
which you proposed within your last letter. Several of us on the staff
are pressing the Director to pay for it.  We are particularly interested
in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating
fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" which make the
excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex femur you recently discovered, take
on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive
crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,

Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm

[email-masked]