(Part 4 of 6, continued from previous message.
Copyright 1991 by the National Center for Science Education.
Redistributed in the Evolution Echo by permission of the author.)


The Mysterious Book Vandalism
Price (1990, pp. 165-166) and Plimer (1989, pp. 10-11; 1991, p. 5) 
both quote a passage from an article by Ray E. Martin in 
_Christian School Builder_ (April 1983, pp. 205-207) titled 
"Reviewing and Correcting Encyclopedias," citing Marty (1983), 
which reprints a section of the Martin article.  Plimer (1989, p. 
10) writes that "creationists have been instructed to 'review and 
correct encyclopedias'" by the article, which advocates removing 
sections on evolution from encyclopedias by using a razor blade or 
by glueing pages together.  Both Plimer and Price follow up their 
description of this article by reporting that examples of exactly 
this sort of vandalism were found in the library of the University 
of Newcastle:  "every reference to evolution had been cut out from 
books in the paleontology section of the university library," 
writes Price (1990, p. 166).  Plimer (1991) concludes, "At least 
the Nazis had the common decency to burn books in public!"
          But the article does not advocate vandalism at all:  it 
advocates censorship of books in Christian schools by the 
administrators.  This is only slightly less offensive, but, unlike 
vandalism, is perfectly legal.  The CSF condemns not only the 
vandalism, but book censorship by Christian school administrators 
(Robert Doolan, personal communication, February 8, 1991).
          Price and Plimer both imply that the University of Newcastle 
vandalism was performed by creationists, inspired by the Martin 
article.  But the vandalism occurred in 1988 while the article, 
which does not advocate vandalism, was published a full five years 
earlier in periodicals not carried by the University of 
Newcastle's Auchmuty Library.  Neither Price nor Plimer point out 
that this incident is the only one of its kind known to have 
occurred and was discovered only after the Martin and Marty 
articles were brought to the attention of the university librarian 
by Ian Plimer.  Plimer (personal communication, April 8, 1991) 
states that he has heard of four other cases of book vandalism at 
other institutions, but does not know if those were directed at 
articles on evolution or were simply "'normal' vandalism."  He 
also reports that the Newcastle vandalism was brought to his 
attention by an unnamed paleontology professor.  (Neither Plimer 
nor the University of Newcastle librarian has responded to my 
further inquiries on this subject.)

Analysis:  Plimer and Price misrepresent the content of the Ray 
Martin article in order to argue that creationists were 
responsible for a specific incident of vandalism at the University 
of Newcastle.  It may never be known who was responsible for the 
damage, but it is unlikely that it was done by creationists 
inspired by the Martin article; certainly there is no evidence to 
support the claim.

A Smear Letter
Shortly after the Gish-Plimer debate in Sydney, Ian Plimer 
responded to a letter from a creationist.  Plimer's response, on 
University of Newcastle letterhead, stated that

          In a forthcoming book, further proof will be given with 
          regard to the financial activities of Gish (and two others) 
          in the San Diego-based Institute of Creation Research [sic] 
          and a US-based publishing house which operates essentially as 
          a money laundering organisation for the personal enrichment 
          of the leaders of the creationist movement.  Furthermore, if 
          you were at the debates in Sydney (18.3.88) or Brisbane 
          (30.3.88), you would surely have noticed an entourage of 
          young people (principally boys) accompanying Gish and who 
          continually touched him.  This is commensurate with testimony 
          from elsewhere which throws enlightenment on Gish's personal 
          life and which makes Jimmy Swaggart look like a moral 
          guardian of the faith.

          I have a copy of this letter, which Plimer (personal 
communication, January 9, 1991) acknowledges writing.  The letter 
appears to be a form letter:  although it is typed, the name in 
the salutation is written in.  After a description of various 
correspondence Plimer has received following the debate, the 
sentence "Your letter falls into the _____ category" has the blank 
space filled in with the handwritten word "third."
          Plimer claims that no sexual implication is intended by the 
quoted passage.  According to Plimer, the "testimony from 
elsewhere which throws enlightenment on Gish's personal life" 
refers to Gish's membership in "a pro-nuclear lobbying group."  
Price's book (1990, p. 66) points out that Gish is the chairman of 
the science and technology section of the Coalition on Revival, 
which Price describes as a group which "supports increased 
military spending and proclaims that all of science must be based 
on the Bible."  (The Coalition on Revival is part of the Christian 
Reconstructionist movement.  For details, see Hakeem (1991), 
McIver (1988), Porteous (1991), and Tucker (1989).)  While this is 
an interesting political point about religious right 
interconnections, it is a different issue entirely.
          Plimer further maintains that the letter was intentionally 
written to be ambiguous and _to look like_ a form letter, but was 
only sent to a single person, in order to "find out how far 
creationist tentacles extended."  Plimer makes much of the fact 
that the creationists have been disseminating this statement about 
Gish through such publications as the CSF's _A Response to 
Deception_.
          Duane Gish (personal communication, August 5, 1991) calls 
these statements "outrageous slanderous falsehood" and challenges 
Plimer "to produce one iota of evidence" to support his 
accusations.  He states that the money laundering claim is "an 
outright lie" and that he was accompanied to the Australian debate 
only by his wife, his host, and his host's wife.  (Gish granted 
permission to publish these scandalous charges against him on the 
condition that his emphatic denial be included.)

Analysis:  Plimer's letter, on university letterhead, is a serious 
ethical lapse.  The statements are unsupported _ad hominem_ 
innuendo, whether Plimer sent the letter to one person or to a 
thousand.