The first argument is stated directly: "The term 'creation-science' in the act embodies religious dogma, not the sterilized 'abrupt-appearance' construct propounded by appellants in this litigation" (Amicus curiae brief 1986 [hereafter AC], p. 5). In the repackaging of their position, the creationists removed God from their arguments by "sterilizing" the creation act as "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form of biological life, life itself, and the physical universe" (p. 6). Kaufman explained, "We argued that the 'abrupt-appearance' construct is not a sufficiently well defined alternative to orthodox 'creation-science.' It fails to define a concrete alternative to evolution; accordingly, it is implausible that the Louisiana legislature intended the Act to embody it... . Therefore, the sterilized 'abrupt-appearance' construct can only be understood as a post hoc explanation, erected for the purpose of defending this unconstitutional Act" (1986, p. 5). A review of the creationist literature reveals that the creationists have merely substituted words, not belief. For example, members of the Creation Research Society must subscribe to the following "statement of belief (in AC, p. 10):
(1) The Bible is the written Word of God ... all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs.. . . This means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
(2) All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during Creation Week as described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
(3) The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.
(4) Finally, we are an organization of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent Fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only thru accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Similar statements issued by the Institute for Creation Research and other creationists make it clear that creationists prefer the authority of the Bible over any possibly contradictory empirical evidence. This lack of interest in empirical data is outlined in the brief to demonstrate that creation-science is not "scientific," as the amici would insist in the second section, in which a definition of science would have to be established and agreed upon. This second section begins by offering a very general definition: "Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena." Next, the scientific method is discussed, beginning with the collection of "facts," the data of the world. "The grist for the mill of scientific inquiry is an ever increasing body of observations that give information about underlying 'facts.' Facts are the properties of natural phenomena. The scientific method involves the rigorous, methodical testing of principles that might present a naturalistic explanation for those facts" (p. 23).
Based on well-established facts, testable hypotheses are formed. The process of testing "leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses that accumulate substantial observational or experimental support." This "special dignity" is called a "theory." When a theory "explains a large and diverse body of facts," it is considered "robust"; if it "consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed," then it is considered "reliable." Facts and theories are not to be used interchangeably. Facts are the world's data; theories are explanatory ideas about those facts. "An explanatory principle is not to be confused with the data it seeks to explain." Constructs and other nontestable statements are not a part of science. "An explanatory principle that by its nature cannot be tested is outside the realm of science." Thus, science seeks only naturalistic explanations for phenomena. "Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations; without passing judgment on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith" (pp. 23-24).
It follows from the nature of the scientific method that no explanatory principles in science are final. "Even the most robust and reliable theory ... is tentative. A scientific theory is forever subject to reexamination and—as in the case of Ptolemaic astronomy—may ultimately be rejected after centuries of viability." The creationists' certainty stands in sharp contrast with the uncertainty scientists encounter as a regular and natural part of their work. "In an ideal world, every science course would include repeated reminders that each theory presented to explain our observations of the universe carries this qualification: 'as far as we know now, from examining the evidence available to us today'" (p. 24). But, as Gell-Mann remarked, the creationists have an obsession "with the inerrancy of the Bible. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, they will continue to believe their doctrines to the end." Thus, Gell-Mann noted, the creationists "aren't doing science. They just insert the word":
It reminds me of a Monty Python routine where a guy goes into a pet store to get his fish a license. He is told they don't make fish licenses. He replies that he has a cat license, so why can't he get a fish license? but is told they don't make cat licenses either. So he shows the pet store owner his cat license. "That's not a cat license," the owner responds. "That's a dog license. You just scratched out the word 'dog' and wrote in 'cat.'" That's all the creationists are doing. They've just scratched out "religion" and in its place put "science." (1990)
According to the amici, any body of knowledge accumulated within the guidelines they described is considered "scientific" and suitable for public school education; and any body of knowledge not accumulated within these guidelines is not considered scientific. "Because the scope of scientific inquiry is consciously limited to the search for naturalistic principles, science remains free of religious dogma and is thus an appropriate subject for public-school instruction" {AC, p. 23). By this line of reasoning, in singling out evolutionary theory as "speculative and baseless" compared to other "proven scientific facts" the Louisiana law is not consistent. Rather, even though the theory of evolution is considered by virtually all biologists to be as robust and reliable as any in science, it has attracted the attention of the creationists because they perceive it as directly opposing their static and inflexible religious beliefs. The amici thus conclude, "The Act, however construed, is structured to 'convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred,'" and is thus unconstitutional (p. 26).
Creationists Respond
Calling the scientific community "scared," and the brief "the last hurrah on behalf of the dominance the teaching of evolutionism has had in our public schools," the Creation Research Legal Defense Fund immediately took up a collection to support its stand against the amicus brief. Noting that the brief had struck a "significant blow," a fund-raising letter requested creationists to "please pray about sending us the best possible gift you can." It told readers that this was a "David vs. Goliath battle" and reminded them that in the original confrontation "Goliath died and David became King of Israel." Finally, the letter noted the Nobelists' "atheistic orientation" and stated that the Nobelists "realize this is the most important court case they have ever faced—even more important than the original Scopes Trial" because their own "religion of secular humanism" was at stake.
After calling the press conference "media propaganda," and the brief a "clever ploy by the evolutionary establishment," Henry Morris was no less vitriolic in an issue of Acts and Facts, a publication of the Institute for Creation Research. "To keep this prestigious 'brief in proper perspective ... it should be remembered that Nobel scientists are probably no better informed on the creation/evolution question than any other
group of people," Morris contended, leaving us to wonder what other group of people Morris had in mind to compare with seventy-two Nobel laureates. Morris did admit that the brief would "no doubt have much influence" but hoped "that most fair-minded people will see through it." In arguing for the scientific basis of creationism, Morris stated that not only are there "thousands of fully qualified scientists today who are creationists" but the "founding fathers of science," such as "Newton, Kepler, Pascal, and others," were also creationists and were "at least as knowledgeable in science as these modern Nobelists" (in Kaufman 1986, pp. 5-6).
Finally, an emotional commitment to their position by the creationists that matched that of the evolutionists was revealed in personal letters sent by rank-and-file creationists to some of the Nobelists. One letter sent to Gell-Mann said, "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. Whosoever is not found written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Ask the Lord Jesus to save you now! The second law of thermodynamics proves evolution is impossible. Why are you so afraid of the truth of creation-science?"
The U.S. Supreme Court Justices Respond
The case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 851513, was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 10, 1986, and decided June 19, 1987. The Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 in favor of the appellees. The Court held that "the Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose" and that "[t]he Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind" (Syllabus 1987, p. 1). Did the brief swing votes? It is hard to say. The key fifth vote that the brief probably swung was Justice Byron White's, whose short, two-page concurring opinion closely parallels section D, page 21, of the brief. Lehman noted that "insiders have told me that 'loose lips' in the court say that the brief mattered in the Justices' decision" (1989).
Justice William Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor. White filed a separate but concurring opinion, as did Powell and O'Connor, who wanted "to emphasize that nothing in the Court's opinion diminishes the traditionally broad discretion accorded state and local school officials in the selection of the public school curriculum" (Syllabus 1987, p. 25). Scalia and Rehnquist filed a dissenting opinion, in which they argued (as in the oral arguments of December 10) that "so long as there was a genuine secular purpose" the Christian fundamentalist intent "would not suffice to invalidate the Act." Recalling the academic freedom issue as argued in the Scopes trial, Scalia and Rehnquist noted, "The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it" (p. 25).
The creationists' "secular" integrity becomes questionable, however, under the weight of the following, progressively bolder statements, which scientists would argue are completely fallacious: "The body of scientific evidence supporting creation-science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger"; "The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific 'fact,' since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or guess"; "It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a 'myth'" {Syllabus 1987, p. 14).
Science Unified
The Louisiana trial in general, and the amicus brief in particular, had the effect of temporarily galvanizing the scientific community into not only defending science as a way of understanding the world that is different from religion but defining science as a body of knowledge accumulated through a particular method—the scientific method. Calling the case "the single biggest thrill of my practicing career as a lawyer," Lehman observed that "this issue more than anything else crystallizes what it means to be a scientist" (1989).
The event has significance in the history of science in that it unified a diverse group of individuals perhaps best characterized by their fierce independence. Nobel laureate Arno Penzias said the communality among the Nobel laureates on the creationism case was unusual and that he could not imagine another issue receiving such support. Among the other Nobel Prize-winning signers of the brief were individuals with whom Penzias "often had violent arguments on other issues" (Kaufman 1986, p. 6).
It would seem that there are two possible explanations for this unity. First, the scientific community felt itself directly under attack from the outside and, as social psychologists have demonstrated, in such conditions almost any group will respond by circling the wagons. A social psychologist might find this a most enlightening and instructive study of the process of "deindividuation," in which individuals temporarily suppress conflicts within a group in order to defend themselves from a perceived common enemy. As Nobel laureate Val Fitch observed, "When scientific method and education are attacked, the laureates close ranks and speak with one voice" (Kaufman 1986, p. 6).
Yet scientists have encountered "outside forces" before and have not responded quite so collectively and emotionally. A second factor in explaining the unification in the Louisiana case may be the scientists' nearly unanimous perception that the creationists' position lacked any validity whatsoever. As Fitch noted, the Louisiana creationism attack was turned back with unprecedented collective force because "it defies all scientific reason." Gell-Mann agrees: "That's right. It's not so much that we were being attacked from the outside, since outsiders can make worthwhile contributions. It's that these people were talking utter nonsense" (1990).
These two components explain why the defense and definition of science was an interim one—lasting for the duration of the case and left there to be recalled should similar circumstances again arise. Certainly philosophers of science have not suspended their research into the nature of science and the scientific method with the publication of the brief. This agreement was made politically, not philosophically. In our democratic society such conflicts are solved (if only for a while) by a vote. In the Louisiana case, the vote was taken and the Court followed the advice of the defenders and definers of science—the scientists themselves.
PART 4
HISTORY
AND
PSEUDOHISTORY
We believe we can construct a past that is veritable, that is accurate in terms of actual past events, since the past has left its mark in the present. The message of this book has been that, while there are many different possibilities, not all of these constructed pasts—not all of the possibilities—are equally plausible. Ultimately, then, we get the past we deserve. In every generation, thinkers, writers, scholars, charlatans, and kooks (these are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories) attempt to cast the past in an image either they or the public desire or find comforting. We deserve better and can do better than weave a past from the whole cloth of fantasy and fiction.
—Kenneth L. Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, 1986
12
Doing Donahue
History, Censorship, and Free Speech
On March 14, 1994, Phil Donahue became the first of the talk-show hosts to address the Holocaust deniers, who claim that this event was radically different from what we have all come to accept. Many of the major talk shows had considered doing something on the subject, yet for a variety of reasons had not done so before. Montel Williams had taped a program on April 30, 1992, but it was pulled from major markets because, according to deniers, they looked too good and the Holocaust scholar offered nothing better than ad hominem attacks. I saw the show, and the deniers were correct. If it had been a fight, they would have stopped it.
T
he Donahue producer promised us that there would be no skinheads or neo-Nazis, nor would the show be allowed to erupt into violence or degenerate into mere shouting. The deniers—Bradley Smith, who places advertisements in college newspapers, and David Cole, the young Jewish video producer who primarily focuses on denying that gas chambers and crematoria were used for mass murder—were promised that they would be allowed to make their claims. I, in turn, was promised that I could properly answer their arguments. Edith Glueck, who had been in Auschwitz, albeit for only a few weeks, also appeared on the show, and her close friend, Judith Berg, who had been in Auschwitz for seven months, was seated in the studio audience. What was promised was quite different from what actually unfolded on the air.
Five minutes before the show, the producer came into the Green Room, panic-stricken. "Phil is very concerned about this show. He is in over his head and is worried it might not come off well." In the weeks prior to the show, I had prepared a list of denier claims and constructed sound-bite replies, so I assured the producer that I was ready to answer all the deniers' claims and told him not to worry.
Donahue opened the show with these words: "How do we know the Holocaust really happened? And what proof do we have that even one Jew was killed in a gas chamber?" As the producers rolled stock footage from Nazi concentration camps, Donahue continued:
In just the last six months, fifteen college newspapers across the country have run advertisements that call for an open debate of the Holocaust. The ad claims that the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., has no proof whatever of homicidal gassing chambers, and no proof that even one individual was gassed in a German program of genocide. The ads have caused an uproar everywhere, sparking protests from students and boycotts of the papers. The man who placed all the ads, Bradley Smith, has been called anti-semitic and a neo-Nazi because of the challenges of the Holocaust. Smith claims he simply wants the truth to be told—that Jews were never placed in gas chambers and that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration. And he is not alone in his beliefs. A recent poll by the Roper organization found that 22 percent of all Americans believe it's possible the Holocaust never happened. Another 12 percent say they don't know. So in a time when over five thousand visitors are crowding the new Holocaust museum every day, and the film Schindler's List is reducing jaded movie-goers to tears, the question should be asked, How can anyone claim the Holocaust was a hoax?
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time Page 23