Volume 49 | Issue 1 Article 3

2006 Politically Correct Science: Why Johnny Can’t Read Scientific rC eationism Bart J. Stinson

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 Stinson, Bart J. (2006) "Politically Correct Science: Why Johnny Can’t Read Scientific rC eationism," The Christian Librarian: Vol. 49 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/tcl/vol49/iss1/3

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]. Politically Correct Science: Why Johnny Can’t Read Scientific Creationism

The playing field is far from level in the While I am grateful for their assistance, my Bart J. Stinson contest between Evolutionism and Scientific dependence on them represents a retreat from Las Vegas, Nevada Creationism. Science faculty with ambitions to current professional practices to a pre-modern move up to larger universities are unlikely to apprenticeship model. This is necessitated by assign readings in Creation Science. Scientists the academic equivalent of a siege, which I who express doubts about Evolutionism will describe in more detail below. are punished for straying from orthodoxy. IU-Bloomington libraries have a significant Scientific publishers are generally unwilling collection of materials on Creationism. A to accept manuscripts from Creationist keyword search recorded 126 hits.An informal researchers and theorists. Secular review survey of those titles suggests that most sources either neglect Creationist works are works “about” Creationism, but that altogether or are so uniformly hostile and works “of” Creationism (by Creationists) also dismissive that they are not useful for separating comprise a significant fraction. the wheat from the chaff. Unless librarians muster the integrity and professional diligence The libraries’ collection of the 13 vouchsafed to collect robustly in Scientific Creationism, a Creationist monographs is unevenly distributed monolithic Evolutionist siege will succeed. across the campus system. Most are found in the Main Library’s research stacks. They are Characteristics and Implications of the largely absent from the science libraries, and Scientific Creationism Holdings utterly absent from the Geology Library. This survey reports a search for 31 Scientific This may reflect a collection development Creationism monographs and two journals or cataloging philosophy that accords in the 19 Indiana University – Bloomington Creationism some importance as a cultural, libraries, identifies characteristics of the political or historical phenomenon, or as a libraries’ Scientific Creationism collections, philosophical position, but not as science. and analyzes external influences on the This would account for a second pattern: the libraries’ ability to collect such materials collection is also unevenly distributed as to the satisfactorily. nature of the Creationist works themselves. A summary of the monograph search in table Creationist polemics (Morris) and philosophical form is shown on the page following. Of arguments (Dembski and Johnson) are well 31 monographs sought, IU-Bloomington represented, but empirical, research-grounded libraries hold 13. Neither of the two works of Creationist science, and especially of Creationist journals sought, Creation geology, are absent. Research Society Quarterly or TJ: Creation Difficulty of Identifying a Creation Ex Nihilo, is held by any of the Indiana Science Canon University libraries. Evaluating IU - Bloomington libraries’ This author selected these books and journals Creation Science collections entails unusual on the advice of librarians at four fundamentalist difficulties in identifying a corpus of credible Christian postsecondary schools (Liberty journals and monographs appropriate for an University in Virginia, and Christian Heritage academic research collection. The subject of College (now called San Diego Christian Creationism is of such cultural and religious College),The Master’s College and Institute of importance that it has provoked a large body Creation Research Graduate School in of amateur speculation and quasi-theological California) rather than using the conventional exhortation. review sources. 9 The Christian Librarian, 49 (1) 2006 Author Title Holdings?

Austin, Steven Catastrophes in Earth History no

Austin, Steven Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe no Berthault, Guy Experiments in Stratification no Brand, Leonard Faith, Reason, and Earth History yes Coffin, Harold Origin by Design no Dembski,William The Design Inference yes Dembski,William yes Dembski,William No Free Lunch yes Denton, Michael Evolution:A Theory in Crisis yes Froede, Carl Field Studies in Catastrophic Geology no Gish, Duane Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics no Humphreys, D. Russell Starlight and Time no Johnson, Phillip Objections Sustained yes Johnson, Phillip Darwin On Trial yes Johnson, Phillip Reason in the Balance yes Johnson, Phillip The Wedge of Truth yes Lubenow, Marvin Bones of Contention no Morris, Henry Scientific Creationism yes Morris, Henry The Scientific Case for Creation yes Morris, Henry The Troubled Waters of Evolution yes Morris, Henry A History of Modern Creationism yes Morris, John A Geological Perspective on the Age of the Earth no Morris, John A Geologist Looks at Noah's Flood no Riddle, Mike Dating Fossils and Rocks no Thaxton, Charles, et al The Mystery of Life's Origin no Vardiman, Larry Climates Before and After the Genesis Flood no Vardiman, Larry Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth no Vardiman, Larry Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth no Wilder-Smith,A.E. The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution no Williams, Emmett Thermodynamics and the Development of Order no Woodmorappe, John The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods no

10 The Christian Librarian, 49 (1) 2006 For purposes of distinguishing these unscien- Kenyon appealed to their dean to ask whether tific works from credible works of empirical he was “forbidden to mention to students that Creation Science (a term hereafter used there are important disputes about whether or interchangeably with “Scientific Creationism”), not chemical evolution could have taken place the conventional review sources are generally on the ancient earth,”and whether mention of unhelpful. “the important philosophical issues at stake in Review sources that are useful for selection in discussion of origins” is prohibited. (Meyer) numerous other fields either have a blind spot The dean wrote Kenyon that he must “teach regarding Creation Science, neglecting to the dominant scientific view,” and prohibited review its works, or are so uniformly hostile him from teaching evidence for “special and dismissive that they can’t be employed to creation on a young earth.” Kenyon replied “I discriminate between self-indulgent jingoism do teach the dominant view, but I also discuss and disciplined, experimental science. problems with the dominant view and that This may be a permanent structural infirmity some biologists see evidence of intelligent of the peer review system dependent on the design. Please inform me of any impropriety contributions of a monolithic Evolutionist in this approach.” scientific establishment. If a reviewer were to The dean’s only reply was to remove Kenyon accord favorable remarks to Creationist works, from the classroom and reassign him to labs. it might have unfavorable effects on tenure and Pre-emptive Strike Against First collegiality. “Intelligent Design” Think Tank The Evolutionist establishment has made The willingness of establishment Evolutionists examples of enough renegades to dissuade to suppress discussion of evidence for most ambitious academics from entertaining intelligent design, and to engage in pre- ideas of intelligent design, and from critiquing emptive strikes against the organizational and evolutionary theory too vigorously. financial underpinnings of Creationist Evolutionists Crack Down on research, is not limited to secular institutions Criticism in California in libertine cities. Early in his career, University of California at When Baptist-affiliated in The subject of San Francisco biology professor Dean Kenyon Waco, , established the Michael Polanyi cemented his evolutionary bona fides by Center for Complexity, Information and Creationism is of co-authoring the seminal and much-cited Design, the first Intelligent Design think tank, such cultural and theoretical work “Biochemical Predestination.” hostile Baylor faculty, mainly in the science religious importance He earned a Stanford biophysics Ph.D,and did departments, went on the attack. When the post-doctoral work at Oxford and Berkeley. Baylor president recruited a well-published that it has provoked a proponent of Intelligent Design, William He was considered an authority on chemical large body of amateur evolutionary theory and the scientific study of Dembski, to head the center, Dembski became the origin of life (Meyer). a target. speculation and At mid-career his research results began to lead “Then as now, many of my colleagues and quasi-theological him to doubt his own earlier declarations. I fail to see how it is possible to integrate Within his semester-long introductory biology science and ,”wrote Lewis Barker, then exhortation. course, Kenyon gave three lectures on biological a Baylor professor of psychology and origins, but the university forbade him to neuroscience, “and for the life of me, I can’t critique “the very ideas that earlier he had understand why anybody would want to do formulated and that subsequently he had so.They are separate realms, separate method- found defective.” (Dembski) ologies, separate intellectual worlds.” (Barker) The biology department head accused Kenyon Here, rather than dispute Dembski’s research, it of teaching Biblical doctrine because he appears Barker, and perhaps his colleagues, explored evidence for intelligent design, and retreat into Kuhn’s notion of “incommensurability” (Kuhn). They demanded that the Polanyi 11 directed him to stop. The Christian Librarian, 49 (1) 2006 Center website remove its claim that it would Faculty adversaries were unwilling to concede “advance science,” because they denied that him even the dignity of these illusions, and Dembski’s program of research was science. complained to the administration, which (Board of Directors) urged him to retract his e-mail. When he After a campaign of vilification and censorship, refused, he was fired as Polanyi director. the faculty senate voted “no confidence” in “Here is what it looks like, then,” wrote John Dembski and the Center in April, calling for Wilson in Christianity Today. “Dembski’s the university to close the center. “Not since opponents hoped that the external review academic Marxism has such extraordinary program would agree with the faculty senate’s dismissive dogmatism taken hold of the minds April 2000 resolution to disband the center. of so many in the academy,” declared the When that didn’t occur, they contrived an The Judeo-Christian directors of the (Lutheran) Cranach Institute. excuse to get Dembski dismissed.” (Wilson) worldview is not (Board of Directors) Not Science but Scientism, Triumphant merely problematic or Baylor’s president characterized the assault on The case of Forrest Mims shows that the Dembski as “intellectual McCarthyism.” suppression of critical discourse by enforced subject to criticism. (Dembski) Nevertheless, he appointed an rules of thought is not confined to the It is anathema. This external review committee “to consider the claustrophobic academy. work done under the umbrella of the Polanyi is not, properly Center and to make recommendations as to Mims is possibly the most widely read whether and how the center should continue electronics author in the world. He has speaking, a conclusion to function at Baylor.” (Wilson) written 60 books, and sold 7.5 million of of science, but rather them. He wrote the first book about personal The committee returned its complex verdict computers, in 1975. He was a columnist for a doctrine of scientism. in October. (Cooper) After some obsequious Popular Electronics, Computercraft, and fawning over Dembski’s accusers in the Modern Electronics, and published articles in science faculty, it declared that the Polanyi journals ranging from Science and Nature to Center should be renamed and that its research The Journal of Molecular Biology. focus should be broadened by absorbing it back into its parent organization, the Institute When Scientific American asked Mims to take for Faith and Learning. over its most popular column, “The Amateur Scientist,” he cancelled several lucrative Still, the committee stated that it considered magazine assignments and book projects to “research on the logical structure of accept the column. He published three mathematical arguments for intelligent design columns at Scientific American, which editor to have a legitimate claim to a place in the Jonathon Piel praised in a (recorded) current discussions of religion and the telephone conversation as “fabulous,” sciences,” and that “the Institute should be (Hartwig) about how to observe sun spots, free, if it chooses, to include in its coverage this how to measure solar ultraviolet radiation, and line of work, when carried out professionally.” how to make aerial photographs with a radio- (Cooper) controlled camera suspended from a helium Despite the organizational insults, the tone of balloon. condescension and the confinement of However, Mims reported that Piel’s attitude Intelligent Design to the ghetto of science- soured toward him after he mentioned that he religion controversy,Dembski claimed victory. had written an article for a Christian magazine He issued a one-paragraph e-mail declaring about how to take church kids on long- that the committee report “marks the triumph distance bicycle tours. of intelligent design as a legitimate form of There in the magazine’s New York City academic inquiry.” He wrote that “dogmatic offices, Piel confronted Mims about his beliefs. opponents of design who demanded the “Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?” he Center be shut down have met their asked the columnist. Mims answered that he 12 Waterloo,”and vowed to continue his research. did not. (Milton) The Christian Librarian, 49 (1) 2006 In a series of phone calls over that summer, Evolutionist Establishment Finds Piel’s subordinates continued to question Creationist Science Intolerable Mims about his religious and moral views: was Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the he a fundamentalist? Did he believe in a National Center for Science , woman’s right to choose? Finally,Piel called to suggested in Piel’s defense that Creationist tell Mims the magazine would no longer views are disqualifying because a Creationist require his services. (Mims) cannot possibly be a competent scientist – or Mims’ fourth column, which Scientific science writer. American never published, was about a device “We’re not dealing with political speech, we’re that amateurs might have used to track the not dealing with opinions on art,” she said on ozone changes that occurred after the CNN’s “Crossfire” program. “We’re dealing eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, and that they might with what science is.” (Hartwig) have used to detect the extrapolated calibration error in NASA’s primary ozone The implication here is that freedom of speech ublishing is a satellite. Eventually, Mims discovered the should apply only to matters of opinion about P NASA error by using two of his own such assertions the truth of which is relative. sibling, if not a parent, Suppression of dissenting views is permissible devices, and received a Rolex Award for it. At of librarianship. the awards ceremony, a Rolex official noted if the subject is a matter of absolute truth. that Scientific American didn’t allow its editors Thus ghettos of Creationist publishers are to Likewise we are to interview Mims about the award. be tolerated, and the stray, eccentric largely dependent, Although Mims did not sue the magazine, he Creationist scholar may be offered a position reported that Scientific American attorneys on a law or philosophy faculty,but Creationists for the quality of our threatened him with legal action if he were to are not welcome in the science classroom work product, on the make public statements about his discharge. except as objects of derision, and they are not, (Mims) But a public controversy did ensue, as under any circumstances, to be admitted to diligence of a vast collegial debate on real science. the Houston Chronicle broke his story infrastructure of October 8, 1990. Aggressive Enforcement Nips Scientific Two former Scientific American editors told Creationism in the Bud grant-writers and the Chronicle that Mims was fired for his Establishment Evolutionists’ efforts have had administrators, Creationist views. their desired effect. Although Mims and scholarly researchers, “You have to understand that Creationism is a Kenyon experienced some level of vindication sort of shibboleth for scientists,” said former much later, up-and-coming scientists could writers, reviewers managing editor Armand Schwab, Jr. not mistake the lesson of their ordeals, and Dembski’s: there is no future in Creationist and teaching faculty. Former associate editor Tim Appenzeller, now scholarship: Don’t even think about it. at National Geographic, said “there was concern that Scientific American might be linked to a “Every scientist who hears about this,” said Flat Earther or something.” (Hartwig) Texas ACLU spokesman Lamar Hankins of the Mims affair,“is going to wind up saying,‘Boy, None of the editors, including Piel, said they I’d better not let anyone find out what I suspected that Mims would insinuate his believe or I’ll end up not getting published Creationist views into the columns. But Piel again.’It’s certainly the type of thing that has a expressed concerns that Mims’ religious views chilling effect.” (Hartwig) might be exploited by third parties, thus embarrassing “the good name of this The hostile environment in academia affects magazine.” (Hartwig) collegial cooperation even among Creationist researchers and scholars. In other words, the Judeo-Christian world- view is not merely problematic or subject to “I am frequently asked what is the latest criticism. It is anathema. This is not, properly research that supports intelligent design,” speaking, a conclusion of science, but rather a wrote Dembski, “and I find myself having to doctrine of scientism. be reticent about who is doing what precisely 13 The Christian Librarian, 49 (1) 2006 because of enormous pressure that opponents segregate it from other scientific literature, and of design employ to discredit these researchers, if faculty refuse to request Creationist works undermine their position, and cause them to and freeze them off their classes’ reading lists, lose their funding.” (Dembski) then the integrity and professionalism of the Both Dembski and Mims report that many librarian is the only remaining obstacle to the surreptitious Creationists have contacted permanent suppression of a plausible scientific them. theory with profound social and ethical implications. < “Several confided that their careers would be ruined,”wrote Mims,“if they were to publicly acknowledge their belief that life is a product WORKS CITED of intelligent design by a Supreme Being.” 1Barker, Lewis. Chance and Divination: Dembski Gambled and Lost. 2000.Web Page. URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/ This approach has been effective at nipping group/evolutionary-psychology/message/9011. Creationist impulses in the bud, preventing 2Board of Directors. Second Protest Statement Against the Creation scientists from ever approaching Demotion of Dr. Dembski From His Directorship of the Erstwhile Michael Polanyi Center. 2000. Web Page. URL: “critical mass.”It almost prevented the seminal http://www.cuw.edu/Cranach/dembski_protest.htm. work on Intelligent Design, acknowledged by 3Cooper, William, Chairman. The External Review Dembski as the starting point of the modern Committee Report. 2000.Web Page. URL: http://pr.baylor. movement, from ever getting published. edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf. 4Dembski, William. Statement by William Dembski on His The Mystery of Life’s Origin, by Charles Removal As Director of the Michael Polanyi Center at Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen, Baylor University. 2000.Web Page. URL: http://www.antievolution. org/people/dembski_wa/metanews_20001020_wad.txt. “focused purely on the scientific case for and 5Dembski, William. Situating Intelligent Design in the against abiogenesis.Thus it consciously avoided Contemporary Debate. 2002. Web Page. URL: casting its critique as part of a Bible-science http://www.counterbalance.net/id-wd/situa-body.html. controversy.” (Dembski) 6Hartwig, Mark. “Defending Darwinism: How Far Is Too Far?” 1. 7Kuhn, Thomas. “The Road Since Structure: Philosophical The MIT Press accepted it for publication, but Essays, 1970-1993.” editors. James and John Haugeland later reneged.Then the manuscript was rejected Conant. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. by over 100 publishers before Philosophical 8Meyer, Stephen. Scientific Correctness in San Francisco. 1993. Web Page. URL: http://www.arn.org/docs/ Library accepted it for publication. (Dembski) orpages/or152/bio101.htm. 11 December 2002. MIT Press has published in this subject area 9Milton, Richard. Are You Now or Have You Ever Been. since then. (Pennock) It appears that Thaxton 2002. Web Page. URL: http://www.alternativescience. et al didn’t write on a forbidden subject, but com/scientific-american.htm. 10Mims, Forrest. “Science and Theology at Cambridge and they did write from a forbidden perspective. Nature.” newsgroup. The Burden 11Pennock, Robert. Intelligent Design and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Publishing is a sibling, if not a parent, of Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001. librarianship. Likewise we are largely dependent, 12Wilson, John. Unintelligent Designs: Baylor's Dismissal of for the quality of our work product, on the Polanyi Center Director Dembski Was Not a Smart Move. 2000. Web Page. URL: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ diligence of a vast infrastructure of grant-writers ct/2000/143/11.0.html. and administrators, scholarly researchers, writers, reviewers and teaching faculty. If the publishers we rely upon are not committed to publish, promote and distribute Creationist materials as diligently as they handle other subjects, if the reviews and catalogs ignore or dismiss Creation Science or

14 The Christian Librarian, 49 (1) 2006