Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination

According to ‘The Amateur Scientist’ section of Scientific American, May 1997:

Haze is a vital indicator of our atmosphere’s health … but little is known about how the amount of haze is changing globally because no-one is coordinating haze observations from widely dispersed areas. That may change with the latest design from Forrest M. Mims III … . He has invented an atmospheric haze sensor that costs less than $20 and is so simple that even the most hardened technophobe can put it together in under an hour. Mims’s instrument could revolutionize this important area of study by opening the field to all-comers, that is, to amateur scientists.1

The article mentioned that Mims had written some Amateur Scientist columns in Scientific American in 1990. But it failed to mention that Scientific American refused to hire him when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’ and ‘first rate’, and ‘should be published somewhere’.2 Mims’ invention is further confirmation of his ability. But no matter what one’s scientific ability, denying the modern-day religion of evolution is heretical enough to justify discrimination. Even the journal Science, itself known to refuse to publish creationist views,3 wrote:

Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.4

Small wonder that many creationists write under pseudonyms or otherwise hide their beliefs from the establishment.

Ironically, the founding editor of the magazine, Rufus Porter, would probably not get a job today, as he was a creationist! He wrote:

… without prejudice … let us, as rational creatures, be ever ready to acknowledge God as our Creator and Preserver.5

In fact, modern science was founded on a creationist foundation, who would probably not be hired by Scientific American if they were alive today. There are also many qualified creationist scientists in the present. See the Creationist Biographies.

Published: 9 February 2006


  1. Shawn Carlson, ‘The Amateur Scientist’, Scientific American, May 1997, pp. 80-81. Return to text.
  2. ‘Science’s Litmus Test’ (telephone transcript of conversation between F. Mims and Jonathan Piel, the Editor of Scientific American), Harper’s Magazine March 1991. The transcript makes it clear that an outstanding writer was not hired solely for disbelieving in the sacred cow of evolution. Return to text.
  3. David Buckna writes in Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?
    ‘In the summer of 1985, Dr Russell Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had “a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.” Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, “It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science”s official letters policy is that they represent “the range of opinions received,” i.e. letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.’
    Dr Humphrey’s letter and Mrs Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)
    Return to text.
  4. G. Easterbrook, ‘Science and God: A Warming Trend?’ Science, 277(5328):890–893, 1997 — see p. 891. Return to text.
  5. Cited in Scientific American refuses to hire creationist, Creation 13(2):17, 1991. Return to text.