Mims was fired because he was a creationist (Talk.Origins)
Forrest M. Mims III was fired from a job editing Scientific American's "Amateur Scientist" column because he was a creationist, a clear case of religious discrimination.
- Hartwig, Mark D. 1990 (21 Nov.) Defending Darwinism: How far is too far? Origins Research Archives 13(1).
- van der Meer, Jitse. 1995 (12 Jul.). Letter.
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Mims was not fired; he was never hired in the first place (though Piel, the editor of Scientific American, initially gave him reason to believe he would be hired). A private company does not need to have an excuse for not hiring someone they don't like.
It seems that Mims was given the impression that he had been hired, but fired before starting the job. The accuracy of that part of the claim seems to be a matter of perspective.
- Reference: Mims, Forrest M. III. 2004. Feedback letter.
2 Many, perhaps most, evolutionists agree that Piel did not act appropriately. Mims' work should be judged on its own merits.
There is no disagreement on this point.
3. Arguably, Mims would not have been good for the position. Creationism denies the validity of much of biology, geology, and astronomy, making a creationist's competence in those fields suspect. Piel was reportedly worried mostly about the public relations problems of involving the magazine with creationism, and given subsequent events, his worries were justified. Although many people believe Piel made the wrong decision, his decision was not entirely without merit.
Thank you, Talk Origins for proving the real point of this claim. The main point is that mainstream publications are biased against Creationists and Talk Origins statement above proves it. It shows the Evolutionary way of thinking so permeates mainstream science that disagreement is viewed as an indication of incompetence. They seem to think that if a Creationist were really a competent scientist he would accept Evolutionary views in biology, geology, and astronomy.
The concern about public relations problems also shows a bias against Creationists. Since hiring a creationist would have been seen as a positive among Creationists, the only reason for being concerned about public relations problems is fear of how the Evolutionary establishment would react.
The result is that this one point proves that there is a strong bias against Creationists on the part of Evolutionists,
4. Mims himself did not emerge from the incident looking virtuous. He recorded one phone call with Piel without Piel's knowledge or permission (although reputedly at the advise of a lawyer friend). When Mims was not hired, he spoke harshly, publicly, and doggedly against Piel. The issue likely became such a big deal because both sides overreacted.
It is agreed that both sides overreacted, but that does not change the fact that the incident occurred as a direct result of a bias against Creationists.