Are Jerry Bergman and Henry Morris Racists?
A Brief Second Response to Lippard.
|
Author: Dr. Jerry Bergman |
Essays by
Author |
Introduction
One of the factors that influenced me to move in the direction of orthodox
Christianity involved the behavior of those involved in the Christian community
(and especially those in the Creation movement), in contrast to those who stand
opposed to this world view. One example is attempts to criticize my work,
almost all of which have been primarily ad hominem attacks that
irresponsibly denigrate my person. The response by Lippard, et al., ( add
web page here) is no exception. Instead of focusing on the issue
of concern (i.e., whether or not “Jerry Bergman and Henry Morris” are racists),
much of the focus is on attacking me as a person.
For
example, my credentials are attacked on the very first page in a side bar
evidently placed there by the web site maintainers. It is noted that my
degree in human biology is from Columbia Pacific University, which the authors
conclude “is a diploma mill.” They ignore my eight other degrees (and the
three additional graduate degrees for which I have completed most of the course
work) from schools including Medical College of Ohio, the University of Toledo,
and Bowling Green State University. I have responded to these charges in
another paper http://www.rae.org/cpu.html.
The BGSU case
On Lippard, et al., also is a link to the appellate court decision in my BGSU case, but they do not list a single document submitted in my behalf in this case, such as the court brief (see http://rae.org/BergmanTenure.htm ). I am now preparing a detailed response to the court ruling in this case.
They Admit We are Not Racists
In their response, Lippard, et al., admitted a number of mistakes made by the people whom I cited, but endeavored to argue that they were not claiming that either Henry Morris or I were racists. This, though, was not the interpretation of numerous people who read the article. To them, it clearly implied that both Dr. Morris and I were racists. Would they be willing to publish a clear statement on talkorigins.org that they are not accusing or implying that either of us are racists?
They also make much of my past use of pseudonyms, but ignore the fact that creationists often have to use pseudonyms in order to survive in academia today (see Halvorson, 2003). The real concerns related to termination, denial of degrees, or other concerns, necessitated my response. The authors do not spend any time decrying the problems that creationists face in academia, but seem to focus on making fun of (and trying to find fault with) creationists as individuals and scholars. Do they agree that creationists should be denied degrees because of their beliefs? Or that individuals should be denied tenure solely because of their beliefs? They nowhere speak out against this reality (nor do they deny it).
Reverse Discrimination
Lippard, et al., fault me for not noting the reverse discrimination concerns when I discuss my situation publicly. Although I admitted I had knowledge of possible reverse discrimination in 1984, I continued to assert that my dismissal from Bowling Green State University (BGSU) was due solely to my religion because this was the only conclusion for which I had documented evidence—I had no direct evidence that my termination was specifically due to reverse discrimination (I believe that reverse discrimination may have occurred, but I do not know that my termination was specifically because of reverse discrimination). I have heard individual comments that were made by faculty, but these were relatively few and far between (and their intent was not always clear), compared to the religious discrimination concern. If Lippard, et al., have documented evidence of reverse discrimination, I would very much like to learn of it. In private letters and discussions with others, I have discussed the possibility that reverse discrimination was involved, but until I have clear, documented evidence, I feel it best to discuss only the evidence that I do have. Now that Lippard, et al., have broadcast this concern, I have no choice but to make it public and discuss it.
On the other hand, since I began teaching at Bowling Green State University, there was constant concern and discussion about my religion, especially my creationist beliefs. This discussion was not brief and superficial, but involved hours of in-depth discussion about what I believed religiously, and concerns that my beliefs might have seeped into the classroom (there was no evidence of this—just concerns that it might have). All of this is well documented in scores of memos, letters, sworn statements, court testimony, taped conversations, and other documents.
Furthermore, I have many letters, signed affidavits, and the testimony in both the depositions and the court record that extensively discussed my colleagues’ concerns about religious discrimination in my case. This was, by far, the most pervasive concern and it was made clear to me by numerous BGSU faculty that this was the reason for their negative decision in my tenure case. It is true that other issues have been brought up (such as wearing white socks—a charge that is not true because I am color blind and all of my socks were then black to avoid color clashing problems—and numerous other similar trivial matters), but I do not perceive these were major reasons for my tenure denial. Thus, when I discuss my case, I stress that it is my conclusion that the reason was my religious beliefs, specifically my involvement in creationism, and not the putative sin of wearing white socks. Why don’t Lippard, et al., write articles claiming I am hiding the fact that the real reason for my dismissal was my alleged wearing of white socks?
Actually, to be more accurate, I should stress the central reason was not creationism but religion (although since creationist critics classify creationism as purely religion, some may argue that the two terms are synonymous). Nonetheless, at times other religious issues were discussed, aside from creationism, so it is more accurate to stress that religion was the issue.
The Letter Published in a Racist Magazine
I noted in my original paper that I once wrote to racist organizations to request information as part of my research. Lippard, et al., claimed that the letter “appears to have been written as a letter for publication, and makes no request of information.” Until I see the original letter, I do not know if this is true. It could be that the letter requested information and also included other information (which was published), but the section requesting information was not published. I have had numerous letters published in my career, and many were edited for content, typically for longevity. Furthermore, the letter appears to me to be a draft of a paper I was writing that was never published (and never went beyond the draft stage). It is possible that the draft was published without my expectation or approval. The letter I thought was originally being referred to was a short paragraph or two letter, evidently published by another racist newspaper (it seems they publish almost everything people send them). Thus is the first time I recall seeing the letter referred to in the Lippard et al. document.
The details about the letter that I allegedly wrote are not clear because I have no access to this journal and have not been able to find the original publication. Furthermore, I do not know if it was altered, and would not know unless I had a copy of my original letter (which I do not). If I could obtain the original letter and a photocopy of the paper, I could better evaluate the situation. In that I have been researching racism for a number of years, I have found (which may not be surprising) that the honesty and the integrity of these groups leaves much to be desired (and I assume that Lippard, et al., would agree with me on this).
I have had a number of students research these organizations (as a result of my experiences with them, I now do not even write to these organizations for information), and my anthropology students have likewise had similar negative experiences (they also have concluded that those involved in white supremacist or various racist organizations tend to have social, emotional, or adjustment problems—a conclusion that fits with what I’ve read about some of these groups). Of course, I have not completed a scientific survey, and am only repeating student comments. Nonetheless, this is also my experience, and if anyone has any studies that show otherwise, I will be glad to modify these statements.
Lippard, et al., implies a racist organization is more to be trusted than a creationist one (and some have claimed a creationist is worse than a racist). As Charles A. Weisman states in Not of One Blood (Weisman Publications, Apple Valley, Minnesota), “the worst thing that you can be called today in America is a ‘racist.’ It is worse than being called a traitor, a thief...or even a murderer.” Obviously, in the minds of some, a creationist is worse.
Lippard, et al., also suggest that I should retain an attorney to deal with my concern about a racist publication using this letter. I have now done this. The attorney noted that, to win a defamation case, one must prove:
1. A defamatory statement (no clear evidence exists of defamation in this
case)
2.
That the article identifies the plaintiff (this is probably proven in
this case)
3. The
article was published (this is proven in this case)
4. That damage to my reputation occurred (some evidence of this exists in this case but it is a matter of opinion. If my reputation refers to opinions held by the common “man in the street” it has not been clearly “damaged” because few people even know about the letter—although, thanks to the publicity given by Lippard, et al., many more now know of it.)
Furthermore, he noted that this case would cost many tens of thousands of dollars and, even if we won, we probably would not be able to collect anything (especially now that David Duke is in jail and has few assets).
Summary
I have yet to read in the talkorigins.org archive anything positive about any creationist anywhere. Their sole purpose is to criticize creationists (which, of course, is their right, but in most cases they have not given any space to those who they criticize so freely). In reviewing my discussion of Walter Bergman, Lippard, et al., seem to approve of the discrimination that occurs against creationists. They include not one word of condemnation of this obviously pervasive phenomenon—a response that implies approval.
I have contacted talkorigins.org several times, and they have not once even given me the courtesy of a reply. I can only conclude that they are unwilling to print my responses to either this article (or to any other article). They are interested only in slandering critics of Darwinism, and have no interest in objective evaluations of the subject. Thus, the huge readership of talkorigins.org will likely read only one side of the story, and many will probably never review the site on which I am forced to publish. This is how misinformation is spread. A good example is the totally false conclusions about Galileo that have now been circulating for several hundred years. Details of his actual situation are widely known among scholars, but the public has a totally inaccurate perception that has been spread by groups that are not willing to carefully look at the other side.
The current battle in the public schools is essentially over beliefs about where life came from. The two possible choices are, we were created by a creator, usually called God, or we were created by natural forces, most prominently chance, time and a mixture of chemicals and energy (such as lightening). Once living cells were formed, mutations (primarily mistakes in copying of the genetic code) were selected by the contingencies of the natural world, usually for their ability to survive in a particular environment. One side argues that both basic world views should be taught to enable students to understand of the merits and demerits of each so they can choose the worldview they want to accept. The other side argues that one view is religion and, therefore, only the other view can be presented in the schools.
This position is echoed by headlines and editorials that have been printed about the Ohio standards controversy. Many editorials argue that “school is not church, and religion should be taught in science class.” Yet two sides exist to the same question. Others argue that, if one position is taught, so too should the other position. Anything else is indoctrination. Those who tend to hold the latter view are subject to endless personal attacks (such as those to which this paper is responding). Rather than let the evidence speak, they try to suppress the evidence (or suppress those that are researching the other side). In the long run this approach will back fire. As the evidence against NeoDarwinism builds up, the opponents of design have become more vicious in their attacks. The paper by Lippard, et al., is only one example.
Lippard has an interesting history, as revealed in his chapter in Babinski’s anthology. He states that he was raised in a family that was not particularly religious – then his parents separated and his mother attended a “evangelical fundamentalist church” until he went away to college. He evidently did not have a good experience in this church. For example, he noted that the Pastor refused to recognize the validity of his mother’s and step-father’s divorces, and thus would not marry them.
Lippard states that he made a public profession of faith, but “never felt any magical feeling of conversion” and that his knowledge of scripture is minimal, stating that “I was really not all that well-versed in the Bible.” He also concluded that “many of my fellow Sunday school classmates seemed to be ignorant hypocrites.” No doubt, many of them that he encountered were in exactly the category that Jim Lippard admits he himself was in – he was involved in church because of social pressure (in Lippard’s case, his parents) and had minimal commitment to Christianity. In Sunday school he befriended “a guy named Steve” who also shared the same doubts that Lippard did – he had doubts just like his friends that he criticized. Lippard notes that by the time he graduated from high school in 1983, he had stopped attending church (p. 324). Lippard specifically mentioned his “delusion with fundamentalism” occurred when he encountered Darwinism (p. 323). The creationism that he was taught at church was confronted by Darwinist who “offered objections” that he was “unable to answer” (p. 323).
A major concern is, how can a high school student who admittedly had little knowledge of the scriptures, religion or creationism, make his mind up at such a young age and reject the Christian worldview on informed, valid grounds? The questions Lippard had have been the subject of intense research by scholars for generations. After being disillusioned by his inability to defend creationism, he then began to immerse himself in atheist reading material. Lippard states that he read books such as Johnson’s The Atheist Debaters Handbook and George Smith’s Atheism; the Case Against God – and by the time he finished this book “was a conformed born-again atheist” (p. 324). Now a very active creation opposer, especially in defending Darwinism and attempting to attack creationists, he made some interesting statements, such as: “I’ve come to find many so–called ‘believers’ are less dogmatic and more inquisitive than many ‘skeptics.’ There are distinctions to be drawn from different kinds of claims and claimants, and it is a mistake to class all ‘believers’ as suckers who will believe anything in the world weekly news” (p. 321). Obviously, Lippard has thought more about the issues and has concluded that there is less reason to be committed to his original militant atheist inquisition.
He now states that he presently has “an increased tolerance for those with views other than my own in the religious, political, and scientific realms. I think the existence of God, for example, is something that rational people can disagree about.” Unfortunately, this new attitude is not reflected in his paper about me, but rather a very different attitude is shown there. An introduction to creationist William Lane Craig caused him to conclude that “evangelical Christians need not be stupid. Craig and Moreland ‘another creationist’ appear to me to be very intelligent despite my extensive disagreement with their religious beliefs” (p. 326). He adds that his study of various issues concluded that “skeptics are just as susceptible to error and feelings such as ‘group think’ as believers are” (p. 326). Of course Lippard, a philosophy student, likely is surrounded by atheists in academia and, therefore, no doubt reflects this worldview because this is part of his social and academic environment. Thus, in spite of the above admissions, it appears that he has a commitment to a belief structure that may be based on some mildly negative experiences with his church and high school.
References
Babinski, Edward. 1995. Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Amherst, NY. Prometheus Books.
Halvorson, Richard T. 2003. “Confessions of a Skeptic.” The Harvard Crimson, April 7.
My Responses to Critics
One helpful respondent correctly noted that talkorigins.org does include “prominent links to creationist sites in their side bars, etc.” My response is, this is true and commendable, but is usually to refer to articles that they are attempting to refute. In my article I was referring to posting articles that are supportive of the other side on their web site. I was told that the reason why they do not is because they assume that doing so gives creationists and other Darwin critics creditability that talkorigins.org does not want to give them. After all, many Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins and the now deceased Steven Gould, have made clear in print that they will not debate creationists (or even appear on the same platform with them) because they do not want to give any credibility to this world view. Another respondent wrote:
I read the letter you supposedly wrote to the racist paper and, while one should not give fuel to racists, I see nothing that even hints that you are a racist in the letter. It sounds like you were miffed after not getting a job (or losing a job) and had good evidence that it was due to reverse discrimination. I do not know if such occurred but I would not be very happy if this occurred to me and I can not imagine anyone who would if he felt the reason was reverse discrimination. How is one supposed to feel in this situation? Happy that one was passed over to help someone else in our society become more prominent? Don't be so defensive about the letter. You were probably upset when you wrote it (if you did) and, frankly, I would not be so charitable to those who I had evidence slighted me in this way. We have to treat people fairly and I know nothing that upsets people more than being unfairly treated. To me, if you wrote it or not is a non issue: your critics are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find flaws to discredit you, and this is obvious. If they cannot see this, they own the problem, not you.
My reply is, she has some good points that I need to explore.
Return to the top of this Essay
This page last updated 1/23/2005
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.