Academia sets the tune

The influence of "Bible thumpers" has taken such deep roots in America that they are influential in the academia which is a very important aspect of America as it shapes the minds of Americans. The "Bible thumpers" are so well entrenched that they force science textbooks for schoolchildren to teach what they call "creation science". According to "creation science", god created the world around six thousand years ago, exactly according to descriptions found in the Bible. The argument goes that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught in schools even though it is just a theory, and so "creation science" too merits being taught to schoolchildren in science classes.

In any other country, "creation science" would have been termed as idiocy and its proponents laughed at in their faces, but not in America. Instead of the derision they deserve, the creation-theorists actually find people in the mainstream media and academia to debate their points and thus gain legitimacy as their ideas share a platform with scientific ideas. Such debates discuss "both sides" of the issue, as Americans consider it a sacrilege not to have a "balanced" debate that discusses "both sides" of the question.

After the courts ruled against the proponents of "creation science," they turned their attention to discrediting science, and recently came up with the bizarre idea of implementing a rule whereby it would be required to affix stickers on science textbooks with disclaimers stating that scientific theories were not necessarily facts. They now peddle creationism under a new label - "intelligent design." The result of it is that the education boards of several states require textbooks to be revised in order to accommodate the advocates of "intelligent design." Such actions by Christian fanatics only strengthen the common stereotype of Americans being stupid.

Christian influence in academia is not limited to school textbooks, but also extends to universities. Many American universities began as divinity schools run by churches, whose agenda the humanities departments continue to push. Recently, Harvard university appointed a Jesuit priest, Reverend Francis X.Clooney, as a professor for comparative theology. Professor Clooney has written that the souls of those who lack union with Rome are in peril. With such preconceived notions, it is a matter of curiosity what he intends to compare between various theologies.

Elsewhere, Bob Jones University in South Carolina states, "While most secular biologists are committed to evolution as the basic principle of biology, Bob Jones University trains Christian biologists who see the living world indelibly marked with the fingerprints of a God of limitless wisdom and power." Needless to say, in their pre-med courses, they teach Biblical "creation theory".

In late 2002, an article by Sankrant Sanu, an Indian thinker, about the Microsoft Encyclopedia Encarta entry on Hinduism authored by Professor Wendy Doniger of the University of Chicago, spurred Indians to petition Microsoft to replace the biased entry. Sanu's piece pointed out that the entry on Hinduism was of poor quality, had factual inaccuracies, and was hostile in tone. He further pointed out that it was written by an "outsider" (that is, someone who was not a Hindu), while the corresponding Encarta entries for other major religions like Christianity and Islam were not only appreciative of those faiths, but had been authored by people who belonged to them.

To Microsoft's credit, after Sanu's criticism spurred an outrage and widespread accusations of poor scholarship on the part of Professor Wendy Doniger, it replaced the entry by a scholarly piece on Hinduism.

Sankrant Sanu's analysis of the Encarta piece holds true about American academics in general. While professors studying Christianity are usually Christians sympathetic to Christianity, professors who study Hinduism are usually Christians who are hostile to Hindu culture. If they happen to be Indians, they are usually Marxists who are hostile to these cultures. Even the top universities are not exempt from this malaise. As we will see later, this is also true of journalists in the media.

One of the reasons for this situation is that humanities departments are usually short of funds. Unlike their counterparts in science and technology departments, faculty members in humanities departments do not easily get grants. This also means that humanities departments do not attract the best brains resulting in poorer quality of research and as a result, even fewer grants. Thus, it is a vicious circle of poor brains not attracting grants and lack of grants keeping away the good brains. Christian fundamentalists, who have deep pockets, step in to fill this void by setting up endowments, and cash-strapped departments and professors are easy prey for them.

Though the Christian tilt is rampant in humanities departments and the quality of research in science departments is generally of high quality, the latter are not immune from the influence of Biblical ideas. Recently, Johns Hopkins university (JHU) announced the results of a "study" that can only be termed as pseudo-science. Apparently, they had conducted a "joint" study with Indian scientists and concluded that circumcision is an effective weapon against AIDS! The Bible requires human males to undergo circumcision, and this "study" did nothing but provide fodder for those who claim that the idea is backed by science. It is not uncommon to come across "scientific studies" in America suggesting that human males are quirks of nature and imperfect creations needing correction in a manner described in the Bible.

What really raised the suspicion about this "study" is that the JHU "scientists" seemed more than eager to give credit to their Indian collaborators and term the "study" as an international project, even though it is unusual for American scientists to involve others and share credit with them when they are on the verge of discovering something important. A closer look at this "study" is revealing. While the Indian scientists were in charge of data collection and manuscript preparation, the JHU folks were the ones who interpreted the data. Reaching conclusions by linking two separate events without an explanation of cause and effect may be acceptable in voodoo practices, not science.

Continued Part III

Arvind Kumar is an expert on the United States.