by Lenny Flank
(c) 1995
One of the most often-heard claims of the creationists is that scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy to censor creation-science and prevent the scientific data uncovered by the creationists from being heard. As Duane Gish puts it, "Three or four centuries ago, the notion that the sun and other planets revolved around the earth was the dogma of the scientific establishment. Galileo faced determined opposition from fellow astronomers when he suggested otherwise. Louis Pasteur and others, about a century ago, overturned the established dogma of centuries when they showed that living things never arose spontaneously from dead matter. Today, even though thousands of scientists are creationists, and the number is growing rapidly, the notion of evolution remains a stifling dogma." (Transcript of debate between Gish and Dr Russell Doolittle, October 13, 1981, cited in Montagu, 1984, p. 20)
However, as the inaccuracies in Gish's statement demonstrate (it was the Christian Church, not fellow scientists, who insisted on the Biblical doctrine of geocentrism and who burned Bruno and placed Galileo under house arrest for suggesting otherwise), the claims of the creationists that they are being repressed by a vast international conspiracy of scientists has no more validity than the rest of their "science".
Creationist literature cites a number of martyrs to the creationist cause, who, they say, were censored and repressed by the "evil-utionists"--ranging from being denied access to scientific journals and symposia, to being denied legitimate academic degrees and credentials, to being discriminated against and arbitrarily fired from scientific positions. "If it becomes known that they have serious doubts about evolution or worse, if it becomes known they are creationists, they will be dismissed from their position or denied promotion if they already have tenure." (ICR Acts and Facts, June 1994, p. 3) All of these actions, the creationists assert, are the result of organized efforts on the part of the scientific community to suppress the truth of creationism.
One of the most widely-cited instances of evolutionist "censorship" of creationists involves "Dr" Clifford Burdick, a geologist for the Creation Research Society and Institute for Creation Research. Burdick, the story goes, was arbitrarily refused a PhD from the University of Arizona solely because he is a creationist (Burdick was the original discoverer of the "Cretaceous human footprints" at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas).
The true story demonstrates otherwise. In 1960, Burdick, who had never been admitted to a degree-granting program, sat for his comprehensive exam for a PhD in geology. As Burdick himself later reported, "I 'browned out' several times during the exam, and could not answer even the most simple questions, that I knew as well as my own name. Even at that I was told I passed as far as knowledge of geology went, but I just ran out of gas and could not answer the reasoning questions, and being sick did not make too good an impression." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 260) Burdick failed the exam.
After filing and losing a lawsuit charging the university with religious discrimination, Burdick went to the Creation Research Society and told them the story. CRS President Walter Lammerts investigated, and found that, not only had Burdick also failed an earlier attempt to defend his MS thesis, ("The medicine I was taking seemed to paralyze my thinking apparatus," Burdick explained (Numbers, 1992, p. 261)) but he had also never received a Masters Degree that he claimed from the University of Wisconsin. At the same time, Lammerts was investigating the claim of David Warriner, a CRS member, who had recently lost his untenured position at Michigan State University. After looking into both matters, Lammerts concluded, "Though perhaps it is unfair to say so, I believe that most of the difficulties which have been related such as those of Warriner and Burdick are largely due to other personal problems." (Numbers, 1992, p. 270) Lammerts advised Burdick to drop the matter.
Instead, Burdick obtained a doctorate from something called the "University of Physical Sciences" in Phoenix, Arizona. Lammerts discovered that the "University" consisted of nothing more than a post office box, with no faculty, no campus, and no tuition fees. Outraged, the CRS demanded that Burdick stop using the "Doctor" title on his CRS papers.
The final straw came in 1966, when Burdick, who was working with a University of Arizona team at the Grand Canyon, announced he had found modern conifer pollens in pre-Cambrian sediments, a discovery which, Burdick gushed, would "bury evolutionary geology forever" (Numbers 1992, p. 261). Lammerts, who was already suspicious of Burdick because of the "doctors degree stuff", began to wonder if Burdick was "academically honest" (Numbers, 1992, p. 262) His suspicions rose when he attended a creation seminar in Arkansas with Burdick. "I was appalled at the slowness of Burdick mentally when at the Creation seminar," Lammerts wrote to fellow CRS member Henry Morris, "and hope he is not misleading us." Lammerts reported that Burdick "had evidently never heard of the series of horse-like animals found and was at a complete loss to explain them. Evidently he has not kept up with his reading very much." (Numbers, 1992, p. 264)
Alarmed by the possibility of a hoax, the CRS in 1969 asked two independent scientists from Loma Linda University to accompany Burdick back to the Grand Canyon to double-check his research. Although shortly afterwards Burdick triumphantly reported to CRS that his original discovery of pre-Cambrian pollen had been confirmed, both scientists concluded that Burdick was simply too incompetent to take an uncontaminated soil sample. No pre-Cambrian pollen grains were found. (In 1981, creationist biologist Arthur Chadwick, who had once been Burdick's assistant at the Grand Canyon, reported that he could not find a trace of pollen of any sort in any of the fifty samples taken from the same strata studied by Burdick.) The CRS concluded that Burdick's "pollen" was the result of sloppy and incompetent research methods, not a deliberate fraud.
Shortly afterwards, Burdick piped up with his "Cretaceous human footprints" at the Paluxy River in Texas. Lammerts, remembering the fiasco at the Grand Canyon, sent Wilbert Rusch to investigate, who concluded that, again, Burdick was too anxious to rush into print with unconfirmed sensational claims. "We need these episodes for our cause," Rusch reported, "like we need a hole in our heads. Premature statements, too strong statements on insufficient evidence do us much harm." (Numbers, 1992, p. 265) Lammerts ran Burdick's story reporting the Paluxy prints, but added, in a skeptical editor's note, "Admittedly, this discovery offers as much of a problem for Flood geologists as for those of the orthodox point of view." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 266) Thus, the claim that Burdick was discriminated against because of his creationist beliefs is not even supported by Burdick's own organization, which concluded that he was sloppy and incompetent.
Another oft-cited "victim of scientific intolerance" is Jerry Bergman, who in 1984 was denied tenure and dismissed from his position at Bowling Green University, as he puts it, "solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism." (Jim Lippard, "Creationism and Racism", undated) However, Bergman himself pointed out a more significant reason for his dismissal (one which other creationists are understandably reluctant to talk about): In a signed letter published in the newsletter of former Klan head David Duke's white supremacist National Association for the Advancement of White People, Bergman declared that "reverse discrimination was clearly part of the decision" (cited in Lippard, "Creationism and Racism", undated). In other words, as Bergman himself admits, it was NOT his creationism that got him kicked out. Apparently Bergman's sob story changes according to which particular audience he is sobbing to.
The most recent creationist martyr is Forrest Mims, who was, as the creationists tell it, fired from a position at "Scientific American" because of his creationist beliefs. Unfortunately for the creationists, the truth is a bit different. Mims was a freelance writer who had sold several articles concerning electronics to "Scientific American". He was not an employee or a staff writer. When the magazine decided to find a new writer for its "Amateur Scientist" column, Mims applied for the job and was turned down--the job went to someone else. He was not "fired", since he had never been hired. Apparently, the creationists are of the opinion that anytime a creationist is turned down for a job, then religious bigotry must be involved.
In fact, the only religious bigotry involving creationists that seems to be widespread is that practiced by ICR and CRS. Both of these organizations limit their membership to scientists who believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible and the Divinity of Christ. Buddhist, Muslim or Jewish creation scientists are not accepted as members of ICR or CRS. The creationists have never explained what reason, other than simple religious bigotry, disqualifies a Jew or a Muslim from carrying out scientific research concerning the sudden creation of the earth.
It is indeed ironic that the creationists like to claim that people who are suspected of harboring creationist sympathies are denied degrees by the scientific establishment, since, as they point out in the ICR pamphlet "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation", it is a requirement of voting membership in ICR that members have a graduate degree in one of the sciences. On the one hand, the ICR claims that people with creationist beliefs are denied degrees, on the other hand, it claims that "thousands" of scientists with advanced degrees believe in creationism. Apparently, internal consistency is not a priority with the creationists.
If pressed on this point, most creationists will respond that those creationists who have PhD's were only able to get them by concealing their creationist sympathies until after they received their degree. This, however, is demonstrably untrue. The ICR's own founder, Henry Morris, was already a well-known creationist when he received his doctorate in hydraulic engineering. Morris grew up as a Southern Baptist and was teaching Sunday School with his wife in 1940 (the same year that he joined the Gideon Bible-publishing society). During World War II, Morris served as an instructor in engineering at Rice University, where he often asked his students if they had accepted Christ as their personal savior. In 1943, Morris helped organize a visit by the creationist pastor Harry Rimmer, and in 1946, he published, under his own name, a pamphlet entitled "That You Might Believe", which openly preached a young-earth creationist view. Also in 1946, while still a grad student, Morris joined the Deluge Geology Society, one of the first "creation science" organizations in the United States. None of these open activities prevented Morris from receiving his doctorate, or from authoring a widely-used textbook on fluid dynamics.
Similarly, all of the other leading creationists were openly fundamentalist before they received their degrees. Duane Gish joined the Methodist Church at age ten, and as a student joined the Regular Baptists. Walter Lammerts grew up within the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, and as he later recalled, had "knock-down drag-out" arguments with his fellow grad students at the University of California at Berkeley over evolution and creationism, which did not prevent him from receiving a doctorate in genetics in 1930.
Perhaps the most difficult example for the creationists to explain is that of Kurt Wise, an openly creationist grad student at Harvard during the 1980's. Wise was teaching a fifteen-week course in creation science at his local church before he had even left high school. At the height of the creation/evolution court battles, Wise was studying biology under Steven Jay Gould, arch-enemy of creation science. Wise's pro-creation stance did not prevent him from receiving his doctorate from Harvard in 1989. The creationists have never explained how Wise was able to get his doctorate in the very center of the supposed "scientific conspiracy" to silence creationists.
In fact, when the opportunity arose during the Arkansas trial for the creationists to demonstrate in open court, before the whole world, that their point of view was being unfairly repressed by the scientific community, they were unable to do so. Despite crying to the judge that the scientific journals refused to consider creationist articles, they were unable to produce a single article that had been refused publication.