Charges of Discrimination: Scientific American Drops Christian Writer with Creation Beliefs

For Forrest Mims III, a veteran free-lance science writer from Seguin, Texas, the prospect of writing a regular column for the Scientific American was a dream come true.

The monthly magazine, with an international circulation of more than 650,000, is the nation’s oldest and one of its most prestigious science publications. So two years ago, when its editors showed interest in Mims’s proposal to write the magazine’s popular Amateur Scientist column, he dropped everything he was doing to fly to New York and discuss the work.

According to Mims, his dealings with Scientific American went well until he mentioned he had written articles for Christian magazines. At that point, Mims says, editor Jonathan Piel asked him if he believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution. “I said ‘no,’ ” Mims recalls. “And everything went progressively downhill from then on.”

Three of Mims’s columns have appeared in Scientific American. But the third, which ran in the magazine’s October issue, is apparently the last. And the 46-year-old Mims, who has written more than 70 books and hundreds of articles for other magazines and publications such as National Geographic, Science Digest, Popular Mechanics, and Modern Electronics, is convinced he was “fired” from the job because of his Christian beliefs.

Mims says he left the 1988 meeting in New York thinking he had the job as the Amateur Scientist writer. But he was also given a stern warning from Piel that if he ever wrote anything on creationism in any publication, his pay ($2,000 per column) could be cut or he could be dismissed.

Mims, who teaches a Bible study in his local church, insists he has never used his science writing to promote his Christian beliefs, and that he would “never use that column to espouse my personal religious views.” After he returned home, he wrote and submitted three columns.

Several months later, however, Mims says he was questioned further by Piel and another editor about his views on abortion and his faith. Though describing Mims’s work as “first rate,” Piel expressed concern that the “good name of the magazine” might be “embarrassed” by Mims, or that Mims’s position with the magazine might be exploited by others. According to the writer, Piel asked, “Are you a fundamentalist Christian?” Mims objected to the questions and told Piel, “I will not be discriminated against.” In a phone call the next day and a letter that followed, Piel “terminate[d] all further discussion of the possibility that you [Mims] might contribute to the pages of this magazine.”

When contacted by CHRISTIANITY TODAY, editor Piel said, “Scientific American does not discriminate on any basis. We have not and never will.” He declined to answer further questions on the matter.

However, two former editors of Scientific American have indicated they believe Mims’s views on Creation were the reason he was not offered a continuing assignment. Tim Appenzeller, now a senior editor of The Sciences, said there was “no question about [Mims’s] competence.” At issue was the “public relations” aspect of a creationist being connected with the magazine. “I don’t think there was unease about his being a Christian,” Appenzeller said. “It was specifically his beliefs about evolution and his rejection of Darwinian selection.”

Armand Schwab, Jr., recently retired managing editor, told the Houston Chronicle he believed Mims’s beliefs “did not militate against his doing a column for us.”

In spite of the dispute, Mims says his greatest desire is to write the column. “I’m not bitter,” he says. “If they offered it [the Amateur Scientist] tomorrow, I’d take it.”

Last summer, Mims signed an agreement with Scientific American agreeing not to pursue any legal action based on prior complaints of discrimination. He has since tried to discuss writing assignments with Scientific American, but has been told through the magazine’s attorneys that the publication has ended all business contact with him. As a result, Mims has filed complaints with various scientific organizations, seeking mediation or arbitration in the matter, and calling upon the organizations to investigate Scientific American’s employment policies.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.