Forrest Mdf

8/9/2019 Forrest Mdf

1/16

Forrest M. Mims IIIHo me B iog ra phy Pu bl ic at io ns S cie nt if ic Re se ar ch S ci en ce Da ta U SD A U V- B N etw or k M au na Lo a O bs er va tor y S cie nt ifi c A me ri ca n

Gal ler y F am il y

Scientific American

The Scientific American Affair

Scientific American editor Jonathan Piel in a letter to Forrest M.Mims III, December 20, 1988:

"Dear Mr. Mims: The material that you have shared with usleaves no doubt that you would write a most engaging'Amateur Scientist' column…."

After Scientific American editor Jonathan Piel and two othereditors asked Mims about evolution, abortion and the Bible

during a meeting in New York or by telephone:

“There's no question that on their own merits the columns arefabulous! If you don't do them for us you ought to do them for

somebody because they're great...Give me three of them and I'll run them...I'll buy them from you... Forrest, I trust youimplicitly. You're a man of honor and integrity...In its own right

what you've written is first rate. That's just not an issue. It'sthe public relations nightmare that's keeping me awake."

Jonathan Piel during a conversation with Forrest Mims on October 4, 1989.Published in part in Harper’s , March 1991, pp. 28-32.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCEDirectorate for Science and Policy Programs

Washington, DC 20005

29 Oct ober 1990

Dear Mr . Mi ms:

The Commi t t ee on Sci ent i f i c Fr eedom and Responsi bi l i t y of t heAmer i can Associ at i on f or t he Advancement of Sci ence has r ecei ved t hemat eri al s you submi t t ed i n connect i on wi t h your compl ai nt r egar di ngSci ent i f i c Ameri can. The l egal quest i ons t hat may be i nvol ved i nt hi s mat t er ar e beyond t he pur vi ew of t he Commi t t ee. However, t heCommi t t ee does wi sh to af f i r m i t s commi t ment t o the pr i nci pl e t hatart i cl es submi t t ed f or publ i cati on i n j our nal s devoted t o sci ence,t echnol ogy and medi ci ne shoul d be j udged excl usi vel y on t hei rsci ent i f i c mer i t . A per son' s pri vat e behavi or or r el i gi ous orpol i t i cal bel i ef s or a ff i l i at i ons shoul d not serve as cr i t e r i a i nt he eval uat i on of art i cl es submi t t ed f or publ i cat i on.

Scientific Research, Books, Articles, Columns, Lectures and Photographs

st M. Mims III http://www.forrestmims.org/scientificamerican

6 3/6/2015 2


2/16

We emphasi ze, i n par t i cul ar, t he consensus of the Commi t t eet hat even i f a person hol ds r el i gi ousl y-der i ved bel i ef s t hatconf l i ct wi t h vi ews commonl y hel d i n t he sci ent i f i c communi t y, t hosebel i efs shoul d not i nf l uence deci si ons about publ i cati on of sci ent i f i c ar t i c l es unl ess the bel i ef s ar e ref l ected i n t hear t i c l e s.

We wi sh t o st r ess t hat, i n expr essi ng t hi s opi ni on, t heCommi t t ee i s not t aki ng any posi t i on on t he part i cul ars of yourdi sput e wi t h Sci ent i f i c Amer i can.

Si ncerel y,

[ si gned]

Shel don Kr i msky, Ph. D. , Chai rCommi t t ee on Sci ent i f i c Freedom and Responsi bi l i t y

[Scroll down to see a scan of this letter.]

About the S c i e n t i f i c A m e r i c a n Affair

"The Amateur Scientist" was a popular column about do-it-yourself science projects in Scientific American magazine. In May 1988 Isent a lengthy proposal to Jonathan Piel, then editor of Scientific American , to propose writing "The Amateur Scientist." The proposalincluded topics for some three years of columns. It was reviewed at some length, and in July 1989 Piel called and asked if I would liketo write the column. When I said yes, he asked me to visit New York to discuss the details. I stopped all work and a delayed a field tripto fly to New York to meet Piel and his staff on August 7, 1989.

During a friendly meeting in his office, Piel expressed excitement over various scientific and electronic devices that I showed him. Herepeatedly stated, "We should have hired you years ago!" He called in the editorial staff and asked me to show them the instrumentsand devices that I had brought.

Later, Piel frowned when I told him I had once written an article for a Christian magazine about how to organize long-distance bicycletrips for teenagers. (I am a practicing Christian). He then asked if I believed in Darwinian evolution. I replied that I did not, and he wasdispleased. Later staff editors Laurie Burnham and John Horgan quizzed me in telephone conversations about my beliefs concerning"the sanctity of life" and whether or not I re ad the Bible. Senior editors Armand Schwab and Timothy Appenzeller supported myproposal for writing the column and provided helpful advice on how to proceed.

Scientific American eventually published three of my columns, and many readers sent the magazine and me letters about them.Unfortunately, the editor refused to publish more of my columns, because he w as concerned that my personal beliefs would cause themagazine to experience what he described as "a public relations nightmare" (Jonathan Piel and Forrest M. Mims III, Science's LitmusTest, Harper's , March 1992, pp. 28-32.)

His dream came true when I told a newspaper reporter how I lost the column. After the reporter's story was prominently featured in aHouston newspaper, reporters called from The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal . A reporter for The New York Timesarrived at my office f or an interview. After articles appeared in t hese newspapers, dozens of magazines and newspapers called. Sodid many radio and TV stations, including the Voice of America. The media was surprisingly supportive of my plight. F or around sixweeks it was virtually impossible to work due to the many media interviews.

More about what t ranspired is given below, and I will e ventually relate the experience in detail in a book. Meanwhile, many inaccurateaccounts about the affair have been published on the web by skeptics and atheists, hence this presentation of verifiable facts aboutwhat occurred.

Note to Writers and Editors: Please notify me at forrest[dot]mims[at]ieee[dot]org if you have questions or would like to see specificcorrespondence. There is also a detailed contemporaneous memo for the record, which was begun when it became obvious that theeditor and some staff of Scientific American were concerned about my beliefs related to evolution, abortion and the Bible.

Note to Past and Present Staff at Scientific American : Please notify me at forrest [dot] mims [at] ieee [dot] org about any verifiableerrors on this page so they may be promptly corrected. Your name will not be disclosed.

The Wall Street Journal

“Mr. Mims on Friday [October 19, 1990] played for a reporter a tape he madeof a conversation late last year [October 4, 1989] with Scientific American

editor Jonathan Piel. “What you’ve written is first rate,” Mr. Piel said. “It’s the public relations nightmare that’s keeping me awake.” ....

In an interview, Mr. Piel said that “Scientific American has never discriminated against anyone for religious reasons,” but he wouldn’t comment further on the

controversy. On the tape recording, however, he told Mr. Mims several timesthat he worried how creationists somehow might exploit Mr. Mims in their

efforts to push creationist textbooks to schools….

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor, agreed that the magazineappeared to have discriminated against Mr. Mims. The magazine’s rationalewas “distressing,” he said. “A company could say we don’t want to be seen

identifying with a point of view, so we don’t want to hire Jews.”


6 3/6/2015 2


3/16

Bob Davis, “Scientific American Drops Plans to Hire Columnist Who Believes in Creationism," The Wall Street Journal, October 22, 1990. (The recording was made in accordance with Texas law

and the advice of an attorney who was aware of the magazine's discrimination.)

Mims Columns Published in Scientific American

1. Sunspots and How to Observe Them Safely, Scientific American , 262, 6, 130-133, June 1990.

2. How to Monitor Ultraviolet Radiation from the Sun,Scientific American , 263, 2, 106-109, August 1990.

3. A Remote-Control Camera that Catches the Wind andCaptures the Landscape, Scientific American , 263, 2,126-129, October 1990.

These columns and those that the magazine did not publishled to many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals, theGLOBE sun photometer and the GLOBE total water vapor hygrometer (see Publications ). The columns also led to anongoing series of sun and sky observations that began on 4February 1990.

An unpublished column was to have described the miniatureTotal Ozone Portable Spectrometer (TOPS) that led to a 1993Rolex Award and the d evelopment of Microtops. In 1996Microtops was commercialized by Solar Light as Microtops II,an instrument used by scientists around the world to measurethe ozone layer, column water vapor, and t he aerosol opticaldepth of the atmosphere arising from both natural causes

and anthropogenic air pollution.

Measuring diffuse sky solar ultraviolet at Hawaii's Kilauea caldera.The yellow case contains instruments that measure the total

ozone layer, the total water vapor layer and aerosol optical depthfrom the UV to the near infrared. These instruments were

originally developed for publication in "The Amateur Scientist"column of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine. Only a direct-sun UV

radiometer was allowed to be published. This instrument waspaired with a second instrument to measure direct sunlight at 300

and 305 nm and thereby permit the total columnm ozone to beinferred with high accuracy. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN refused to

publish a column describing this instrument (see theaccompanying essay). Photograph by Eric R. Mims.

Setting the Record Straight

"When I visited Scientific American at Piel's request, he said several times inthe presence of some of his staff, "We should have hired you 10 years ago!"

When I said I had applied when C. L. Strong died, he said if he had known, "I would have snapped you up!"

"Members of the editorial staff congratulated me for getting the assignment.Piel and the other editors played with the various instruments I brought,

including a solar ultraviolet radiometer, a radio-controlled camera for kitesand balloons, various surface-mount circuits, etc.

"Even after he asked if I believed in Darwinian evolution, he took me to lunchwith the editorial staff and gave me a book which he signed,'Best regards to a great amateur scientist. Jon Piel 8/7/89.'"

Forrest M. Mims III, Setting the Record Straight about Scientific American, September 24, 1993.

“Best regards to a great amateur scientist. Jon Piel 8/7/89”

Inscription by Jonathan Piel on title page of Scientific American Cumulative Index 1978-1988 that hegave to Mims (see photo below) .


6 3/6/2015 2


4/16

From the August 1990 installment of "The Amateur Scientist" in Scientific American. The inscription (center left) on the title page from"Scientific American Cumulative Index 1978-1988 reads "Best regards to a great amateur scientist. Jon Piel 8/7/89"

Letter from the Chair of the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


6 3/6/2015 2


5/16

AAAS letter to Forrest Mims.

I do think that the study of natural science is so glorious a school for the mind,that with the laws impressed on all created things by the Creator, and the

wonderful unity and stability of matter and the forces of matter, there cannot bea better school for the education of the mind.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867), an active Christian and one of history’s most important experimentalscientists, quoted by Bence Jones in The life and letters of Faraday , Volume 2, 1870, p. 454.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Access Research Networ kOrigins Research Archives

This copyrighted article is based in part on in-person and telephone interviews with Dr. Mark Hartwig shortly after Scientific American cancelled my assignment to write "The Amateur Scientist" column.

Volume 13, Number 1

Defending Darwinism: How Far is Too Far?

Mark D. Hartwig21 November 1990

Controversy over creation and evolution has long been a part of the American political landscape. Recently, however, thiscontroversy took a new turn with the revelation that Scientific American , America's leading science magazine, refused to hire asuperbly qualified science writer because the writer disbelieved in Darwin's theory of evolution. Not that discrimination based onbelief is anything new. But this time it has attracted national attention, and has greatly raised the stakes in the controversy--notonly for the disputants, but for everyone.

Background


6 3/6/2015 2


6/16

The Scientific American affair began in May 1988 when science writer Forrest Mims submitted a proposal to Scientific American towrite the magazine's "Amateur Scientist" column. Mims, a respected science writer with 70 books and several hundred articles to hiscredit, had long dreamed of writing the "Amateur Scientist," and in late July that dream seemed to come true when the magazine'seditor, Jonathan Piel, asked Mims if he would like to take over the column. Piel then invited Mims to come to New York to discuss thedetails.

It was in New York that things turned sour. According to Mims, Piel at first praised Mims' work and expressed considerableenthusiasm for the topics that Mims proposed to cover. But later on, as Mims' was listing off the various periodicals in which he hadpublished articles, he happened to mention that he had written for some Christian magazines. The editor stopped him, and askedhim what he had written for the Christian magazines. He then asked Mims, "Do you accept Darwin's theory of evolution?" Mimsresponded that he did not. From then on, Mims says, Piel's attitude toward him changed dramatically.

Piel expressed great concern about Mims beliefs, and told him that he would not be permitted to write anything for any publicationthat might embarrass Scientific American. To ensure this, all of Mims' outside writings would have to be reviewed prior topublication. Piel warned Mims that if an outside article was published without review, and caused subsequent embarrassment toScientific American , Mims would face a pay cut or dismissal.

Inquiries about Mims' beliefs were not limited to the interview with Piel. In phone conversations that took place during August,September, and October, different editors from Scientific American asked him several such questions, including whether he was afundamentalist, and whether he believed in the sanctity of life. The editors also told Mims that his religious beliefs were a major areaof concern. It eventually became clear that Mims would not get the column.

Meanwhile, Scientific American on August 30 assigned Mims a trial column for $2000. Mims submitted two articles on September 23,and another one later on. Piel's response to the three articles was very positive. In a phone converstation--which Mims taped, afterdetermining it was legal to do so--Piel said "There's no question that on their own merits the columns are fabulous...they'regreat...What you've written is first rate...Give me three of them and I'll run them...I'll buy them from you."

During the call, however, Piel expressed concern about Mims' religious views being exploited by third parties, or linked with Scientific American , thereby embarrassing "the good name of this magazine." When Mims tried to reassure Piel that he would never use thecolumn to promote his beliefs, Piel replied "I trust you. You're a man of honor and integrity...It's the public relations nightmarethat's keeping me awake."

On October 8, 1990, Jonathan Piel's public relations nightmare became horribly real when the Houston Chronicle broke Mims' storyto the public. The reality, though, was much worse than Piel could have ever dreamt. After two weeks, the Wall Street Journal picked up the story, followed by the New York Times, the Washington Post , and coutless other newspapers across the country.Scientific American was now fully in the public eye, caught in a most unflattering light.

Many of those interviewed for the newspaper articles issued ringing condemnations of the magazine's actions. Even worse, twoformer editors, who had been with Scientific American when Mims was turned down, admitted to reporters that Mims' beliefs werethe reason he wasn't hired. Former managing editor, Armand Schwab Jr., said " Scientific American is a science magazine; it's largelywritten by scientists. We're completely dependent on the good will of working scientists for those articles, so there's a question of whether or not this could conceivably threaten the credibility of the magazine. You have to understand that creationism is sort of ashibboleth for scientists." Schwab added, "My own conclusion after some time was that the creationist beliefs did not militate againsthis doing a column for us. I just assumed Mims was smart enough that if he dealt with animals to not say 'all of whom were createdand survived the flood,' etc."

Tim Appenzeller, former associate editor for the magazine and now senior editor for The Sciences , said to the Houston Chronicle"There was concern that Scientific American might be linked to a Flat Earther or something. There was no question in anyone's mindthat he would have been a good columnist for the Amateur Scientist....I was one of several people on the staff who thought heshould be taken on. Without a doubt, (Christianity) led to his not being offered the job of the Amateur Scientist column, andspecifically it was creationism."

In the wake of these and other revelations, opinion has run hard against Scientific American. Editorialists, liberal and conservativealike, have lambasted the magazine for its treatment of Mims. The ACLU has offered Mims its help, and, in a letter to the presidentof Scientific American , characterized the actions of the magazine as belonging to another era, if not another century. In short, therehas been a gathering consensus that the magazine has simply gone too far, and has done Mims a serious injustice.

A Chilling EffectDespite the support Forrest Mims has received in the national media, Mims' story does not yet have a happy ending. For one thing,Scientific American has not recanted its actions, and this has raised concerns that the magazine's position will hinder the freedom of scientists to express their personal beliefs. Lamar Hankins, acting director of the Texas office of the ACLU, stated, "Every scientistwho hears about this is going to wind up saying, 'Boy, I'd better not let anyone find out what I believe or I'll end up not gettingpublished again.' It's certainly the type of thing that has a chilling effect."

Mims asserts that he has seen the chill begin to spread: "I'm hearing that in phone calls already, not only from scientists, but fromnewspapers and magazine writers, and from radio people. An unexpected aspect of the controversy is that many members of themedia have expressed sympathy because they may someday be asked questions about their personal beliefs."

Thus, although Scientific American has indeed experienced a public relations nightmare, the long-term result of their action couldharm not only creationism, but freedom of expression as a whole.

Die-Hards

Another disturbing development is the way in which some Darwinists have chosen to justify the magazine's actions, resorting tolibelous ad hominems and displaying distressing attitudes toward freedom of conscience. One of the more egregious examples of this occurred on October 31, when Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, appeared withForrest Mims on the CNN's Crossfire . During the broadcast, Dr. Scott made some astonishing comments.

Early in the broadcast, co-host Cal Thomas asked Eugenie Scott: "Dr. Scott in San Francisco, let me jump in here and ask you aquestion. There are an awful lot of Americans, not only religious Americans, who believe that you evolutionists are trying to censorand silence people who don't agree with you. Isn't the essence of scientific inquiry free and open access and debate?"

Eugenie Scott replied, "It is indeed, but I think what we have to look at is what are we--what are giving--what are we calling equallyvalid ideas? We're not dealing with political speech, we're not dealing with opinions on art. We're dealing with what science is..."

In essence, Dr. Scott seemed to be saying that freedom of conscience doesn't extend to science, because science deals in matters of truth--as opposed to .matters of opinion. Such a viewpoint indicates a grave misunderstanding of both the nature of science and themeaning of freedom of conscience.

Dr. Scott's manner of contrasting science with "opinion" is strikingly similar to certain passages from the California ScienceFramework, a document on which her organization had substantial input. In that document, the authors asserted that science wasdistinct from other disciplines, like history, literary criticism, and philosophy, because science aims to be objective, testable, andconsistent. This is a seriously misguided view, aptly called scientism . As philosopher of science Nicholas Rescher points out:

The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end- all--that what is not in science books is not worthknowing--is an ideologist with a peculiar and distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector of thecognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive world-view. This is the doctrine not of science but of scientism . To take this stanceis not to celebrate science but to distort it....[1]

Objectivity, testability, and consistency are the hallmark of all scholarly activity. They separate good scholarship from badscholarship, not science from everything else. And it is troubling when an organization ostensibly dedicated to science educationdoes not recognize this fact.

Even more troubling, however, is the apparent implication that First Amemement protections are somehow irrelevant to science, theidea being that free speech and freedom of conscience should apply to areas in which truth is relative--i.e. in matters of opinion. Butfreedom of conscience is not something meant to apply only (or even primarily) to matters of simple opinion. It was intended toprotect people from the tyranny of "unassailable truths" imposed by those in power. After all, how many inquisitions, religious orsecular, ever bothered with matters that the authorities deemed to be merely matters of opinion? What needed protecting was not"opinion," but "truth." By implying otherwise, Dr. Scott has identified herself and her organization with a viewpoint that should giveeveryone cause for great concern.


6 3/6/2015 2


7/16

In addition to her disturbing remarks on science and freedom of speech, Dr. Scott also made a libelous attack on Forrest Mims. Herattack occurred during the latter part of the broadcast, in answer to another query by Cal Thomas:

Thomas: Let's put the shoe on the other foot for the moment. Let's say that you were applying to a prestigious magazineor to a university for a research or teaching position and you were asked to put down your religious preference and let'ssay the head of the personnel department who was deciding on which person should be hired saw that you were of areligious faith or no religious faith that was different from his or her own and decided that you should not get that positionbecause they were afraid that your religious faith or nonreligious faith might impact upon the university of magazine. Wouldyou be upset? Would you be angry? Would you sue?

Dr. Scott: No, I'd have to talk to a lawyer about that, but I think the issue here has been unfortunately framed in terms of science versus religion and it's not that at all. It's really a matter of scientific competency. What you might consider is thatevolution is not just that man descended from apes. Evolution is a theme. It's a grand unifying principle that runs across allscientific fields. Now, I'm not defending--

Thomas: But scientific--excuse me--

Scott: Let me finish. Let me finish.

Thomas: All right.

Scott: I am not an employee of Scientific American , so, you know, I am not defending them. They can defend themselvesbut what I would consider if I were in this--in their position is whether you would be--whether they would be limiting thescope of this column by hiring somebody who is so far out of the scientific mainstream. This man would not be able to writeabout a wide variety of scientific topics because of his views which are basically religious.

The point that Dr. Scott tried to make is one that has surfaced repeatedly in the creation/evolution debate: evolution is so integral toscience and so well established that disbelievers cannot possibly be competent as scientists--or science writers.

This view, however, trades on equivocation and vagueness. As Dr. Scott uses the term, evolution is a "grand unifying principle thatruns across all scientific fields." Or, as she stated earlier in the broadcast, "Evolution means that change has taken place in thehistory of the universe." But evolution in this vague sense is irrelevant to Mims' beliefs. What Mims had difficulty accepting was notthe fact that change has taken place in the history of the universe. (How could anyone object to such a trivial statement?) Hisobjection was to a theory of biological change that is much more controversial [2] , and much less central to science--even biologicalscience [3] --than Dr. Scott and others would have us believe.

Dr. Scott's remarks, therefore, amount to little more than a libelous, and irrational, attack on Mims. Given Mims' credentials, and thefact that his competence was never an issue with the staff at Scientific American , Dr. Scott's remarks tell us more about herself thanForrest Mims and show just how far some people will go to protect a cherished "grand theme."

Dr. Scott's ad hominem is particularly unsettling in light of her conspicuous involvement in science education. Recent reform effortsin science education have strongly emphasized teaching science as a way of knowing, and have laid great stress on getting studentsto apply scientific skills and attitudes to everyday situations. By eschewing a scientific attitude in favor of an ill-founded ad hominemattack, Dr. Scott has become an unfortunate role-model and has perhaps even damaged the credibility of her organization as apromoter of scientific literacy.

ConclusionAlthough the general support for Forrest Mims in the media is an encouraging sign, the actions of Scientific American and itssupporters are still a source of genuine concern. In these actions one can see a troubling disregard for important principles andideals. In this context, the following warning seems particularly appropriate:

Recent controversies over religion and public life have too often become a form of warfare in which individuals, motives,and reputations have been impugned. The intensity of the debate is commensurate with the importance of the issuesdebated, but to those engaged in this warfare we present two arguments for reappraisal and restraint.

The lesser argument is one of expediency and is based on the ironic fact that each side has become the best argument for the other. One side's excesses have become the other side's arguments; one side's extremists the other side's recruiters.The danger is that, as the ideological warfare becomes self-perpetuating, more serious issues and broader national interests will be forgotten and the bitterness deepened.

The more important argument is one of principle and is based on the fact that the several sides have pursued their objectives in ways which contradict their own best ideals. Too often, for example, religious believers have beenuncharitable, liberals have been illiberal, conservatives have been insensitive to tradition, champions of tolerance havebeen intolerant, defenders of free speech have been censorious, and citizens of a republic based on democratic

accommodation have succumbed to a habit of relentless confrontation.4

Whatever we debate, then, let us do so as vigorously as the issues demand. But let us never sacrifice those things that are trulyimportant.

[1] Rescher, N. (1984). The Limits of Science . Berkeley: University of California Press.

[2] "Until only a few years ago, the 'synthetic' or 'neo- Darwinist' theory of evolution stood virtually unchallenged as the basis of ourunderstanding of the organic world. There were, to be sure, a few who held out against the consensus, but they had very littleinfluence on the majority of biologists. Almost all the research that was undertaken in evolution was designed to investigate theoperation of natural selection, and was seen as confirming the theory. "Today, however, the picture is entirely different. More andmore workers are showing signs of dissatisfaction with the synthetic theory. Some are attacking its philosophical foundations,arguing that the reason that is has been so amply confirmed is simply that is is unfalsifiable: with a little ingenuity any observationcan be made to appear consistent with it. Others have deliberately setting out to work in just those areas in which neo-Darwinism isleast comfortable, like the problem of gaps in the fossil record or the mechanisms of non-Mendelian inheritance. Still others, notablysome systematists, have decided to ignore the theory altogether, and to carry on their research without any a priori assumptionabout how evolution has occurred. Perhaps most significantly of all, there is now appearing a stream of articles and books defendingthe synthetic theory. "It is not so long ago that hardly anyone thought this was necessary." Ho, M.-W. & Saunders, P.T. (1984).Preface. Beyond Neo-Darwinism . (M.-W. Ho & P.T. Saunders eds.), p. ix.

[3] "While evolution may well be the thread that ties all of biology together, concern about the fabric of the subject seems to havehad little play in much of modern biology. There are professional biologists who would be indifferent ot the title and substance of Theodosious Dobzhansky's 1973 essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in Light of Evolution." Indeed, as I found the other

day, when speaking with a bright, and not-that-young, molecular geneticist, there are biologists out there who have never heard of Professor Dobzhansky. One can be a successful practitioner of many areas of contemporary biology without considering howorganisms, molecules or phenomena came to be or their descent relationships. A relative absence of interest in evolution prevails ina number of areas of biology, with high-tech molecular biology being the most prominent of them." Levin, B.R. (1984). Science as aWay of Knowing--Molecular Evolution. American Zoologist , 24, pp. 451-464. (p. 451).

[4] From The Williamsburg Charter , presented to the nation on June 25, 1988, the 200th anniversary of Virginia's call for the Bill of Rights.

Copyright © 1997 Mark Hartwig. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

This file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use. A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be appreciated.


6 3/6/2015 2


8/16

Guest Column in T h e S c i e n t i s t

The Scientist 5[4]:0, Feb. 18, 1991Opinion

Intolerance Threatens Every Scientist--Amateur Or Not

By Forrest M. Mims III

For more than 20 years I dreamed of some day becoming the writer of "The Amateur Scientist," the popular column in Scientific American that inspired me to become a science writer. After my dream came true, Scientific American revoked my assignment towrite the column because of my views on evolution and abortion.

The controversy over my dismissal from "The Amateur Scientist" has been characterized by irony. Were he alive today, Rufus Porter,the founding editor of Scientific American , would be fired from his own publication, for he advocated belief in "Creator God" in themagazine's premier issue in 1845. Since Porter actually wrote about God and I promised not to, his offense was infinitely more

embarrassing than mine.

Another irony is that the roots of "The Amateur Scientist" can be traced to the November 1925 issue, the cover of which proclaimed,"The Heavens Declare the Glory of God." This quotation from the Book of Psalms was the title of an article by Albert Ingalls thatpaved the way for a column on amateur astronomy that eventually became "The Amateur Scientist." Of course the ultimate irony is that Jonathan Piel, editor of Scientific American, continues to find himself the focus of the publicrelations nightmare he wanted to avoid. For more than a month, so many reporters, writers, and broadcasters called my office thatsometimes both telephone lines and the fax line would be ringing simultaneously.

Neither Piel nor I anticipated the intense barrage of criticism that would be leveled at Scientific American . In an eloquent letter toClaus-G. Firchow, the magazine's president, Lamar Hankins, executive director of the Texas Civil Liberties Union, wrote that themagazine's conduct was "grounded in the intolerance of another era, if not another century." He compared the magazine's actionwith McCarthyism and blacklisting.

The Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science sent me aletter that stated, "A person's private behavior or religious or political beliefs or affiliations should not serve as criteria in theevaluation of articles submitted for publication. We emphasize, in particular, the consensus of the Committee that even if a personholds religiously derived beliefs that conflict with views commonly held in the scientific community, those beliefs should not influencedecisions about publication of scientific articles unless the beliefs are reflected in the articles." The AAAS Committee on CouncilAffairs reviewed this letter and recently notified me that it states "the relevant AAAS principles."

Many other organizations as well as individual scientists have sent letters of support. An astronomer even offered to help defray theexpenses of a lawsuit. Laurence Tribe of Harvard University's law school and Nobel physicist Arthur Schawlow of Stanford University

voiced their concern in the press. And many editorials and columns castigated the magazine.

Prior to the magazine's revocation of my assignment to "The Amateur Scientist," no one at Scientific American ever questioned myqualifications. That's why I was surprised by the disparaging remarks about my qualifications that were made by several scientistsquoted in the press.

One said that as a believer in creationism I lack the credibility to write about science. Another suggested that I was attempting to"penetrate" mainline scientific organizations. During a nationally televised debate, an anthropologist who directs an anticreationistorganization questioned my competency.

To the best of my knowledge, none of these scientists read any of my works before making their judgments.

The controversy has received extensive media coverage, most of it fair and objective. Among the few exceptions was a newspapercolumn by Arthur Caplan of the University of Minnesota. "I think Mims deserved to be fired," Caplan wrote in his Dec. 10, 1990,column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. He also wrote, "I believe Mims is not qualified to write a regular column about science for thegeneral public."

After it received some 50 letters of protest from irate readers, the newspaper that printed this attack against my reputationresponded with a Dec. 29 editorial that chastised Scientific American. The Birmingham News, another newspaper that ran Caplan'scolumn, received so many protest letters that the editor called me to offer his apologies and then assigned a philosopher to write aneloquent rebuttal that appeared in the Dec. 19, 1990, edition. In a particularly unusual step, the wire service that distributedCaplan's column picked up a response I wrote for the Pioneer Press, which was published in the paper on Dec. 29.

I was so stunned by Caplan's attack that I called him and asked what he knew of my background and qualifications. He was totallyunaware that for 20 years I have earned a living by writing more than 50 books and many hundreds of articles and papers for some75 magazines, journals, and newspapers.

Caplan also didn't know that I have designed and assembled and have operated, virtually every day for 22 months, the only twoground-based total column ozone monitors between California and Florida at my latitude. He didn't know that my son and I haveused these miniature instruments to measure the column ozone between the base and crest of several mountains, and to measurethe column ozone from a moving vehicle over the width of a resolution element of the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS)aboard the Nimbus 7 while that satellite passes overhead.

Nor did Caplan know about any of my other projects, including the development of miniature infrared travel aids for the blind; aphotographic study of the life cycle of the black widow (Latrodectus mactans); an ongoing program to measure the sun's ultravioletradiation every day (32 months of data to date); the design of instruments to measure the near-infrared reflectance of soil, leaves,wood, and human skin; a study to identify Africanized bees by the frequency of their wing beat; measurements of the bounce rate of the black and yellow Argiope (A. aurantia) on its web; the dozens of instrumented rockets I have built and launched; hundreds of measurements of background radiation aboard commercial aircraft; and the numerous other investigations and projects I haveconducted in fields ranging from analog computers and digital controllers to optical fibers and laser communicators.

Even after learning about some of this work, Caplan still insists I should be prohibited from writing "The Amateur Scientist," sincebelief in intelligent design, meaning a universe created by God, means that I will selectively apply the scientific method. This swordcuts both ways, and it is Caplan who fails his own test. On what evidence does Caplan question my objectivity?

None. His claim is based solely on a religious stereotype unsupported by any evidence whatsoever from my writings. Had he takenthe time to examine them, he would have found that the articles and books about the electronic circuits, instruments, and computerprograms that I design, and the investigations in which they are used, clearly follow traditional scientific methods. Moreover, Idescribe these instruments and programs in sufficient detail so they can be duplicated by my readers. If they did not functionproperly, I would soon be out of the writing business.

Caplan mistakenly believes biology will be left out of "The Amateur Scientist" if I am returned to the column. He is completelyunaware that I live in the country and keep sheep, photograph wildflowers, collect fossils, observe wild bees, collect spider silk, andstudy the effects on the local ecology of imported fire ants.

Indeed, I was so concerned by the virtual absence of the life sciences from "The Amateur Scientist" over the past decade thatseveral biology topics were included among the 30 proposed columns that were accepted by Scientific American. My proposed topicsincluded an ultraviolet sunburn dosimeter, a study of eyeshine phenomenon, an investigation of amber, the reflectance spectroscopyof various plant materials, the electro-optical detection of pollen grains suspended in air, an investigation of spider webs, and thedesign of several prosthetic devices for the blind.

Even after they learned that I believe in the same Creator God espoused by their founding editor, no one on the staff at ScientificAmerican questioned my ability to write these and the many other columns I proposed. Instead, they expressed considerableenthusiasm, and Piel himself said more than once that I should have been hired 10 years earlier.

On what basis does Caplan conclude that advocates of intelligent design are unwilling to discuss biology in a magazine column? Is heunaware of their major contributions to biology and science over the centuries? Why is he so threatened by an amateur scientistwho builds instruments, writes books, and believes in God? On my desk are many letters of support from professional scientists,some of whom are biologists. Last year, 49 New York physicians signed a public declaration entitled "All Life is of Divine Origin." WillCaplan's next column call for the resignations of these scientists and physicians?


6 3/6/2015 2


9/16

In retrospect, it's apparent that Jonathan Piel had good reason to be worried about the Arthur Caplans of the scientific communitywhen he canceled my assignment to "The Amateur Scientist." Now that I've been subjected to some of their attacks, I can almostsympathize with Piel's plight. Even though he anticipated their reaction and dismissed me, to his credit he never once stooped todisparage my qualifications.

My lifetime ambition to write "The Amateur Scientist" was thwarted by scientific orthodoxy, not science. History teaches thatscientific orthodoxy is nothing new. Besides ruining careers and closing opportunities, its adherents slow progress by stiflingacademic freedom and chilling the free and open exchange of ideas. Because dissenters who are qualified to do science threaten thisorthodoxy, they are labeled as heretics, are publicly castigated, and are sometimes fired, much as I was.

No matter what their views on evolution and abortion, scientists and those who write about science should carefully consider theimplications for science in general and their own careers in particular if Scientific American goes unchallenged. For next theirpersonal beliefs may be questioned, their works censored, their reputation maligned, and their First Amendment rights denied.

Forrest M. Mims III has been a professional writer of books and articles about electronics, computers, and lasers since 1970. Heworks out of a small laboratory and office in Seguin, Texas.

The Scientist 5[4]:0, Feb. 18, 1991

© Copyright 1991, The Scientist, Inc. All rights reserved.

Censorship in Secular Science:The Mims Case

JERRY BERGMAN, PH. D.

Northwest Technical CollegeRoute 1, Box 246-A

Archbold, Ohio 43502

From: PSCF 45 (March 1993)

M ore and more frequently, those in science who are vocal about their objections to evolutionary naturalism as auniversal explanation for the living world will be likely to experience employment problems in the field, asdocumented elsewhere by this author (Bergman, 1984; 1991). One of the latest i n a recent string of cases involvesScientific American , the nation's oldest and most well-known popular science publication. The monthly magazinehas an international circulation of more than 650,000 subscribers and has been publishing since the middle 1800s.

This particular affair began in May of 1988 when Forrest Mims, III, a veteran science writer from Seguin, Texas, proposed to write the magazine's popular amateur science column. Mims' background includes the authorship of over sixty books on science and hundreds of magazines articles published in journals including Science Digest,Popular Mechanics, Modern Electronics, and National Geographic (Mims, 1990a). Mims' science books have

been published by Prentice-Hall, McGraw-Hill, Radio Shack and other mainline, respected firms (Eastland, 1991, p. 32; Mims, 1992c). He is also a regular columnist for several science magazines and is now the editor of a highlysuccessful science magazine Science Probe! (Sidney, 1990, p. 56). Of this new magazine, a review in Nature said:

Science Probe! is a cornucopia of delights for the amateur scientist and, I suspect, of real value also to the professional. It bears suchtreasures as the telephone number through which to obtain graphic images, in a format compatible with your personal computer,from the Hubble telescope; how to make an electrocardiogram; and how to encounter slime moulds in their natural habitat. It is

transdisciplinary and regards all science as open to the amateur.... Science is criticized by some philosophers as soulless and damaging. This may be true of that part of science which has become too serious, narrowly specialized and subject to the stricturesof scientific correctness;....How did we allow dogma to become respectable and speculation pejorative? I grew up in a sciencethinking that our task was to reduce science fiction to practice and have done my best to do so. I hope that Science Probe! flourishesand brings back science as something interesting that can be done at home (1992, p. 436).

The History of the Case

Forrest Mims first submitted a proposal to write Scientific American' s column, "The Amateur Scientist," in 1988(Hartwig, 1990, p. 6). He approached the magazine only after University of Cincinnati physics professor JerlWalker gave notice that he could no longer author the column (Gardner, 1991, p. 356). Mims' great interest in thiscolumn stems from his love for science which was originally awakened by this column. While still a young man,Mims dreamed that he would someday be its author. Later, C.L. Strong, the column's long time author, told Mims

before he died that Mims would someday be in charge of the column (Eastland, 1991, p. 32). It soon seemed thathis dream would come true: the Editor, Jonathan Piel, phoned in late July, 1989, asking Mims if he wanted to takeover "The Amateur Scientist" column (Eastland, 1991, p. 32). In late August 1989, Piel asked Mims to writeseveral sample columns—and in three weeks, three 3000 word pieces were submitted (Mims, 1991a; 1990; 1990b;1990c).

Piel then invited Mims to come to New York to discuss the details of doing the column. Things went extremelywell, Mims recalls, until Piel asked what other publications he had written articles for. Only then did the Christianmagazines that Mims once wrote for come up, provoking the question: "What did you write about for thesemagazines?" The answer was, "Bicycling trips and aerial photography" (Eastland, 1991, p. 34). Mims did not thenknow the repercussions that would ensue from the serious mistake that he made in mentioning these articles.

Nothing that he had written was even remotely related to the topic of creationism, but the fact that Mims had written for Christian magazines obviously disturbed Piel (Kincaid, 1990). After the Editor inquired as to exactlywhat he had written for Christian magazines, Piel pointedly asked him his major concern: "Do you accept Darwin'stheory of evolution?" (Hartwig, 1990, p. 6). Mims responded that he did not, an answer that was the beginning of the end.

From then on, "Piel's attitude toward him changed dramatically" (Hartwig, 1990, p. 6). Piel informed Mims that hewould not be allowed to write anything for any publication that Scientific American objected to. Piel wasspecifically concerned about articles on the subject of creation or against evolution or anti-abortion pieces. Mimswas warned that if an outside article was published without Scientific American 's prior review and permission, hewould face a pay cut or dismissal (Sidey, 1990, p. 56). Mims pointed out in response that he has never used his


6 3/6/2015 2


10/16

writing to promote his creationist beliefs, nor would he do so in the future (Mims, 1992a). To insure that heconformed to this demand, Piel continued to insist that all of Mims' outside writings must be reviewed by Scientific

American prior to their publication elsewhere.

Soon after he returned home, Mims submitted his initial three columns. Several months later, however, Mims wasagain questioned by Piel and another editor about his views on abortion and related topics. Actually, Mims notes,abortion and his Christianity were also major issues. He writes:

Gardner's defense of his former employer, Scientific American , is misplaced. He knows that to this day the magazine's staff remainsdivided over the issue ... [of if I should have been terminated and] that I was asked more about abortion and my Christian faith thanabout evolution. He also knows about the duplicity of the magazine's editor, who denied his promise to buy and publish three of mycolumns. The columns were published only after the magazine's president intervened. Moreover, in Gardner's first report about thisunfortunate matter, even he cited the transcript in Harper's (March 1991) in which the following exchange appears:

MIMS: Prior to the visit to your offices, there was never even a hint that religion would become an issue.

PIEL: Forrest, come on, that's why I had the meeting with you (Mims, 1992b, p. 444).

Piel again expressed his concern that the reputation of Scientific American could suffer if Mims openly supported in some way the views of the anti-abortion movement or was critical of evolution. When Piel specifically asked,"Are you a fundamentalist Christian?" (a label he does not accept)—Mims objected to the obviously illegalquestion. He responded, "I will not be discriminated against" (Sidey, 1990, p. 56).

Scientific American then published the three columns that Mims had prepared, but only after the magazine's president intervened and on condition that Mims signed a written agreement waiving all of his rights to obtain legalredress from the magazine for religious discrimination (Truehart, 1990; Mims, 1992b, p. 444). The agreement withScientific American specifically stated that Mims would not pursue legal action to rectify the religiousdiscrimination he experienced. Mims was then dropped as a writer, and rather than ri sk a law suit, the editors thendecided to permanently drop the column which, with the threat of a lawsuit past, has since been resumed. They

probably reasoned that, in order to win a discrimination suit, Mims must show only that someone less qualified who is not of his religious persuasion was hired—and if no one was hired, a suit would not have much chance inthe courts (Eastland, 1991, p. 32). The column began in 1952 when Mims was eight years old, and it seemed for

several months that Mims would have the honor of having the last byline in the column's long history.A concern over the blatant discrimination that was occurring caused Mims to surreptitiously record one of hisconversations with Piel, who stated on tape, "what you have written is first rate ... it's the public relationsnightmare that's keeping me awake" (B. Davis, 1990). Excerpts of the transcript of much of this now famous thirtyminute call were published in Harper's Magazine (March 1991, pp. 28-332). The editor's concern was not Mims'writing, but primarily the reaction of the scientific community to Scientific American employing a non-believer inmegaevolution and that the critics of evolutionism could use Mims to advance their position (Eastland, 1991, p. 34;B. Davis, 1990). In a phone call the next day and later formally in a letter, Piel then terminated all further discussions of the possibility of Mims ever being a contributor to the pages of the magazine.

Few if any of the events in this case are in dispute. However, when contacted by various reporters, Piel actuallystated, " Scientific American does not discriminate on any basis. We have not and never will." Both Piel and twoformer editors have openly stated that the reason Mims did not continue in the assignment was not because of hisqualifications, but his personal religious conclusions and beliefs. Tom Appenzeller, currently science editor of TheSciences , said that there was, "no question about [Mims'] competence." At issue was the "public relations" aspectof a creationist being connected with the magazine (Sidey, 1990, p. 56). Appenzeller stated that the magazine'sconcern "was specifically his beliefs about evolution and his rejection of Darwinian selection" (Sidey, 1990, p. 56).And as Jukes (1991c, p. 12) noted, in view of this conflict due to religion, might Mims "not feel at home as amember of the staff of Scientific American ?" The blatant bigotry that this statement evidenced was not perceived

by Jukes: would Scientific American condone not hiring a Jew, giving the reason that he might "not feel at home asa member of the staff?"

Because he still would like to do the column, Mims has since tried to discuss this situation with Scientific American , but the magazine's attorneys have responded in writing, stating that "the publication has ended all business contacts" with him (Sidey, 1990, p. 56). They have even reportedly written to his other editors and tried to persuade them not to publish Mims' work. (Fortunately all of these editors refused to cave in to this bigotry.) AsEastland, (1991, p. 34) notes:

Mims knows that if had never volunteered that he'd written a few pieces for Christian magazines—on some awfully tamesubjects—he'd be writing the "Amateur Scientist" today....Even more striking than Mims telling the editor of Scientific Americanthat he is a Christian was his failure to confess, when asked about it point blank, to the theory of evolution. This was more than a

breach of etiquette—it was heresy.

Mims does not describe himself as a fundamentalist, but as an evangelical Christian (Truehart, 1990; 1990a). His

views on evolution and creation are not clear cut: he accepts microevolution and his definition of creationism issimply "the doctrine that God created the world or universe" (Denini, 1990, p. 2b; Weisberg, 1990, p. 47). In hisown words, he believes only that the universe was designed by God, and he has not published any details about his

beliefs. In personal conversations Mims has made it clear that his interests and knowledge is in the amateur sciencefield, not the nuances of creationism (Mims, 1990e; 1991a). Gardner (1991, p. 357) concluded that Mims "is not a`young earther' who thinks the universe was created about 10,000 years ago. He allows that individual species werecreated at intervals over long periods of time, [and] the `days' of Genesis are not to be taken as 24-hour-time-spans." Those that I have talked to conclude that he would probably be more at home in ASA than either theInstitute for Creation Research or the Creation Research Society.

Of course his actual beliefs are in fact largely irrelevant; what is relevant is the label forced upon him. Many havecharged that he cannot do science and is trying to inject pseudoscience in his work, a charge to which Mimsresponds as follows:

The editorial then purports to explain "the firing of Mims" by contending that "the real reason was that creationists substitute whatthey call `creation science' for conventional science." This conclusion completely contradicts explanations given by Piel ( Harper's1991) and former editors at the magazine, ... all whom expressed great interest in my work and who were more than pleased with


16 3/6/2015 2


11/16

the columns I wrote for them (e.g., Abernathy 1990; National Public Radio 1990; Sharpe, 1990; The New York Times 1990;Weiman, 1990; Harper's Magazine , 1991). Moreover, the editorial fails to identify a single example in my published writings,including my three columns for Scientific American (Mims, 1990a), in which I have not practiced conventional science (Mims,1992a, p. 1).

Stereotyping and Mislabeling

That the problem was less his beliefs than the labeling process—which can be vicious and is usually applied to awide variety of positions, often to anyone in science who does not with wholesale enthusiasm embrace atheisticevolution—is clear from the general studies on this subject (Numbers, 1992; Eve and Harrold, 1991; Smith, 1990).The crux of the matter, in Eastland's (1991, p. 34) words, is that "the beliefs of evolutionary biologists imply a

philosophical system that excludes a creator. Thus, for them, theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms; thealternatives are two and only two: creation or evolution, God or not God." Most of those who label themselvescreationists and have been active publishing in the controversy do not identify with the Institute for CreationResearch or the other groups which have been stereotyped as representing creationists (Morris, 1984; Numbers,1992; P. Johnson, 1991). As Mims notes, critics often cite a "mock inquisition that demonstrates a stereotypical,

prejudiced view of what creationists believe" (1992a, p. 2).

Many scientists have openly and actively supported the actions of Scientific American has taken in regards toMims. (Lewis, 1992; King, 1991; Weinberg, 1991). As Arthur Caplan concludes:

Forrest Mims is a competent writer and amateur scientist. But his personal beliefs about creation limit what he can and cannot tellhis readers about all the nooks and crannies of science. They also distort the picture he conveys regarding what sciencemethodology is all about. It is a hard line to draw, but Forrest Mims and others who espouse a belief in creation and reject thescientific standing of evolution are on the wrong side of the line (1991, p. 13).

In response to this line of reasoning, Eastland (1991, p. 34) notes "The Forrest Mims story ultimately comes downto the remarkable influence that Darwinian fundamentalism has on institutions of science like Scientific American.The doctrine of evolution is what's `politically correct,' and woe betide those who express dissent." As P. Johnson

put it:

Mims was sent packing because his very presence was perceived as a threat to Darwin's theory of evolution. Even if he never published a word abou t evolution, creationists might have cited him as a well-informe d skeptic. If they did, angry Darwinists would

cancel their subscriptions—and Scientific American knows who butters its bread. So Mims became a casualty in a religious war.Many Darwinists insist that people like Mims have to be kept out of science because their skepticism about evolution is inconsistentwith scientific objectivity. One biology professor who defended the magazine's action reasoned that "I would be against having sucha person writing a column, because at the base, this philosophy could enter everything one does in science (1990, p. B7).

A major difference between the Mims case and the many others in this modern religious battle between scientistsand Christian theodicy is the enormous amount of favorable publicity that Mims has received. Most cases of thistype—and there are thousands—receive either no publicity or extremely limited publicity. The many mainline,respected publications that have run articles about the Mims imbroglio range from the Wall Street Journal , NewYork Times , to The Washington Post, and scores of others (Holden, 1990). Mims has also been on numerous talk shows and has given scores of radio interviews and television and personal appearances, including on CNN and national television. The wire services picked up the story, and "some one-thousand radio stations amplified Mims'complaint" Eastland (1991, p. 34). Mims also stated to me that he found the secular press far more supportive thanthe Christian news media.

Part of the reason that this case has generated so much publicity is that, according to Mims, "virtually all" of thereporters he talked to are "very sensitive" to the freedom of press issues involved. Eastland (1991, p. 34),concludes that a major reason for the support by reporters is because of the obvious fear that "this could happen to

them too."

Support for Mims From the Academic Community

What is also unusual is the support that he has received from mainline scientists (Keleher, 1991; R. Johnson, 1990).The American Association for the Advancement of Science: Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibilityheaded by Sheldon Krimsky, compiled a report on the Mims case, which stated in part that

...articles submitted for publication to journals devoted to science, technology and medicine should be judged exclusively on their scientific merit ... a person's private behavior, religious or political beliefs or affiliations should not serve as criteria in the evaluationof articles submitted for publication. We emphasize in particular, the consensus of the committee that even if a person holdsreligiously derived beliefs that conflict with the views commonly held in the scientific community, those beliefs should notinfluence publication of science articles unless the beliefs are reflected in the articles (Krimsky, 1990; Truehart, 1990).

Lemar Hankins, acting director of the Texas ACLU, likened the magazine's treatment of Mims to McCarthyism(Abernathy, 1990, p. 2; 1990a, 1990b). Admittedly, Scientific American possessed a genuine concern: a realisticfear of the effects on the magazine due to the intolerance commonly found in the scientific community to atheological world view (P. Johnson, 1990). According to Abernathy (1990, p. 2) "former Scientific Americaneditors Timothy Appenzeller and Armand Schwab, Jr. told the Chronicle earlier that Piel feared Mims' hiring could

create ill will among biologists and other scientists who believe in evolution." Potjewyd compared Mims to other religious scientists, concluding:

We have been raised to believe that we are free to practice our beliefs and still be allowed to work together, at least within science,with people whose belief systems are different from our own. The system is not supposed to enforce a litmus test of beliefs, nor canit force Mims to score a passing grade on a test of correct scientific opinions. Imagine what would have happened to Isaac Newtonif he had been forced to accept the current opinion about what influences planetary motion as a condition of acceptance of the postof mathematics professor at Cambridge.

Most of Newton's manuscripts on religion were long concealed from the world's notice. Of the major nonscientific works now in print, only one, the Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, was prepared for the press by Newton himself. For 200 years, mostof Newton's religious manuscripts were suppressed because it was believed that Newton's beliefs would tarnish his image as ascientific genius. Would Newton's personal beliefs have prevented him from working as a science writer at Scientific American ?

I, as a scientist, know that I do not have to judge the worth of another person's value system as an indication of his or her knowledgeof science or skill at handling the job of science writer, as was Mims' lot. Scientists leave this to a "Higher Authority." Scientific

American cannot afford to. What this should tell us is that Scientific American is not very scientific and not very American (1991, p.12).


16 3/6/2015 2


12/16

Piel himself specifically stated that the association of an evolutionism non-believer with the magazine "could harmthe cause of science and alienate crucial groups of authors or readers" (Truehart, 1990, p. 6). Piel correctlyrecognized that the scientific community would not take lightly to them allowing a non-believer in evolutionism toauthor articles for the magazine, and many would be likely to boycott it (Nutting and Nutting, 1991). Jukes openlystated "the actual reason" Mims was released by Scientific American "was because he was a creationist" (1991a, p.1).

As Gardner, another Scientific American editor, adds, "from a PR standpoint, having a creationist write regularlyfor the magazine would become increasingly embarrassing" (1991, p. 357). To explain his position he uses theexample of medical journal considering someone to write a column about nutrition, then discovering that the

person is a naturopath who did not believe that germs cause disease, or Sky and Telescope assigning someone towrite a column on how to make or buy telescopes, and then finding that the author did not believe that the Sunrevolves around the Earth. Gardner (1991, p. 358) concludes that in both of these cases the writer might be wellinformed about nutrition or telescopes, but the magazine would be fully justified in not allowing them to write toavoid facing ridicule. While these examples may be somewhat strained if not unrealistic, no world view is fullyobjective, and as a University of California at Berkeley law scholar notes, science has today been strangled bynaturalistic Darwinism:

In Darwinist hands, however, science includes a philosophical bias that is essentially religious in character. Darwinists begin byassuming that science excludes the possibility of a creator. They conclude that purely material processes (like random mutation and selection) must have created all the wonders of the living world, because nothing else was available to do the job. (P. Johnson,1990:B7)

For this reason many of Mims' supporters feel that Gardener's analogy is not only invalid, but that it is an unethical"guilt by association" ploy. Gardner quotes University of Maryland physicist Robert Park, who stated that Mimshas "established that he doesn't have credibility to write about science" if he rejects evolutionism. This illustratesthe common attitude among scientists on the subject of origins (Truehart, 1990; 1990a). Poll after poll finds abouthalf of all Americans are conservative creationists, and further over 20% of all biology teachers and professors donot accept evolutionism. As Milner notes:

According to a 1982 Gallup Poll, the American public is almost evenly divided between those who believed that God created manin his present form in a single act of creation in the last 10,000 years and those who believe in evolution or an evolutionary processinvolving God. Although the Gallup organization did not conduct a follow-up study, a more recent survey of beliefs among acollegiate population was made in 1986 by social scientists at the University of Texas. Nearly 1,000 students at five colleges wereasked whether they accepted certain propositions as true, including the story of Adam and Eve. A surprisingly large majority, 60

percent, of the students in the survey said the y do believe that "Adam and Eve were creat ed by God as the first two people." If thestudy is accurate, a higher proportion of the college-educated Americans believe the Adam and Eve story than the general

population polled by Gallup fou r years earlier (1990, p. 100).

Gardner assumes his analogy is valid because he believes that naturalism evolutionism is a fact, and, as an EricHofferian true believer, he refuses to consider any other world view. Gardner, who was "raised a fundamentalist,"evidently had a bad experience with religion or religious people, and now calls himself a "philosophical theist"(1991, p. 357). He concludes that God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe or anything in it,including humans. God is presumably like an army general who takes over a thriving village and claims thevillage's successes as its own. Likewise, after the universe evolved by its own forces, God decided to steal thecredit for its many wonders.

The Central Role of Religion in the Case

Ironically, Gardner steadfastly claims that it was not Mims' religion that ruined his career at Scientific American , but only his beliefs about evolution. Yet he states:

"... it would be interesting to see if Mims ever has the courage to write an article on say, how amateur scientists can build equipmentfor testing (by any of several different techniques) the ages of fossils and human artifacts, or will he, like a good Southern Baptist ,carefully avoid any topic that might provide support for the theory that fundamentalists believe to be the work of Satan?" (Emphasisadded).

And Gardner adds, "although he [Mims] prefers to call himself an evangelical, Mims is a Southern Baptistfundamentalist" (1991, p. 358; 357). Gardner here makes it clear that Mims' beliefs about evolution are an integral

part of his religion, and that he was not hired because of those beliefs , then makes the astounding claim that "it wasnot Mims' religion" that caused his problems (1991, p. 357). Mims, in response to Gardner, insists he is not afundamentalist, but an evangelical and that there is a "significant difference between the two" (Mims, 1992b, p.444). Gardner then concludes that "it is unlikely that either Cal Thomas or Forrest Mims will ever go back tocollege—fundamentalist colleges like Jerry Falwell's exempted—to take geology 101 and change their mindsabout evolution" (1991, p. 358). As explained by P. Johnson, the Mims episode

... shows us that science is beset by religious fundamentalism—of two kinds. One group of fundamentalists—the Biblical creation-scientists—has been banished from mainstream science and education and has no significant influence. Another group hasenormous clout in science and science education, and is prepared to use it to exclude people they consider unbelievers. Theinfluential fundamentalists are called Darwinists (1990, p. 12).

Smith (1990) calls professors with this unreasonable hostility against religion "academic fundamentalists," and Frair has concluded that "the scientific enterprise itself is weakened by the type of intolerance and censorshipevidenced by the staff of Scientific American " (1992, p. 157).

A Response to This Situation

Eastland (1991, p. 34) has concluded that had it not been for religious bigotry,

"Forrest Mims would be writing today the column he so clearly would have been good at. Scientific American's worry about `a possible inadvertent linking' of Mim s' beliefs `with the good name of this magazine' is irrational unless one irrationally assumes thatits readership is also irrational."

He adds that "the Mims affair has demonstrated the `public relations nightmare' a magazine can have when it actslike Scientific American ." The solution to the problem, as stated in broad terms by Flesher (1990, p. 12) a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, is "to resist the impulse toexclude, a priori , any competent scientist from contributing work or comment in open publication, discussion, and debate. Science is about knowing, it is not about believing."


16 3/6/2015 2


13/16

The wider importance of this controversy is that

... millions of people in oppressed lands would consider themselves truly blessed if the worst thing that could happen to them wasdenial of employment at one bigoted firm. But ... this is the only country that professes such an intolerance of discrimination ....Against that buffoonishly self-righteous background comes the case of a man denied employment for the most pernicious reason of all: his private inner beliefs. In Mims' 20 years as a science writer, he has not brought up, even once, the creationism he believes in.And there is certainly no reason to believe he would have mentioned the unmentionable in any employment at the close-minded Scientific American. Indeed, it appears his private beliefs were revealed only as a result of an intrusive employment interview....What, Mims asked incredulously, does this have to do with my writing articles on such things as how amateurs can measure thelength of lightning bolts, or build a solar observatory. As this is being written and read, cataclysmic reforms are taking place in theSoviet Union. For all we know, they may presently be enacting legislation making it a crime to discriminate on the basis of anindividual's inner beliefs—or even to ask about them as a condition of employment. Just the thought of such potential monumentalembarrassment to this nation should make every concerned American drop whatever he or she is doing and rally to the cause of Forrest M. Mims 3rd (Freedman, 1990, p. 10).

Mims' track record should speak for itself, but in this case something else obviously spoke far louder (Keleher,1991; Taylor, 1991). As Mims put it, Scientific American judged him on his beliefs, not for what he can do(Truehart, 1990). Art Salsberg, the editor of Modern Electronics and one who knows Mims' record, stated in aneditorial that when filling out directories for writers that list their publication needs and their article requirements,"I have never come across a question related to anything personal, such as religious beliefs, political leanings, ..."(1991, p. 5). And as for the work of Forrest Mims, which he has long been familiar with, Salsberg said,

"it seems that Scientific American 's editor feared that he would be embarrassed if other people found out about Forrest's beliefs and tried to exploit the fact that he was writing for the publication. Now that's paranoid, at best, I think, given the subject matter thatForrest writes about."

Salsberg adds, "that Mims' personal beliefs have nothing to do with the work he does," noting that two other regular Modern Electronics writers also "share his private beliefs" and that whether one is a creationist is "simplynot a consideration here for accepting or rejecting anyone's articles (1991, p. 5). For many scientific journals,though, it is obviously very important— Scientific American even refuses paid ads for all creationists' publications(Frair, 1992).

Mims agrees with Salsberg, noting that:

Gardner also ridiculed the fact that I am editor of Science Probe! —[what he calls a] "a handsome new science magazine."Scientific writings stand or fall on their own merit. Would Gardner reject the writings of Galileo, Newton, Bacon, Kepler,Linnaeus, Pasteur, and a host of others because of their abiding faith in God? Would he have written for Scientific

American had he known its founding editor, Rufus Porter, advocated in its pages belief in a Creator God?

What is puzzling about all this is that Gardner has assured me that he, too, believes in a "creator God" who is also a"personal God." Although Gardner believes God created life through evolution, he has also assured me that his theismdoes not preclude the possibility that God is capable of creating life spontaneously and without evolution (Mims, 1992b, p.444-445).

An interesting comparison of Science Probe! with Scientific American was made by Lovelock:

... neither the journals of science nor the news media have commented on the colours of the night sky since the eruption of Pinatubo.[Yet]... Pinatubo and the night sky were covered in the new magazine Science Probe! . An informative article answered many of myquestions, and even showed how to estimate the height of the aerosol layer from the length of time colours lingered after sunset.This journal brings back a world of which science was a familiar part. For me it recalled an altogether lighter and more friendlyScientific American , read with joy in the public library at Brixton, south London, 60 years ago. Such reading and amateur experiments led me to a fulfilling life in the vocation of science, reading that was the antidote to the scientifically correct but utterlydull teaching of my grammar school. Science taught then, as now, was mere knowledge needed to pass exams (1992, p. 436).

Mims is only one of many persons who were labeled "creationist" and consequently were locked out of their

scientific publishing positions. The Editor of Scientific American also refused to "give Dr. [Phillip] Johnson spaceto respond to a rancorous and sulking four-page review of his book by Stephen J. Gould,* despite the urging of numerous fair minded scientists" (Buell, 1992, p. 2). Professor P. William Davis, the author of several best sellingcollege biology textbooks, including The World of Biology, Human Anatomy and Physiology and several others,was dropped by Saunders College Publishing Company as an author when the scientific community complained toSaunders because he had co-authored another book that alluded to the need for a designer to explain the naturalworld (P. W. Davis, 1988; Solomon et al, 1983). The other book, Of Pandas and People, (P. W. Davis, et al, 1989;see also Frair and P. W. Davis, 1983) resulted in the end of Davis' highly successful career as a college biologytextbook author. Many do succeed, because as Pittman concluded, it is difficult to even determine the number of creationists in academia because "few creationists are willing to risk their jobs by 'outing' their principles in thisclimate" (1992, p. 9).

©1993. Reprinted from http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF3-93Bergman.html with the permission of Dr. Bergman.

* Phillip Johnson's response to Gould's review follows this article.

REFERENCES

Abernathy, Joe. "Journal's Firing of Creationist Draws Fire." Houston Chronicle, Oct. 23, 1990.

______. "Religious Belief Creates Controversy; Creationism View Hits Sour Note With Scientific Journal." Metropolitan ( Houston Chronicle ) Oct. 8, 1990a (A-11, 17).

______. "Scientists, ACLU Take Up Creationist's Cause; Writer Called Victim of Blacklisting." HoustonChronicle, Oct. 30, 1990b (Front page, Section 2).

Anonymous. "Mims Loses Magazine Job Over Religious Belief." The Texas Aggie , Dec. 1990 (20).

______. "Cast-Off Creationist Talks Back." The Scientist , Nov. 12, 1990 (4).

______. "Hire a Creationist? A Nonbeliever in Darwin? Not a Proud Science Journal." The New York Times(National Edition), Oct. 24, 1990 (A18).

______. "Seguin Science Writer Charges Creationist Views Cost Him Job." Science San Antonio Light , Oct. 28,


16 3/6/2015 2


14/16

1990 (A4).

______. " Scientific American intended to hire Forrest Mims, III to write..." National Review, Nov. 19, 1990 (13).

______. " Scientific American Refuses to Hire Man Who Believes in Creation." CSA News, Jan., 1991.

Associated Press. "Creationist Claims Magazine Jilted Him; Seguin Man: Scientific American Reneged." Austin American-Statesman, Oct. 26, 1990.

Atkinson, Daniel E. Opinion in "Readers React to the Forrest Mims-Arthur Caplan Debate." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 9, April 29, 1991 (12).

Bartz, Paul. (Pulse); Bible-Science Newsletter, Feb. 1991 (13).

Bergman, Jerry. The Criterion. Omnibus Publishing Company, 1984.

______. Opinion in "Readers React to the Forrest Mims-Arthur Caplan Debate." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 9, April29, 1991 (12).

Bogart, Greg. "Accepting Theories." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 23, Nov. 25, 1991 (14).

Buckley, William (ed.). Editorial in National Review , Nov. 19, 1990 (13).

Buell, Jon. Foundation for Thought and Ethics Newsletter. Sept. 1992, p. 1-2.

Caplan, Arthur. "Creationist's Belief Precludes Credibility on Science Issues." The Scientist, Vol. 5, No. 4, Feb. 18,1991 (11-13).

______. "Mims, Caplan; Respond to Reader's Letters." The Scientist. May 13, 1991a (14, 25).

Danini, Carmina. "Seguin Writer Raps Magazine." San Antonio, TX: Express-News, Oct. 26, 1990 (2-B).

Davis, Bob. " Scientific American Drops Plans to Hire Columnist Who Believes in Creationism." Wall Street

Journal , New York Edition, Oct. 22, 1990.

Davis, Percival William and Dean H. Kenyon. Of Pandas and People; The Central Question of BiologicalOrigins. Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing Co., 1989.

______ and Eldra Pearl Solomon. The World of Biology , 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1986.

de Camp, L. Sprague. "The Mims Affair." Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 16, Summer 1992, p. 444.

Dengroove, Richard A. "The Mims Affair." Skeptical Inquirer , Vol. 16, Winter, 1992 (217-218).

Doolan, Robert (ed). "Science Magazine Refuses to Hire Creationists." Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 13, No. 2,Mar-Apr, 1991 (16-17).

Eastland, Terry. " Scientific American on Trial." (Presswatch Column) American Spectator, Feb. 1991 (32-35).

Eve, Raymond A. and Francis B. Harrold. The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Boston: TwaynePublishers. 1991.

Felt, Robert. "The Mims Affair at Scientific American ." Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 15, No. 4, Summer 1991(345-347).

Flesher, James W. "Conflict of Ethics." Opinion in The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 14, July 8, 1991 (12).

Flynn, Kevin. Opinion in "Readers React to the Forrest Mims-Arthur Caplan Debate." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 9,April 29, 1991 (12).

Frair, Wayne and William Percival Davis. A Case For Creation , 3rd Ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1983.

Frair, Wayne. "Is Scientific American Scientific?" Creation Research Society Quarterly , Mar. 1992, Vol. 28, No. 4(156-157).

Freedman, C.H. "Evolutionist Thought-Police Jeopardize America's Prestige." New York City Tribune. Oct. 26,1990 (10).

Gardner, Martin. "Cal Thomas, the Big Bang, and Forrest Mims." Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 15, Summer 1991(355-358).

______. "Martin Gardner Replies." Skeptical Inquirer , Vol. 16, Winter, 1992 (216).

Hankins, Lamar W. (Acting Director, Texas Civil Liberties Union) Letter to Claus G. Firchow of Scientific American , Oct. 30, 1990.

Hartwig, Mark. "Defending Darwinism: How Far is Too Far?" Origins Research , 1990 (6-7).

______. Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal (New York Ed.), Nov. 9, 1990a.

______. "Science Magazine's Defenders Can't Justify Firing of Columnist." (Other Voices) in The Birmingham News. Dec. 19, 1990b (11A).

______. Opinion in "Readers React to the Forrest Mims-Arthur Caplan Debate." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 9, April29, 1991 (12).

______. "Occupational Hazards." Moody Monthly , Vol. 92, No. 2, Oct. 1991a, pp. 70-73.

Hearn, Walter R. Opinion in "Readers React to the Forrest Mims-Arthur Caplan Debate." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No.


16 3/6/2015 2


15/16

9, April 29, 1991 (14).

Holden, Constance (ed.). "Creationist Writer Cries Foul." Science, Vol. 250, Nov. 9, 1990 (752).

Johnson, Phillip E. "Unbelievers Unwelcome in the Science Lab; Evolution: Darwinists are really fundamentalistswho would use their enormous clout to exclude creationists." (Commentary) in Los Angeles Times, Nov. 3, 1990, p.B7.

______. Darwin on Trial. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway and InterVarsity Press, 1991.

______. "Response to Jukes." Journal of Molecular Evolution , Vol. 34, 1992 (93-94).

Johnson, Richard J.V. (Chair. and Publ.), et al. "Blacklist Specter." (Editorial) in Houston Chronicle, Nov. 2, 1990(28A).

Jukes, Thomas H. Opinion in "Readers React to the Forrest Mims-Arthur Caplan Debate." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 9, April 29, 1991 (14).

______. "Creationism vs. Scientific American. Journal of Molecular Evolution , Vol. 33, 1991a (1-2).

______. "The Persistent Conflict." Journal of Molecular Evolution , Vol. 22, 1991b (205-206).

______. "The Creation Controversy." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 15, July 22, 1991c (12).

______. "Creationists' Beliefs." The Scientist , Vol. 6, No. 2, June 20, 1992 (14).

Keleher, Leardon. "Give Mims A Chance." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 16, Aug. 19, 1991 (12).

Kincaid, Cliff. "Secularism Encroaches Further into Private Life; Scientific American Suppresses Science byChristians." Human Events, Dec. 1, 1990 (10).

King, Julia. "The Mims Case: Defending Science or Persecuting Religion?" The Scientist , Feb. 18, 1991 (11).

Krimsky, Sheldon. (Chair, Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility.) Report on Forrest M. Mims, III.,Oct. 29, 1990.

Leguire, L. E. "Defining A Theory." The Scientist , Vol. 6, No. 3, Feb. 3, 1992 (12).

Lewis, Ralph W. "Embedded Theories." The Scientist , Vol. 6, No. 7, Mar. 30, 1992 (12).

Lovelock, James. "Bringing It All Back Home." Nature , Vol. 359, Oct. 1, 1992 (436).

Miller, David (Secretary, Jews for Morality) and Sigmund Friedman (Fellow, American Board of Allergy and Immunology). Letter to Mark Frankel, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Oct. 25, 1990.

Milner, Richard. The Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York, NY: (Facts on File), 1990.

Mims, Forrest M. "Sunspots and How To Observe Them Safely." (The Amateur Scientist) in Scientific American ,June, 1990 (130-134).

______. A Complaint Concerning Religious Discrimination at Scientific American. Seguin, TX: Aug. 27, 1990a(1-8).

______. "How To Monitor Ultraviolet Radiation From the Sun." (The Amateur Scientist) in Scientific American ,Aug. 1990b (106-110).

______. "A Remote-Control Camera That Catches the Wind and Captures the Landscape." (The Amateur Scientist) in Scientific American , Oct. 1990c (126-130).

______. Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal (New York Ed.), Nov. 9, 1990d.

______. Letter to Jerry Bergman dated Dec. 13, 1990e.

______. "Intolerance Threatens Every Scientist—Amateur or Not." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 4, Feb. 18, 1991 (11,13).

______. "Forrest Mims Responds." Origins Research , Spring-Summer, 1991a (12).

______. "Mims' and Caplan's Responses." The Scientist. May 13, 1991b (14, 25).

______. "Mims Responds." The Scientist , Vol. 5, No. 21, Oct. 28, 1991c (12).

______. "A Response to Martin Gardner." Skeptical Inquirer , Vol. 16, Winter 1992 (200-201)

______. "A Response to Thomas H. Jukes. Journal of Molecular Evolution , Vol. 34, 1992a (p. 1-2).

______. "Mims' Final Response to Martin Gardner." Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 16, Sum. 1992b, pp. 444-445.

______. "Published Works of Forrest M. Mims, III." 1992c.

______, Jane M. Hutterly, Michael R. Deland and T.P. Donahue, Jr. "The Dreaded Ozone Hole." Wall Street Journal , March 10, 1992d, p. A19, col. 1.

Moody, J. Ward. "The Mims Affair." Skeptical Inquirer , Vol. 16, Winter 1992 (216-217).

Morris, Henry M. The History of Modern Creationism. San Diego, CA: Master Books, 1984.

Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. New York: Alfred A. Knoff, 1992.


16 3/6/2015 2


16/16

Nutting, Dave and Mary J. Nutting. "He's A Creationist? Yikes." Think and Believe, Vol. 8, No. 2, Mar-Apr. 1991,(1, 2).

Orrick, P. The New York Press , Mar 6-12, 1991.

Piel, Jonathan. "Science's Litmus Test." (Excerpts from his telephone call to Forrest M. Mims, III). Harper's Magazine, Vol. 282, March, 1991 ( 28-32).

Pittman, Thomas. "Bona Fide Creationists." Origins Research , Vol. 14, No. 2, 1992 (3,9).

Potjewyd, John. "Belief Systems." The Scientist, Vol. 5, No. 17, Sept. 2, 1991 (12).

Resnick, Mason. "Up, Up and Away!" (Aerial ph

Documents

Forrest Mdf