From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: creationism funding (was Re: Probability / Attrition)
Date: 18 Dec 92 04:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <8007@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes...
> 
>David Rice writes:
> [much other stuff by Bales which I disagree with deleted]
>>the Creationists are much better funded,
> 
>I doubt that.  If you look at some of the organizations against creationism:
> 
>    People for the American Way
>    American Humanist Association (I think the name is right)
>    ACLU
>    Omni Magizine (I think) who recommended a write in campaign to Congress
>       (?) to preserve the freedom of thinking for oneself which is the result
>       of teaching one theory of origins and to oppose the censorship which
>       would result from teaching two.
>    Scientific American -- who did not hire Forrest Mims for a job unrelated
>       to biology because he is a creationist

None of these organizations are primarily "anti-creationist."  They
occasionally involve themselves in some anti-creationist activity.  The
only organization I know of which is devoted primarily to arguing against
creationists is the National Center for Science Education, and the only
publication I know of which is devoted primarily to arguing against
creationism is the _Creation/Evolution_ journal (and its companion
newsletter, _NCSE Reports_).  On the other hand, there are several
large organizations (much larger and much better funded than the NCSE)
which are devoted entirely to promulgating creationism:  the Institute
for Creation Research, the Bible-Science Association, the Creation
Research Society, the Creation Science Foundation, and so on.  If you
are going to count all of the above organizations as "anti-creationist,"
then you should also count every church which holds creationist seminars
or gives creationist sermons, organizations such as Focus on the Family
and so on.

>How about the authors of:
> 
>     _The Blind Watchmaker_
>     _Scientists Confront Creationism_
>     _Abusing Science_
>     _The Encyclopedia of Science and Creationism_ (? exact title)
>     _The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism_
>     _Science on Trial_
>     _Evolution and the Myth of Creationism_
>     etc.
> 
>Didn't they get paid?

Shall we compare total sales to the Master Books catalog?

>It all comes down to this.  If you have *objective, verified* information
>that shows creationism to be wrong, then show it to be wrong, and it will
>be wrong, period.  There will be no need to call it "propaganda and lies."
>But if you don't have that information, then the "propaganda and lies"
>charge means nothing, although it might convince some people of your case.

I agree with this paragraph.

>I don't know for sure, but in the book field, I would say that anti-creation
>authors have been paid more than pro-creation authors.

If true, I suspect it is only because anti-creationist authors write on
other subjects as well.  If you count only their anti-creationist books
(as distinct from their pro-evolution books), I think you are mistaken.

>If the creationist sees flaws in the evolutionist's work, he is as entitled to
>point them out as vice versa. (Most of the anti-creationist books I listed
>above have holes in fact and/or logic big enough to drive a truck through --
>examples on request.)

I request examples.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721