Censorship of Information on Origins
|
Author: Jerry Bergman |
Essays by
Author |
Reprinted with permission from Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
ABSTRACT
Surveys of various indexes and library
lists consistently find that recent literature favorable to creationism is
rarely found in university, college or public libraries. That which is found,
is often outdated, printed in the 1920s or before. In addition, interviews with
creationists reveal that if authors are known as creationists, their articles,
regardless of the empirical merit and quality, are most often rejected for
publication. At times they are accepted, but when the creationist persuasion of
the authors is discovered, they are not uncommonly rescinded. Even articles
discussing censorship of creationism are often censored from journals which
deal with library censorship. Many creationist authors have reported they often
do not even receive the courtesy of a rejection letter, and often letters
inquiring about the articles are ignored. Some creationists find far more
success when they publish under a pseudonym or stay in the closet about their
creationism. Censorship because of the philosophical and religious orientation
of the writer is clearly bigotry.
INTRODUCTION
The mass media commonly reports attempts
to censor pornographic literature from libraries, yet rarely discusses a far
more harmful form of library censorship, that of Christian or pro-moral
works.(3) Surveys consistently find that quality materials of recent copyright
date favorable to the intelligent design world view are rarely found in
American university, college, high school or public libraries.
WHY THE CENSORSHIP?
Increased exposure to an idea improves
the likelihood of its acceptance. A primary reason why some form of evolution
is accepted by about half of the American population is because of the high
level of public exposure that this belief receives in public schools and also on
television, in magazines and elsewhere.(4) Of 38 individuals interviewed as to
why they accepted evolution, Bergman (5) found that all but three had very
limited knowledge about the theory. Most had simply assumed from their cultural
exposure that the theory has been empirically demonstrated to be true. The
theory of naturalistic evolution is most often not directly, but more often
subtly, taught and assumed in textbooks to be an accurate view of reality. It
is in this way that students learn about the theory, not by careful evaluation
of the empirical evidence and logic for and against it. As Eidsmoe notes:
'In public schools, evolutionary
naturalism is commonly taught as fact. Zoos, museums, cultural exhibits and
national parks proclaim the evolution of life and rigid uniformitarian geology.
Despite pious claims of neutrality and equal access, public television presents
Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" along with other evolutionary programs, while
ignoring the other side. The public is bombarded with evolutionary thought
wherever they turn--much of it at the taxpayers' expense.(6)
A major reason for this one-sided
differential exposure that exists in the secular world is that pro-creationist
materials and information are heavily censored from the public domain.(7-10) If
it is discussed, the discussion is not uncommonly limited to a polemical
diatribe littered with ad-hominem arguments. Anti-creationists rarely define
the term creation, thus it is not easy to know who they dislike. They use much
name-calling and value laden words such as pseudo-science, religious, or
Bible-thumpers. The problem of blatant censorship of pro-creationist material
is worldwide in its extent and effect. Ham stated that in Australia a librarian
. . .wrote to us concerning the magazine Ex Nihilo, which was sent to the
school as a gift subscription, from a concerned parent. ... Part of her letter
reads as follows, "As the person responsible for selection of resources
available from the school library, I . . . [request] your subscription officer remove
the school's address from your current mailing list. Further, if other gift
subscriptions arrive, please ignore them."
Ham's comments on this situation are as
follows:
Surely, the materials in a public school
library should make available all possible . . . resources to the students and
teachers. To allow one person's beliefs to ban this publication from the school
library, and not even allow others to have it for consideration in their
research, is a dangerous precedent.(12)
Individual examples such as these
illustrate a problem which all surveys demonstrate is widespread and pervasive.
Melnick concluded that:
"Creationist literature has been
self-censored from nearly every major secular university library in America. An
OCLC computer search . . . indicated that of the over 3,000 institutions on the
OCLC list, only 33 subscribed to the Creation Research Society Quarterly,
[which is] without question the preeminent journal in the field of scientific
creationism and read throughout the world. When one subtracts all the Bible
colleges and seminaries . . . barely enough other schools [are] left to count .
. .[Creationist] Wilder-Smith, who studied natural sciences at Oxford and holds
three doctorates, recently published . . . a strictly scientific text which can
stand up to any university work on evolution. It is currently available at only
eighteen institutions on the OCLC's list. By contrast, Dorothy Nelkin's book,
Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time . . . is already
available at over four hundred institutions. Better examples could be
cited." (13)
The writer replicated Melnick's study
and, although not as extensive, his basic conclusions were fully supported. I
found, for example, that the only book in print on discrimination against
creationists, The Criterion, as of November, 1994 was in a grand total of five
libraries of the 5,000 in the system-yet the few anti-creationist titles
checked were in hundreds of libraries. In another study of censorship,
Professor Balogh concluded that:
"Creationist theories are censored
in the schools, in the media, and in textbooks published by major publishers.
Libraries, even if they want to, find it difficult to stock creationist
books."(4)
AN OHIO LIBRARY SURVEY
The author surveyed both the Defiance
College Library and the Defiance Community Library in Defiance, Ohio. The
college was founded in 1857 by the Disciples of Christ, and is still nominally
connected to this denomination; many of its faculty and administrators are
ordained ministers. I added two new categories to the form used by Melnick,
namely anti-creation and the Scopes trial. Neither category seemed to fit into
Melnick's list: books on the Scopes trial do not necessarily deal with creation
or evolution, but primarily with the trial. The anti-creation books were
written specifically to attack creationism, and thus required a special
category.
The religious sections contain a large
number of books, especially at the Defiance College, so that it was often
difficult to categorize them. I located at Defiance College 243 books about
pagan religions, 28 on atheism and 9,537 which dealt primarily with
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the history of Protestantism and biblical studies
(see Table 1). Even in the public library (which was relatively small) were a
total of 1,091 books in the religion category.
One noticeable trait about the creation
books was that most were printed in the 1930s or 1940s, and only four were
printed after 1970. On the other hand, the anti-creation books were all
copyrighted in the last few years. In addition, many of the creation books
advocated a 'liberal creation view'.
In both libraries were only a total of
three books published by the Institute for Creation Research.
Another problem was classifying the books.
Some works listed in the card catalogue were listed as 'missing', and the same
book was occasionally listed in several places. A book primarily on witchcraft
may be listed under witchcraft, mythology or even ghosts.
|
TYPE OF BOOK |
DEFIANCE COLLEGE LIBRARY |
DEFIANCE PUBLIC LIBRARY |
|
Pro-Creation Science |
13 |
3 |
|
Anti-Creation |
10 |
4 |
|
Pro-Evolution Science |
192 |
62 |
|
General Religion |
9.537 |
1.091 |
|
Occult 'Science' |
16 |
30 |
|
Mythology, Ghosts, Witchcraft |
142 |
115 |
|
Scopes Trial |
2 |
4 |
This
is especially a problem with the evolution category, because books on
creationism were also sometimes listed under evolution. The writer endeavored
to eliminate duplications, but without a systematic comparison, and especially
given the large number of books in some categories, this was difficult. It was
nonetheless clear from both this survey and all previous ones that a clear bias
against the creation position, however defined, exists.
Advocacy of this censorship is commonly
espoused in print Bridgstock is blatant in his recommendation that librarians
should 'not permit [creationist material] . . . onto the shelves of school
libraries."(5) He alleges that this directive is reasonable because of the
commonality of what he judges to be 'lies' and inaccuracies (the latter a
common problem in all kinds of printed matter, as anyone who has done research
is aware) in creationist publications. Even if this view is valid for the
material he examined, one hardly excludes a specific position on a topic because
some of the literature advocating it is poorly done.
In one of the most extensive literature
reviews, Cole and Scott computer-searched 2.2 million articles printed from
January 1978 to October 1981. They found: '. . . only 18 relevant items. Four
of these were articles critical of scientific creationism as pseudo-science.
Five references were to editorials that discussed the scientific and legal
issues involved in attempts to promote scientific creationism in the schools,
and nine items were letters to editors expressing opinions on the topic, some
in favor and some opposed. None of the 18 items were in support of creationist
concepts.
Because SCISEARCH lists only article
titles, authors' names, institutional affiliations, and complete journal
citations, our initial search might have missed articles whose titles did not
include the key terms. Therefore, we undertook a search using the names of
leading scientific creationists....The results of our second computer search
were as revealing as those of the first. We turned up a total of 52 citations.
Only six of the 28 scientific
creationists included in the sample had published any articles in SCISEARCH
journals during the 45 months we surveyed. Two others had written letters to
editors of SClSEARCH journals.
Only a letter by Henry M. Morris,
however, dealt with creationism. None of the articles published by these six
persons dealt with the concepts of creation-science. We found no articles [on]
. . . creationism . . . The six creationists who had published articles in
SCISEARCH journals did so in their own technical specialties. None of these
articles espoused the assumptions and concepts of scientific creationism.
Instead, they covered such topics as the chemistry and physics of food
processing and packaging, microbiology culture techniques and methods, and
simulation studies of loads, vibrations, and stresses in aircraft wing
structures. '(l6)
This survey also confirms the finding
that almost a complete ban on articles either by creationists or in support of creationism
exists. It could also be self-censorship; that is, creationists know they have
no chance of getting creationist papers published, so do not submit them.
HOW DOES THIS CENSORSHIP OCCUR?
Most libraries purchase materials
primarily from publishers that they view as 'approved' or mainline such as
Harper and Row or Garland. Those that publish primarily 'religious' material
are viewed as 'not objective' and libraries often will not order, or even
shelve, works by them.'(7) Even liberal, older religious publishers are
affected by this prejudice, although not as greatly. And most secular outlets
will not publish a pro-creationist book.(18) The reason is partially because
most send their manuscripts out for professional review, and secular reviewers
generally do not evaluate intelligent design works favorably. A book review by
Patterson(9) illustrates this antagonism, which is expressed not only against
the creationist position, but theism in general. This review explains that only
an atheistic philosophical stance is generally viewed as appropriate for a
scientific work:
"The concept of the supernatural
has roughly the same status in science as does the concept of perpetual motion
in thermodynamics, . . . the supernatural has been so thoroughly discredited,
so consistently and so many times, that it is no longer admitted in science,
nor is any theory or model which depends . . . on the existence or active
intervention of anything supernatural."
For the scientist. . . the universe has
only two domains . . . the natural one, and . . . imaginary delusions, errors
and mistakes . . . There is no supernatural domain . . . the history of science
has confirmed the atheists world view so well and so thoroughly that science
has had to declare itself atheistic in all essential details . . . honest
scientists . . . deny all supernatural things credible status; they exist only
in the domain of imaginary delusions. The situation is quite analogous to that
of perpetual motion which was also widely believed in at one time but which is
now considered a symptom of scientific incompetence or derangement if the
belief is seriously insisted upon . . .
For these reasons, then, I would
consider, The Mystery of Life's Origin, . . . pseudo-science. It tries to
convey the message that because serious gaps in current understanding exist, we
should seriously consider the creation science [sic] hypothesis .... But that
hypothesis depends crucially upon the existence and positive intervention of a
supernatural agent to willfully create life by some miraculous (non natural)
means. It is this aspect which molds my opinion and not the merits of [the
book] ,20
The Mystery of Life's Origin is a
scientific critique of chemical evolution, but also indirectly implies and
argues for theism, and for this reason the reviewer was highly critical.
Atheism must a priori be accepted, and to even imply that theism may be a valid
view of the world could cause a secular reviewer to reject a manuscript not
only in science, but other areas. This book was rejected by almost 100
publishers, and finally accepted by Philosophical Press (and shortly thereafter
by MIT Press). At the 1990 American Scientific Affiliation Convention at
Messiah College, Philip Johnson, a professor of law at the University of California
at Berkeley stated: '. . . the director of the University of Pennsylvania Press
was very interested in publishing my book critical of evolution, but the
academic review process enabled the forces of darkness to prevail. One reviewer
warned them in a friendly spirit that, if they published the book, they should
not expect ever to get another science title. Also, out of bounds is any house
which has a textbook interest. It takes a house which is interested in riling
up the establishment to take on a book [against evolution] and I object to
tying the issue to any political association [by going with a conservative
publisher] but to get a book which is critical of evolution published, one has
no choice. I think that that is unfortunate, but you may well imagine that this
is not an easy topic to get a publisher to take a chance on. Of course, I was
more concerned about having the association with a religious press than I was
with the political association'. (Transcribed from the tape of his address to
the entire conference).
Because of a 'danger of professional
reprisals' creationists often publish anonymously.(21) The experience of John
Howitt, an M.D. and superintendent of a large Canadian hospital, is typical.
His book, Evolution: Science Falsely So Called, now in its 20th edition with
more than a quarter of a million copies in print, was published anonymously
because of concerns related to retaliation. It did not become widely known that
he authored it until after he retired. This publication, interestingly, 'had a
strong influence in making Dr. Duane Gish . . . an ardent advocate of
creationism'.(22)
BOOK BURNING
The censorship problem is well
illustrated in the history of the publication of the high school textbook,
Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, which had the input of a dozen or so
Ph.D. level creationists. After approaching 15 textbook publishers 'not one of
them would even look at the manuscript! (23) The textbook was finally published
by Zondervan, an evangelical publisher. It sold well in Christian schools but
made little headway in the public schools, although several states placed it on
their 'Approved" list'.(24)
Then various court decisions actually
'banned' the book, and as a result, most school districts refused to even
consider it. The book is void of open proselytizing and direct creationist
content, and is very close in content to a standard biology textbook. A few
statements infer that God's design can be seen in the structures the text
discusses, but the text as a whole is well balanced, even briefly explaining
evolution theory fairly well. Yet, because it was written by creationists and
tried to look at both sides, it was banned in many states.
To be fair, although problems are
common, there have always been some publishers that accept creationist
material. One is a Phi Delta Kappa monograph in the prestigious fastback series
on creation/evolution (Phi Delta Kappa is the honor society in education) which
the writer published.(25) Dorothy Allford, a medical doctor, published Instant
Creation-Not Evolution with Stein and Day, and Putnam published a work edited
by Mosma, Behind the Dim Unknown. The chapter authors include Duane Gish,
Russell Artist and George Howe, although several progressive creationists are
included. Philosophical Library has also published several creationist books-
not surprising in that they publish a wide variety of literature, from good
science to far-out pseudo-science.
Nonetheless, this does not negate the
fact that, in general, extreme censorship exists. In spite of it, or because of
this problem, Morris(26) claims that the average publication record of
creationists is the same as non-creationists in areas not relating to
creationism, or their creationist conclusions must be heavily disguised. Morris
also claims that the ICR staff publication record is typical of creationists
worldwide, and that their ten scientists '. . . have published at least 150
research papers and ten books in their own scientific fields-all in standard,
scientific, refereed journals or through secular book publishers-in addition to
hundreds of creationist articles and perhaps 50 books in creationism and
related fields.'(27)
The extensive literature review by Cole
and Scott(28) also found that creationists publish science research in their
field, but only non-creationist articles. Because these researchers publish in
non-creation areas, often prolifically, demonstrates that they are competent
and that articles espousing creationism clearly are censored. A few
creationists, though, have actually been able to have openly creationist works
published in secular journals. Dudley Whitney, an editor of various
agricultural journals who later became a creationist, '. . . was also one of
the few creationists in modern time who was able to get solidly scientific,
frankly creationist, articles in established journals. In 1935, he published an
article defending a young earth in the prestigious Annual Report of the
Committee on Geologic Time, the paper having been invited by Dr. Alfred C.
Lane, the eminent geologist . .'(29)
"Interestingly though, the
publication of these frankly creationist articles," according to Morris,
resulted in "such a prejudicial reaction that the journal finally had to
close down." Unfortunately, Cole and Scott's statement(30) is all too
true: "Creationists frequently claim that they do conduct research that
supports . . . creationism. They argue that the scientific establishment that
controls the selection of articles for the major journals is biased against
their views. Thus . . . evidence for the unpopular view is suppressed."
In an examination of all literature
printed in secular magazines about creationism from 1971 to 1994, a grand total
of four articles out of over 4,000 were located which defended creationism, all
of which were followed by one or more articles which tried to 'refute' the
article supporting creationism.(3)' One appeared in Phi Delta Kappa, others in
Academia, Creation/Evolution and Science Digest. The above literature search
was not able to locate a single article in any secular magazine which defended
the civil rights of creationists.(32)
Some creationists even have articles
accepted which are never published after the publisher found out who they were.
A reviewer of one article said 'Best article on topic I've ever seen!' yet it
was rescinded. One journal even compiles a list of creationists from letters to
the editor and other sources such as Creation Research Society Quarterly
articles. Many creationists publish extensively but most all are closet
creationists, and it is almost unknown for an outspoken creationist to publish
in leading journals. Their papers are rejected by a 'referee process' which is
often actually a board of censors. Many editors openly admit that they will not
publish a paper that does not conform to their world view.
BIAS IN THE REVIEW PROCESS
One review of the library journals that
publish book reviews revealed that, out of over 100,000 book reviews, hundreds
of anti-creation books were reviewed, yet only a single review of a recently
published pro-creationist work was found. This work was co-authored by a
Harvard trained chemist who is not a fiat creationist, yet the reviewer called
the book "self-serving," a "creationist's tract" and
several other name-calling epithets.(33)
Consulting Books in Print and other book
lists finds hundreds of books and monographs on creationism in print. Actually
more exist in support of creationism than evolution (although the vast majority
of the former were printed by religious publishing houses). Thus the bias
exists at the first step in the library ordering process.
These are only a few of the reasons why
recently published overtly creationist materials are not often found in public
or even university libraries. Yet all of this is clearly against American
Library Association policy, as shown in the following statement in The
Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom. ". . . according to ALA policy as
enunciated in the Library Bill of Rights and elaborated in the policy on
Diversity in Collection Development, . . . Libraries should strive to include
in their collections the broadest diversity of materials, including ones which
may be personally offensive to the librarians ." (34)
The above ALA statement is related to
the propriety of including the book, Jake and Honeybunch, a highly
controversial work which is considered by some to be openly racist, in a
library. The library journal concluded that if libraries refused to purchase
this book because they personally objected to its content (which most reviewers
admitted was highly objectionable) they were practicing censorship.(35) Melnick
notes that librarians tend to find trivial reasons for excluding
creation-science materials from their libraries'.(36)
Many librarians even classify
creationist books as religion and anti-creationist books as science. Rectifying
this problem has been made more difficult by journals on censorship censoring
creationist articles on censorship. The empirical studies on censorship of
creationist books cited above, that found that American libraries have on their
shelves thousands of anti-creationist books yet few pro-creationist works, were
sent to the American Library Association journal on censorship.(37) Yet, the
journal did not even display the courtesy of rejecting the article. An update
study in 1994 came to the same conclusions. For example, The Creator in the
Courtroom by Geisler was in a mere 46 of the 3,000 libraries in the OCLC system,
whereas Kitcher's anti-creationist Abusing Science was in 1,072. When
creationists try to deal with this censorship, they are accused of trying to
'foist' their ideas on others by "packing libraries-especially in
schools-with creationist materials, harassing those that . . . don't meet their
quotas ." (38)
When creationists object to placing
pornography or racist material in schools, they are labeled 'censors' and book
burners.
CENSORSHIP OF PRESENTATIONS
Creationists are also commonly refused
permission to present papers at scientific conventions. In many cases the
rejection occurred even before the reviewer received the paper. James Clark,
Department of Cell Biology at Baylor College of Medicine rejected a paper from
a well known creationist even before it was received. In a letter of April 20,
1983 giving his reasons, Clark stated that, "We reserve the right to
exclude any person from participating...[and creationism, we have concluded] .
. . should be deliberately excluded from science classes and conventions."
This paper was rejected, not because of
the content--it was not directly on evidence for creationism--but due solely to
the author's own personal beliefs. Obviously, much that goes under the purview
of science (such as evolution) is not science in the methodological sense.
Evolution, being history, cannot be replicated, yet is not censored. The best a
scientist can do is extrapolate from the present to the past.
In another instance, Ham relates the
case of Snelling and Mackay who were denied the privilege of presenting a paper
at a professional conference. In his words:
"As the battle continues . . . we
can only expect even greater opposition . .. Dr. Andrew Snelling (our resident
geologist) and John Mackay last year presented a paper at a secular, scientific
conference on the origin of coal. It was very well received by many even though
it . . . suggested most of the coal deposits [were not] . . . produced . . . as
a result of slow processes in peat swamps over millions of years. It was a very
technical paper with hundreds of hours of careful research and documentation. This
year, John and Andrew again registered for the same conference to present
further findings from their research, which is based upon observations of rock
outcrops in the Newcastle area of New South Wales.
"However, this year the organizers
of the conference wrote a rather emotional letter informing them that because
they had 'misquoted' a scientist who spoke at the conference last year, they
were not allowed to attend again this year. John and Andrew did not misquote
the scientist concerned! The real problem, of course, is the fact that John and
Andrew are creationists, and therefore . . . cannot be allowed to attend the
conference!. . . The above example is typical of what usually occurs in
response to creationists trying to have their material published (or otherwise
heard) in secular circles. As soon as it is known that they are creationists,
their material is usually barred from such publications and they are denied
access to such conferences."(39)
Creationists are also commonly censored
from speaking to secular audiences. And when they are permitted to make
presentations, much heckling and obvious gross disrespect are not rare. Krug
notes that,
'When . . . the famous creationist,
Duane T. Gish . . . [lectured] on campus, he was mercilessly heckled by
students and faculty alike, with members of the science department in the lead.
At one point, Anthropology Professor Tim White strode onto the stage and thrust
a human skull at the befuddled creationist, declaring "That s your
ancestor! " '(40)
Although Gish was allowed to try to
speak, he was certainly not freely heard. The writer has repeatedly had the
same experience. Creationists are not uncommonly invited to speak on university
campuses because many students view it as an opportunity to heckle and mock
them for entertainment. The problem of a creationist's words being twisted,
often to look foolish, ignorant or stupid, is so common that Ham states that
the only condition on which he will be interviewed by the media is if it is a
live presentation. In his words, there is a ... large amount of editing to a
pre-recorded program. The clever dubbing that often follows, too frequently
nullifies our presentation and reduces it to the level of comic opera. That is
why, at the present time, we will only . . . consider interviews by any
television or radio station provided they are transmitted live. We must also
add here that, out of all the secular newspaper interviews we have ever had . .
. there is probably not one written where we have not been quoted wrongly. (4)
Often the censorship is less open, but
the effect is the same:
'. . . The Hillsdale College catalog
proclaims . . . the commitment [the college] has made to the Judeo-Christian
heritage. A question must then be raised in an institution where the liberating
arts are stressed: Why is a renowned creation scientist who has contributed
much to the study of the origin of the universe, written several books and
debated the world's top scientists, not invited to speak in the biology
department here at Hillsdale? Archie Allison, coordinator of the
creation-evolution debate, said that memos were sent to faculty stating that
Creation Scientist Dr. Duane Gish would be available to speak in classes.
Rodney Walker, sophomore biology major,
gave information about Gish to Professor Platt in the biology department.
Walker returned days later to inquire if Gish would be speaking in any classes
and was told no. Said Walker, "I can't understand why they wouldn't let a
person as renowned as Dr. Gish speak in class." . . . Professor Platt and
Drs. Townsend and Heckenlively were consulted as to why Gish would not be
presenting the creationist's perspective in their classes. Platt said that
Gish's talk "was not on any topics we were discussing" and that there
was much to do to keep classes on schedule. Platt, who attended the April 9
meeting, said he wished that more students and faculty would have been present.
Heckenlively said that there was not enough time and added that Gish's topic
did not relate to Bio-statistics.
Division Three chairman Samuel Townsend,
who heard Gish speak years ago, said of the creation-science position,
"It's not science." . . . "Evolution", said Townsend,
"can be known by means of the scientific method." . . . Class
schedules and unrelated topics may be justifiable reasons for not having a
guest speaker. Yet, if the department truly desired to give a fair assessment
of the whole issue of creation and evolution, time could have been set aside
for one of the world s foremost scientists. It seems . . . the issue . . . may
be, as Gish said, that "they are afraid of convincing evidence contrary to
their views."
Whether creationism is a science . . .
is not the issue here. The issue is the freedom of ideas presented in the
classroom. Townsend said that he considers it dishonest not to allow
creationism in the public schools. Yet, is it not equally dishonest to keep
scientific creationism out of the collegiate classroom and only present the
position of evolution when discussing the origins of man and the universe? With
Hillsdale's Judeo-Christian heritage there should be an openness to both sides
of the debate on creationism and evolution. Is it consistent with our mission
to not allow the whole issue to be presented? (42)
CENSORSHIP OF CAMPUS MAIL
Also at Bowling Green State University
the administrators tried, fortunately unsuccessfully in the end, to censor
their campus mail. This writer had sent by campus mail to several of his fellow
faculty members several articles about his litigation against the university
then. This information evidently embarrassed several administrators. One stated
that he objected to the writer using the campus mail to send this type of
material. Shortly thereafter, the university established what they called a
'solicitation policy', which was blatant open censorship. The AAUP report
stated:
'For the first time in the history of
BGSU, the right of faculty members to use university facilities to communicate
with each other is being restricted. The mechanism for administrative control
of faculty communication is called the "solicitation policy". It
prohibits . . . using the internal mail service [for] . . . distributing
notices which contain derogatory or critical comments. Mr. Mason, executive
assistant to the president, has been given the job of administering the
"solicitation policy".(43)
The AAUP called this an 'insult to our
profession' and printed information sheets that stated they were forced to pay
for [mailing]... because the University Censor will not allow us to use the
internal mail system. The outcry from the faculty was so great that the
solicitation policy, although not rescinded, was modified.
CENSORSHIP IN TEXTBOOKS
Probably one of the most serious and
common areas of censorship of support for the intelligent design world view and
theism in general is from textbooks.(44) The writer's review of over 200
textbooks found virtually all of them assume a priori that God does not exist,
rarely adopting even the agnostic position. A textbook he used for several
terms, Anthropology, by Ember and Ember(45) assumed both atheism and 'reverse
creationism', that is, humans created God, not the other way around. Not giving
credence to even the agnostic view, the textbook teaches that God is a human
creation thought up to explain that which cannot yet be explained by science
(and when science fills the gap, the need for God will evaporate completely,
the authors argue). The only valid question is how and why we created Him.
Several theories have been developed to
answer these two questions. One says that we created God out of a
'psychological need' for a mental crutch to help us deal with the insecurities
of life and explain certain events, such as the universe's existence. Another
view is that 'the God belief' is functional because it unifies society,
facilitating social harmony and societal bonds which reduce the likelihood of
suicide and other problems that stem from Durkheim's concept of anomie. Another
theory of why humans created God was developed by Karl Marx and teaches that
the idea of God is used by the powerful to control the powerless.
The only legally acceptable position for
American public schools, would be to take the agnostic view. This view would
note that some people believe that God exists, others deny this belief. In this
view, religion is seen as a cultural universal. Hypotheses about why religion
exists could include the interaction of humans and God allowed humans to have
learned about Him.
An example would be that which is
learned through revelation as recorded in the Scriptures. Since all persons
came from Adam (who clearly knew that God created him) this belief would be a
universal heritage, modified only by time and local conditions. Thus, religion
would be a cultural universal for this reason. This option could be presented
in addition to the reverse creationism position, helping the text be fair and
balanced by presenting both sides.
In endeavoring to find a philosophy book
suitable for a Christian college, I was unable to locate a single one which
presented even an agnostic position! All argued either vigorously or subtly
(which is more pernicious because the indoctrination is less blatant, thus more
palatable) for atheism. I have also never been able to find a suitable biology
text for my college class in this area- all of them I have examined directly or
indirectly teach atheism. This is clearly unconstitutional, yet is the norm in
higher education. Not only do the textbooks argue for atheism, but in the
writer's college classes, his science, and even philosophy professors almost
without exception argued, at times vigorously, for atheism. Theism is commonly
ridiculed and criticized, or at least is given little credence.
A text I finally selected, Philosophy
and Introduction of the Art of Wondering by Dr. Christian concludes that four
'wild dragons' exist which man could not explain for eons, and thus resorted to
the concept of God. These wild dragons-the origin of life, man, matter, and the
universe-have now been 'tamed' by science. We now understand, he concludes,
where life and humans came from, and no longer need to resort to a God
hypothesis. And these explanations are, the book argues, more than a
hypothesis.46 Quoting Cyril Ponnamperuma (who won a Nobel prize for his work)
he concludes,
"We now know that once the right
molecules accumulated at the right time and the right arrangement, life could
begin almost instantaneously ."(47)
Is this not openly atheistic
apologetics?-not to mention openly false.(48) Nothing close to life has ever
been created in the lab by the world's most talented scientists working with
billions of dollars of equipment. Evolution is assumed throughout the text to
be factual (and this is not even a biology text), and is constantly referred to
as the explanation for not only life, but for the existence of the universe
itself. As 'we have demonstrated that life evolves, both the early stages and
to man, belief in the Creator is, the text concludes, 'unnecessary'. It
blatantly concludes that evolution is mankind's creator, not God, 'It produced
him according to its criteria . . . [our] environment is the creator; man is
the creature.'(49) In the words of Evans:
"Sources of hostility to religious
belief in modern thought and politics are not far to seek; familiar enough, we
may assume, not to require a long discussion .... The ... notion that religious
faith is merely superstition and thus irrelevant to the world we live in, since
its precepts have been supplanted or discredited by "science". All
religions, in this view, are mystical efforts to explain things that have
natural causes not yet deduced by reason. This too has been a leading feature
of modern thought in virtually all its aspects. Such thinking is powerfully
aided by the belief that Darwinian evolution offers scientific answers to
questions about human life that were previously sought for in the counsels of
religion."(50)
CENSORSHIP OF CREATIONISTS HAS A LONG
HISTORY
As early as 1936 the British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) agreed to consider a presentation by the Evolution
Protest Movement (EPM) criticizing evolution on scientific grounds. A well
articulated non-religious paper was sent to the BBC. After six weeks, it was
returned with the remark, "We are of the opinion that the arguments in it
are not of such a character as to constitute a basis on which such a debate
should be arranged with a scientist who accepts the theory of evolution."
The EPM concluded that, "No one
could be found to meet successfully the arguments in it." The rejected
talk was reproduced with comments by the EPM.(51)
Several adherents of the EPM later wrote
to the BBC to determine why information criticizing evolution was censored by
the station. The BBC then claimed that it was 'quite prepared to consider for
broadcast a positive expression of opinion by scientists of repute' who wished
to criticize the theory. The EPM then asked Lt.-Colonel Davies, D.Sc., Ph.D.,
F.R.S.E., F.G.S. (the British are more title oriented than Americans) to accept
the offer. The talk was prepared, and sent to Prof. A. E. Trueman for review.
The BBC concluded from this review that the talk should be rejected because,
"Although Trueman did not dispute the facts adduced by Davies, he thought
that Davies "use" of these facts would "mislead " the
public and "confuse" them as to the "actual state of affairs,
(52)
Davies' rejected manuscript was later
also published by the EPM. Although little outcry occurred among the secular
press, some religious presses expressed much concern. The Scotsman reported
that the criticism of the BBC for "an abuse of its monopoly calculated to
undermine free speech in this country in presenting the subject of
evolution" (53) was justified and that the BBC has almost consistently
ignored the theistic position, focusing almost exclusively on the atheistic or
agnostic viewpoint. The article asked, 'Could Communism do its nefarious job
more insidiously and more thoroughly?(54) The secretary of EPM again wrote to
the BBC, sending them the article from The Scotsman and requesting them to
consider a series of talks or a talk which presented the case against
evolution.
Three months later, after not receiving
a reply, another copy and the clipping from The Scotsman was sent asking, if
'there is, in fact, a ban on any broadcast in which the scientific or Christian
case against evolution is stated?' Their reply dated July 26, 1953, a full 17
years after the initial proposal, claimed that no ban on the presenting of the
information against evolution existed, but this "does not mean that an
obligation lies upon us to afford space for a broadcast such as you suggest."
They then, ironically, stated that if a
script was submitted it will be expected "to be a contribution to the
study of biological change, whether from a scientific or religious standpoint .
. ." The BBC thus evidently accepted macroevolution as fact, and contributions
must support only one position, that of evolution or 'biological change,
whether from a scientific or religious standpoint," and they will not air
the other side.
In a pamphlet published by The Evolution
Protest Movement entitled, Pernicious Propaganda by the BBC; a Protest
(undated), Douglas Dewar, F.R.S., concluded, for years, despite the protest of
The Evolution Protest Movement, the B.B.C. has sedulously propagated the
doctrine of organic evolution and refused to broadcast a talk dealing with the scientific
objections to . . . [it].' It then discussed one evolutionist's presentation
which, they concluded, comes "very near to establishing a record for the
greatest number of controversial assertions uttered in so short a period of
time." The opposers of evolutionary naturalism were not permitted to
respond to this presentation.
In the Autumn of 1942, the BBC did a
series of twelve broadcasts entitled, 'Man's Place in Nature'. In another
pamphlet entitled, "The BBC Abuses its Monopoly" printed in 1947,
Davies summarizes his frustration in endeavoring to respond to what he
concluded were very one-sided presentations of evolutionary naturalism. The
pamphlet delineated some of their concerns, and contained a review of the
correspondence endeavoring to gain air time to respond to what Davies concluded
were grossly inaccurate statements in this series. The conclusion was, '. . .
it seems clear that the B.B.C. are refusing justice to the public who they now
know to have been misinformed in matters of grave moment . . . to have allowed
misleading statements to be given out, and then refuse us permission to
broadcast anything on the other side, constitutes a gross misuse of the
monopoly of the air [waves] granted to you by the Postmaster General.(55)
REMOVAL OF CREATIONIST BOOKS FROM
LIBRARIES
Creationist books, even after having
been catalogued and placed on the shelves, are commonly removed. Bowling Green
State University had for several years subscribed to the Creation Research
Society Quarterly at the request of a science faculty member. The writer, in
endeavoring to locate the journal, discovered that it was not on the current
periodical shelves, and that the several bound volumes of the journal were also
missing. The writer strongly suspected censorship because he had previously
overheard several professors mention that these journals should not be on the
shelves for the reason that they 'may confuse students'. Melnick also
investigated this matter, finding that it was a 'department' decision not to
renew the subscription and library policy, they claimed, does not allow for
what they call "spotted collections of periodicals," (56) Melnick
concluded, "It certainly smacks of censorship somewhere along the line . .
. and these are precisely the kinds of cases that need to be reported to the
Office of Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association."(57)
This writer and others wrote to them
about this case, and they ignored all communications. Thus, we have the
situation of one of the major journals focusing on censorship apparently
censoring creationists' data on censorship! Interestingly, after these charges
of censorship were made, the university elected to resubscribe, demonstrating
that concern over censorship can bring a positive response.
ANTI-CREATION BIGOTS
Out of an effort to be tactful, writers
about this topic often avoid the proper sociological terms when describing the
anti-creationist bias discussed above. Specifically, anti-creationists are
properly classified by sociologists as bigots. Although this is presently an
emotionally laden word, it nonetheless describes a personality constellation of
persons who express unreasonable hatred based on unfounded views towards an
opposing group which they identify as 'they' in a 'we vs. they' dichotomy, and
then highly inaccurately over-generalize about 'them'.(55) These persons are
intolerant of not only the creationist world view, but creationists as
persons.(59) This bigotry, although often blatant, such as Bridgstock's
statement that 'Creationists are not like other people '(60) or Merle Bergman's
that 'They do not have much of a grasp on reality '(61) is usually more
disguised. For example, Finniss stated, "Unfortunately for creationists,
evolution is . . . not theory but fact. Let s face the fact: We are related to
the ape and every other form of life on this planet . . . Today, creationists
[reject this view] .... Lets let them crawl back into their caves and leave the
explanation of life to true scientists."(62)
A sociological examination of this quote
reveals that it is replete with both over-generalizations and name-calling,
both traits of a bigot. Although it is true that space may have limited full
clarity, the name-calling and not bothering to define even basic words such as
'creationists', clearly reflects intolerance. The concerns of most creationists
today were expressed well by James Watt, former Secretary of the Interior under
President Reagan: "[In the Scopes trial] At issue was not whether the
doctrine of evolution should take the place of . . . Creation. The question was
whether the theory of evolution could be discussed at all, whether it could
even be mentioned in the classroom. Interestingly enough, Scopes lost the
trial; Darwin s theory could not be taught in the schools. But the result was a
national public rebellion. Censorship was as wrong then as it is now. We
believers in the Old Testament want the theories of both evolution and Creation
taught. We modern conservatives are not afraid of discussion of all the
possibilities of unproven theories. Unfortunately, in many school systems, the
liberals have now censored the teaching of Creation. Yet is censorship by
liberals right and by conservatives wrong? (63)
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It has been documented that both
discrimination and censorship against creationists are extremely common,
especially in academia. A major response to deal with this problem is first
awareness, and then to endeavor to be vigilant in dealing with individual
issues as they arise at the local level. Secular humanists have responded in
this way with a high level of success. Many libraries now contain pornographic
literature, openly accessible to all patrons, that was illegal to distribute
only a few years ago. Their activity and vigilance in this area has produced this
state of affairs. Likewise, the censorship against creationists must be dealt
with in similar ways. This situation must be understood for what it
is-religious bigotry and intolerance.
REFERENCES
1. Nielsen, R., 1984. 'Book burning at
the Library. Human Events, November 17,p. 19.
2. LaHaye, T, 1985. London schools ban
famous books. Christian Inquirer, 15(6):22.
3. D'Souza, D., 1986. The new liberal
censorship. Policy Review, Fall., pp. 9-15.
4. Morris, H. M, 1984. History of Modern
Creationism, Master Books, San Diego, California, USA.
5. Bergman, J, 1994 The Public
Acceptance of Evolution, unpublished paper
6. Eidsmoe, I, 1985. Books: 'The
Criterion'. The Christian News, July 8, p. 12.
7. Thomas, C., 1983. Book Burning,
Crossway Books, Westchester, Illinois, USA.
8. LaHaye, T, 1984. The Hidden Censors,
Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan, New Jersey, USA.
9. Melnick J. A., 1982. A reply to
'Creationism is not a science', Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Vol. 31,
no. 3, May, pp. 75 76,109 111.
10. Melnick, I A., 1982. Personal
interview.
11. Ham, K A. (Ed), 1985. Darwin school
bans Ex Nihilo. Creation Science Foundation Prayer News, January, p. 2.
12. Ham, Ref. II, p. 2.
13. Melnick Ref. 9, pp. 110-111.
14. Balogh, S., 1985. Members' notable notes.
Universitas, 17(2), February:2.
15. Bridgstock M., 1985. Creation
science: you've got to believe it to see it! Ideas in Education, July, p. 11.
16. Cole, H. P. and Scott, E. C., 1982.
Creation-science and scientific research. Phi Delta Kappa, April, p. 557.
17. Jenldrwr4 E., 1979. Censors in the
Classroom, the Mind Benders, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale,
Illinois.
18. Morris, Ref. 4.
19. Patterson, J. W.,1985. Review of The
Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles B. Thaxton et al, January 14, p. 1.
20. Patterson, Ref. 19,p. 1.
21. Morris, Ref. 4.
22. Morris, Ref. 4, p. 109.
23. Morris, Ref. 4, p. 195.
24. Morris, Ref. 4, p. 195.
25. Bergman, J, 1979. Teaching about the
Creation/Evolution Controversy, Phi-Delta-Kappa fastback Bloomington, Illinois,
USA.
26. Morris, H. M., 1981. The
anti-creationists. Impact No. 97, July
27. Morris, Ref. 26, p. iii
28. Cole and Scott, Ref. 16.
29. Morris, Ref. 4, p. 105.
30. Cole and Scott, Ref. 16, p. 538.
31. Bergman, J. and Wirth, K, 1996. The
Creation-Evolution Controversy, Garland, New York (in press).
32. Bergman and Wirth, Ref. 31.
33. Beck, C. W., 1985. Review of The
Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles B. Thaxton et
al, New York Philosophical Library, 1984. In: Choice, 22(6):834.
34. American Library Association, 1983.
The Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March, p. 2.
35. Jenkinson, Ref. 17.
36. Melnick, I A., 1984. Censorship
update 1984. Bible Science Newsletter, Vol. 23, NQ 2, February 1985, p. 6.
37. Bergman, J. 1983. A case of
censorship. Bible Science Newsletter, Vol. 21, No. 12, December 1983, p. 6.
38. Berman,S.,1985. In the beginning:
the creationist agenda Library Journal, 110(17):31-34 (p. 32).
39. Ham, K A., 1985. The battle rages.
Creation Science Foundation Prayer News, June, pp. 2-3.
40. Krug, I, 1983. Whose free speech?
Debate divides Berkeley. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 32(3):96.
41. Ham, Ref. 39, p. 2.
42. Shoppy, L., 1987. Biology department
not open to creationists' view. The Hillsdale Collegian, Ap. 6, p. 5.
43. AAW, Bowling Green State University
Chapter, 1984. Censorship at BGSU, privately printed
44. Bergman, J. 1984. The Criterion;
Religious Discrimination in America, Onesimus Publishing Company, Richfield,
Minnesota, USA.
45. Ember, C. R and Ember, M., 1985.
Anthropology, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA
46. Christian, 1986. Philosophy: an
Introduction of the Art of Wondering, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York P.
354
47. Christian, Ref. 46, p. 356.
48. Yockey, H., 1992. Information Theory
and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, New York USA
49. Yockey, Ref. 48, p. 392.
50. Evans, M. S., 1994. The Theme of
Freedom, Religion, Politics and the American Tradition, Regency Publishers,
Washington DC, USA, pp. 39 40.
51. The Intolerance of the BBC,
Evolution Protest Movement, Pamphlet No 41, England (not dated).
52. Ref. 51,p. 1.
53. The Scotsman, August 4 1952.
54. Ref. 53.
55. The BBC Abuses its Monopoly,
Evolution Protest Movement Pamphlet, p. 8 (not dated).
56. Melnick Ref. 36.
57. Melnick Ref. 36.
58. Eidsmoe, Ref. 6.
59. Bergman, Ref.44.
60. Bridgstock Ref. 15.
61. Bergman, G. M, 1985. The professor
who lost his job. Liberty, 80(3).
62. Finniss, G. M., 1 985. We're all
related to apes. USA Today, August 17, p. 28.
63. Watt, J. G., 1985. The Courage of a
Conservative, Simon and Schuster, New York pp. 109-110.
Dr. Jerry Bergman has seven degrees,
including in biology and psychology, and a Ph.D. in evaluation and research,
from Wayne State University, Detroit and Bowling Green State University and
other colleges. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, and at
the University of Toledo. He is now a professor of science at Northwest
College, Archbold, Ohio, and was recently awarded his second Ph.D., this one in
biology.
Return to the top of this Essay
This page last updated 6/5/1999
Back to the Revolution Against Evolution home
page
The Creation
Bookstore
Revolution Against Evolution TV Show
Creation Essays
Seminars and Class Schedule
Online Books
Other online resources
Frequently Asked Questions
The Amy Foundation Website
Mount Hope Church
The Revolution Against Evolution has had over one million visitors since 4/28/97.
. Contact rae.org or send comments
about this page HERE.