Wednesday, November 10, 1993
Dr. Henry M. Morris
Institute for Creation Research
P.O. Box 2667
El Cajon, CA 92021
November 10, 1993
You should not be surprised that I have recently started informing others of our problem that has gone
unresolved since June. On September 21st, I wrote you that “Since Austin ignored my offer of Christian
arbitration, I no longer feel a responsibility to keep a 'close hold' on this information. I welcome scrutiny of
this matter by anyone.” Matthew 18:15-17 calls for privacy for only steps one and two. Austin is at step
four. Nor should you characterize this as you did: “we hear [?] that you have been accusing both Steve
and ICR in general of plagiarism and other hurtful actions to various individuals and possibly in your
public meetings.” First, I have had no public meetings since June. Second, I wrote you on October 12th:
I sent out an initial mailing [of the file of our correspondence only] to a small number of people
who have some reason for wanting or needing more information on this controversy. Of course,
that number will continuously grow until this matter is honestly, fairly, and forthrightly resolved.
The more it grows, the less control I have over who else will see the file.
The file speaks for itself and allows people to see clearly who is in the wrong.
You stated in your November 3rd letter, “Since you have rejected the arbitrator I suggested, we would
naturally reserve the right to approve the one you suggest.” I wrote you that I would give you a choice of
three nearby Christian arbitrators who are independent of our organizations and unknown to us. Allowing
either side to reject any proposed arbitrator could produce a stalemate. If you wish, you may submit the
names of three such arbitrators to me. The first step is for you and Austin to agree in writing to binding
arbitration, as I have done for you. Your stipulation that the arbitrator be “reasonably familiar with
geology” is clearly unnecessary to decide whether Austin (1) has made false accusations and (2) has
plagiarized. Adding needless requirements is another way to derail the arbitration process, which I hope
you are not trying to do. If the arbitrator found he needed some background in geology, he would simply
seek the opinion of a geologist or withdraw himself from the process.
I also reject your five statements of what my charges against Austin are. My last letter and the 13-page
report were quite specific about the two charges (italicized above), and I believe the arbitrator will agree.
If not, he will tell me, and I will comply. Nor is your “agreement on the specific charges” called for in Mt
18. I will state the charges, not you. Any stipulations you wish to inject can be a matter for the arbitrator
to decide after Austin and you submit to binding arbitration. Until you both sincerely seek to resolve this,
any future correspondence between us is pointless.
As new details come to my attention, I will amend, as I promised, the July 6th report. Enclosed is the
latest, very slightly modified, version along with an amended version of my September 20th letter,
“Austin/Brown Exchange.” I leave this morning for Russia but will return on November 24th.