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