Volume 51 | Issue 3 Article 5

2008 Academic Libraries and Creation Science Resources Tyler Veak Ph.D. Liberty University

The Christian Librarian is the official publication of the Association of Christian Librarians (ACL). To learn more about ACL and its products and services please visit http://www.acl.org/

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/tcl Part of the Library and Information Science Commons

Recommended Citation Veak, Tyler Ph.D. (2008) "Academic Libraries and Creation Science Resources," The Christian Librarian: Vol. 51 : Iss. 3 , Article 5. Available at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/tcl/vol51/iss3/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Christian Librarian by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Academic Libraries and Creation Science Resources

Tyler Veak, Ph.D. MLIS Introduction Failing in their attempt to have creationism Scholarly Communication taught in public schools, religious conservatives Librarian Over the last 25 years there has been a great shifted their tactic. Public schools are now Liberty University deal of controversy over whether or not facing a new challenge – intelligent design, 1 Lynchburg, Virginia “creationism” should be taught alongside “the belief that living organisms are so complex evolution in public schools. However, there is ABSTRACT that the best explanation is that they were also the less often heard challenge to libraries. created by an intelligent force of some kind” Although there is significant debate Both creationists and evolutionists have (Goodstein, 2005a). Proponents of intelligent over whether or not to teach weighed in on this issue. Creationists argue creationism alongside evolution in design argue that unlike creationism, intelligent public schools, there has been little that libraries do not carry enough resources design is based on empirical evidence rather discussion on the role of libraries supporting their views (Bergman, 1996). than Scripture (Goodstein, 2005c). Opponents, and librarians in this debate. In this Conversely, evolutionists claim that libraries article I argue that academic libraries on the other hand, argue that intelligent in particular have a potentially vital are being unfairly “pressed to add ‘creation design is just creationism under a new guise role to play in that the majority of science’ books to their libraries” (Matsumura, (Forrest, 2001). Regardless, proponents are science-based research takes place 1998). As the primary keepers of knowledge challenging public schools to teach intelligent in institutions of higher education; and information in our society, libraries have and that academic libraries have an design alongside evolution. The first court case obligation to provide empirically the potential to greatly influence the outcome involving intelligent design occurred recently based creation science materials of this debate. However, with limited resources (October 2005) in Dover, Pennsylvania because the debate centers around libraries and librarians are potentially faced science. I support my argument (Goodstein, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). through a brief analysis of the with a problem: should they provide resources institutions that subscribe to the that support the creationist standpoint, and if The central arguments against creationism Creation Research Society Quarterly, one so to what extent? Failing to do so could be are fairly simple: 1) creationism is not science, of the only peer-reviewed journals construed as a form of censorship. Academic focusing on creation science. and 2) there is no supporting empirical data. libraries in particular have a vital role to play, Opponents believe that if they can persuasively because universities are where the majority of 1Although a number of terms are fre- argue that creationism is actually a pseudo- quently used interchangeably with regard scientific research takes place. This paper will science (e.g., astrology) then there is no to the creationist perspective, the differ- therefore focus primarily on the responsibility justification to teach it alongside an established ences are significant enough to warrant of academic libraries to provide “science” based scientific theory (e.g., evolution) (Overbye, explanation. “Creationism” is the general creationist materials. claim that the Judeo-Creation God cre- 2005). Intelligent design advocates are doing ated the universe and life ex nihilo. “Cre- little to rebut this claim. For example, in ation science” is the attempt to justify Background the Dover case, the leading witness for the the creationist perspective scientifically. “Intelligent design” (discussed below) is Since 1968, there have been at least six proponents of intelligent design, Michael a more general claim, detached from any major court cases involving the teaching Behe, claimed that “under his definition of a specific religious context. Proponents of of creationism in public schools (“Legal scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly intelligent design argue that the universe 2 must have been designed by an intelli- Background,” 2001). The most significant of as intelligent design” (Goodstein, 2005c). gent being rather than chance alone. In these cases, Edwards v. Aguillard, resulted in the addition, there is an explicit attempt to U.S. Supreme Court effectively banning the The issue of the definition of science is central support intelligent design with empiri- to this debate. The primary justification for cal evidence. Recognizing these distinc- teaching of creationism from public schools tions the author will use the more gen- in 1987. The Court ruled it unconstitutional the Supreme Court’s 1987 ruling was that eral terms “creationism” or “creationist” creationism is not an established scientific throughout the paper (Pennock, 2002). to teach creationism in public schools, because creationism is founded on religious beliefs. theory, but a religious belief. This is the reason 2 Note that because so much of the debate The Court argued further that requiring why creationists are taking a different approach has centered on whether or not creation- (i.e., intelligent design) which they argue is ism is a “science,” many of the key players creationism to be taught alongside evolution involved in the debate are philosophers “undermined” the teaching of science (“Legal not founded on religion. Opponents, on the of science (Overbye, 2005). background,” 2001). other hand, claim that intelligent design is 132 The Christian Librarian, 51 (3) 2008 continued on page 143 continued from page 132 just another variation of creationism, and “is a of the truth or the facts of the science (i.e., Trojan horse for religion in the public schools” astronomy). (Goodstein, 2005b). Kuhn’s theory of scientific change is a useful Although advocates of creationism are lens for analyzing the creation-evolution admittedly short on scientific evidence, they debate. Creationists argue that given enough have argued that this shortage is due primarily time and resources they could fill in the gaps s the primary to a lack of support for alternative research of their theory/worldview/paradigm (Johnson, A programs on the origins of life (Johnson, 2001). Obviously, no one knows whether or keepers of knowledge 2001). Paul Johnson (1993), one of the leading not this is the case unless given the opportunity and information in proponents of creationism, argues that creation – hence the importance of libraries and science entails a totally different worldview, librarians. As the gate-keepers of knowledge our society, libraries or paradigm, with an entirely different set of and information, librarians play a crucial role in have the potential to assumptions and presuppositions.3 He claims whether or not alternative paradigms can ever that if the scientists investigating the origin emerge. The resources that libraries provide (or greatly influence of life began with the assumption that a fail to provide) could determine whether or not the outcome of this Creator or “Designer” exists; then the product a new scientific paradigm, such as intelligent of their science would be radically different. design, emerges. debate. That is, beginning with the assumption that an Intelligent Designer exists would yield If one accepts Kuhn’s conception of science, scientific evidence of “design” in the universe. then libraries – particularly academic libraries – are faced with a decision that could have In some sense, Johnson and his fellow significant consequences, that is, whether or creationists have a point. Thomas Kuhn (1970), not to expend limited funding on resources the eminent philosopher-physicist, argues that support a minority.5 The type of resources that the nature of science is not nearly as necessary are those that could be used to straightforward as many believe. The idea that enhance or develop research related to the scientists follow an established scientific method scientific (i.e., empirical) support of the that generates facts about the physical world is creationist paradigm. The majority of larger completely erroneous, according to Kuhn. He libraries carry general resources related to the compares what he calls “normal science” to creation-evolution debate. For example, the puzzle solving. Most scientists operate under Library Journal recently published an article an overarching worldview or paradigm4 and listing a number of web resources related to attempt to fill in the gaps within this particular the creation-evolution debate (Aycock, 2001). paradigm. According to Kuhn, this kind of Even though these resources are important science follows a logical order or method to from a sociological perspective, they are of some extent. However, Kuhn is most interested little value in terms of developing a scientific 3Johnson distinguishes between “scien- tific naturalism” and “theistic realism.” in explaining the nature of the shift from one research program. Proponents of the latter claim that paradigm to another which he claims is not supernatural phenomena can explain rational or logical. One of many examples One problem is that few empirically based some natural phenomena; the former that Kuhn (1957) provides is the transition resources exist to support creationism. The rejects this claim (Johnson, 2001). from a Ptolemaic to a Copernican universe. small number of books that written from 4Kuhn (1970) distinguishes between what he calls a “paradigm” and a “the- He claims that there was no “revolution” per a scientific perspective are directed more ory.” The former is much broader in 6 se, but rather a subtle shift over almost a 100 toward the layperson than the scientist. As scope, and according to Kuhn frames year period. This shift was brought about by discussed above, this can be viewed in two the theories in which scientists prac- a change of allegiance among the leading ways. Opponents of creationism argue that the tice. astronomers of the day (16th century), and not lack of empirical evidence proves that it is not 5Minority in the sense of the scientific on the discovery of new scientific facts. Most a valid science (Pennock, 2001). Proponents, community. significantly, without this change in allegiance on the other hand, claim that this begs the 6See for example, Gish (1995), or Behe among the astronomers no corresponding shift question; that is, creationists have not been (1996). in paradigms would have occurred regardless given the opportunity to develop a research program (Johnson, 2001). 143 The Christian Librarian, 51 (3) 2008 Although scant, resources that could be used to academic institutions carry it. Of course, support a viable scientific research program do there are undoubtedly various reasons for exist. In fact, a peer reviewed scientific journal this;9 nevertheless, the fact remains and the has been in existence since 1964, Creation consequences are significant enough to warrant Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). However, further discussion. it appears that very few academic libraries actually carry this journal. A random survey Analysis to determine which academic libraries carry CRSQ yielded the following table (“College As stated, if academic libraries fail to provide & University Libraries,” n.d.): the resources that support creationism, then Table 1 most likely a viable scientific research program Institutions Carrying CRSQ will fail to develop. One might reply, so what? However, failing to provide proponents of Number of Four-Year Academic Institutions with creationism with the necessary resources only Number of Institutions no Religious Affiliation furthers the controversy by keeping it in the State (Region) Carrying CRSQ Carrying CRSQ realm of the speculative. Either the creationists have a valid scientific theory or they do not. Georgia (Southeast) 8 0 The irony is that one could argue that the New York (Northeast) 6 1 best way to diffuse the creationist’s agenda is Texas (South) 18 0 to provide them with all the resources they Minnesota (Midwest) 10 0 need and see if they can establish legitimate Arizona (Southwest) 8 2 scientific data. Washington (Northwest) 3 0 Colorado (Mountain) 0 0 In addition, an argument could be made California (West) 28 1 to support funding creationist resources in academic libraries from a sociological Note that althoughTable 1 is not comprehensive, perspective. Somewhat surprisingly, 64 percent an attempt was made to examine states from of the population of the United States does not each region of the country. Although one oppose the teaching of creationism alongside might expect to find better representation in evolution in public schools (Goodstein, the more conservative regions of the country 2005a). Certainly, the majority opinion is 10 (e.g., the south), this is not the case. As Table not necessarily true. In a democratic society, 1 indicates, extremely few four-year academic however, the majority opinion should at least institutions with no religious affiliation carry be acknowledged and given an opportunity CRSQ, regardless of the geographic region. to prove itself. For this to occur, the necessary I’m not suggesting that scientific research resources must be available. This is especially never occurs at religious affiliated academic true in the case of publicly funded libraries, 7The majority of the institutions carry- including public academic libraries. ing CRSQ would be considered “Bi- institutions, but clearly the vast majority of ble” colleges and seminaries, most of research takes place at larger public and private which the author has never heard of. institutions.7 This is obviously due in large part Conclusion 8 The author admits that this is an as- to the fact that most viable scientific research My perspective on this debate is shaped largely sumption; however, it is one based on programs require significant funding, which some degree of empirical evidence. by a background in Science and Technology is generally funneled to scientists working at Studies (STS).11 STS has its origins in the work 9And I agree that the most likely reason research institutions. is lack of demand; but I also wonder of Robert Merton, a sociologist of science, if scientists opposed to creationism are and Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher of science even aware that such a journal exists. Most significantly, this table seems to (discussed above). The prevailing theoretical 10In fact, the opposite is more likely the demonstrate that academic libraries are not view of science that emerges from STS is case. committed to providing empirically based social constructivism – that is, the view that 8 11I have a doctorate in Science and resources that support creationism. CRSQ science, like all social institutions, is a product Technology Studies. is the leading peer-reviewed journal in the of a particular social-historical context. field of creation science and extremely few 144 The Christian Librarian, 51 (3) 2008 Additionally, anyone familiar with the history REFERENCES of science knows that scientific theories Aycock, A. (2001, July 1). Webwatch-evolution [Electronic change overtime. Even within the theory of version]. Library Journal. evolution the actual means or mechanism of Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin’s black box: the biochemical challenge speciation has been hotly debated since Darwin to evolution. New York: Free Press. (Dennett, 1995). Natural selection – Darwin’s Bergman, J. (1996). Censorship of information on origins theory of speciation – has actually come in and [Electronic version]. Creation Technical Journal, 10(3), 405- s stated, if out of vogue a number of times since he first 414. A proposed the idea in 1859 (Bowler, 1984). Not Bowler, P. J. (1984). Evolution, the history of an idea. Berkeley: academic libraries surprisingly, creationists have often used this University of California Press. fail to provide the to argue that evolution is not an established College & University Libraries carrying the Creation theory, and that creationism is just as viable Research Society Quarterly. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, resources that 2005, from the Creation Research Society Web site: http:// (Johnson, 2001). www.creationresearch.org/library_locations/library.htm. support creationism, Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: evolution and then most likely a With this approach I believe the creationists the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster. are to some degree undermining their own Forrest, B. (2001). The wedge at work: how intelligent viable scientific position. On the one hand, creationists want design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and research program to use science to support their view, but on academic mainstream. In R. T. Pennock (ed.), Intelligent design the other hand, they want to denigrate the creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological and scientific will fail to develop. perspectives (pp. 59-76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. prevailing opinion in science (i.e., evolution science). The latter approach could be Gish, D. T. (1995). Evolution: the fossils still say no. El Cajon, CA: Masters Books. supported from an STS/Kuhnian standpoint – arguing that theory/paradigm can never really Goodstein, L. (2005, August 31). Teaching creationism is endorsed in new survey. The New York Times. be “established.” The problem is that creationists Retrieved October 25, 2005 from http://www.nytimes. want to use science to support their “theory.” com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html They should take either one approach or the Goodstein, L. (2005, September 26). A web of faith, other – that is, attempt to undermine science law and science in evolution suit. The New York Times. itself and elevate the role of faith, or concede Retrieved October 25, 2005 from http://www.nytimes. that science does generate sound theories and com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html then attempt to support their position with Goodstein, L. (2005, October 19). Witness defends broad definition of science. The New York Times. science. If creationists admit the latter, then it Retrieved October 25, 2005 from http://www.nytimes. seems that they would have to concede that com/2005/10/19/national/19evolution.html some theories have more scientific legitimacy Johnson, P. E. (1993). Darwin on trial. Downers Grove, IL: than others. And with regard to the issue of what Intervarsity Press to teach in public schools that textbooks must Overbye, D. (2005, November 15). Johnson, P. E. (2001). Evolution as dogma: the establishment Philosophers notwithstanding, Kansas be limited to the most legitimate theories. of naturalism. In R. T. Pennock (ed.), Intelligent design school board redefines science. The creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological and scientific New York Times. Retrieved November However, creationists are clearly not attempting perspectives (pp. 59-76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 17, 2005 from http://www. nytimes.com/2005/11/15/science/ Kuhn, T. S. (1957). The Copernican revolution: planetary to dismantle science in general. They concede sciencespecial2/15evol.html the necessity of generating sound scientific data astronomy in the development of Western thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pennock, R. T. (2001). Naturalism, to support their views, and are making every evidence, and creationism: the case Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: effort to do so. Since resources in this area are of Phillip Johnson. In R. T. Pennock University of Chicago Press. scant, it would take a small amount of funding (ed.), Intelligent design creationism on the part of academic libraries to support the Legal background. (2001, January). Retrieved October 25, and its critics: philosophical, theological 2005, from National Center for Science Education Web site: and scientific perspectives (pp. 59-76). creationist agenda. And given that creationists http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1850_legal_ Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. have chosen a scientific approach, I believe background_1_30_2001.asp. Pennock, R. T. (2002). Should that libraries – particularly academic libraries Matsumura, M. (1998). ‘Equal Time’ in school libraries? creationism be taught in the public – have a responsibility to provide whatever Reports of the National Center for Science Education. [Electronic schools? [Electronic version]. Science resources necessary to aid creationists. version]. 18(5), 11-13. & Education, 11, 111-133.

145 The Christian Librarian, 51 (3) 2008