The next target: Librarians
by KrauzeIntelligent design is the reason why American kids are doing bad on science tests, many ID critics claim. They just have to find some way to connect the two, and they seem to have gotten one step closer: It's the librarians fault for filing books on intelligent design next to books on science!
Seriously, that's the logic as laid out in this Darwin Day Petition, demanding the U.S. Library of Congress to re-classify ID books:
Our chief complaint comes in two forms. (1) Placement of ID books within a science section presupposes that ID is itself a science, and thus lends scientific credibility to a supernatural explanation of the world. (2) Placement of ID books within a science section also diminishes the amount of truly scientific books that can be displayed in any one science section, and thus limits the public's access to scientific knowledge. Given that a recent study by the National Science Foundation (NSF) found that "70 percent of Americans do not understand the scientific process," further confusion surrounding what is and is not science is particularly problematic.
Imagine little Johnny, happily skipping along, his understanding of science perfected through twelve years in the public school system. One fateful day, he visits the local library, and discovers that Behe's Darwin's Black Box is located in near proximity to Darwin's Origin of the Species. What's now to prevent little Johnny from concluding that gravity is caused by angels and that it rains when God cries?
Next step: Warning stickers on pro-ID books, warning people of their anti-scientific contents.
Update: Reed A. Cartwright at The Panda's Thumb thinks the petitioners have their "hearts in the right place" and offers them some advice on how to "drown" information about intelligent design.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Good grief! If 70% of Americans don't understand "the scientific process," it's the fault of science teachers and science curriculum, not ID. Which isn't taught in public schools. Maybe these folks should volunteer to spend time educating our children about "the scientific process" and stop trying to out-fundamentalist the fundamentalists.
I think you're wrong about the next step, though. I predict book burnings.
Comment by Joy — September 12, 2007 @ 11:04 am
September 12th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
are you suggesting that angels arent the reason for gravity? or that rain isnt god crying?
dont 70% of americans not have much of an understanding of anything, even the many with their college degrees?
Comment by dantedanti — September 12, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
And your point is Americans are ignorant compared to the following other national groups…?
Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
The critics are wrong everywhere. America has the highest scientific literacy in the world. At the same time America has the lowest belief in Darwinism of any industrialized nation. Therefore, one can only conclude that a disbelief in Darwinism is the result of increased scientific literacy.
Also, if ID is not science, why do our ID related debates here and at PT and other blogs consist of a dueling scientific facts and evidence?
Their desire to win the debate by censorship and control of information only shows the impotence of their ideas. You don't have to force good ideas.
Comment by Jehu — September 12, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I was at a Barnes & Noble last night. I found it amusing that Dembski's No Free Lunch was in the Christianity section and Dawkins's The God Delusion was in the Biology and Science section. So, a book by a non-religious publisher, Rowan and Littlefield, with nary a religious term in the search terms on the copyright page gets placed in the Christianity section while a book that is total philosophical speculation (and most of that sheer clap-trap) with hardly any science gets placed in the Biology and Science section. Go figure!:roll:
Comment by DonaldM — September 12, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Speaking of the placement and cataloging of books, I wonder where Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary's The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul will be placed. It is, after all, all about science, but there are those unfortunate words 'spiritual' and 'soul' in the title. Probably get shoved into the Eastern Mysticism section no doubt!!
Comment by DonaldM — September 12, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Data/observations always underdetermine the hypothesis, so what's the big deal? Regardless if that hypothesis has supernatural or natural assumptions.
They're sounding like positivists. However, no logical connection exists between the data and the hypothesis.
You try to shoehorn science into a mold like that and you in turn cause it to lose its power. Substructures of the universe can't be directly observed - and since explanation of natural phenomena typically requires the utilitization of the theoretical entities (the assumption that our beliefs of these substructures are close to what they are in reality) many positivists in turn stated that science wasn't an explanatory discipline, that its main purpose was to describe.
Do they have a complete definition of science that is accepted by all?
Comment by Doug — September 12, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Hi Doug,
"Do they have a complete definition of science that is accepted by all?"
They're using the Kitzmiller decision. Because, you know, whenever a judge rules on something, we should update all libraries accordingly.
Comment by Krauze — September 12, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Yeah, scientists go too far sometimes. Besides, aren't people smart enough to figure out for themselves which version they prefer - science with ID or science without ID?
Comment by dimasok — September 12, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
The real irony of this is if they were serious about doing this and classifying ID books as not applicable in the science section, then they would need to move Origin of Species out of the science section as well. After all Darwin makes theological arguments in the book.
Of course who would expect consistency from the idiots suggesting this sort of thing ?
Comment by thesciphishow — September 12, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
September 13th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Hmmm. "Taking a Stand for Science" apparently means sewing one of these one your sleeve:
Gotta run off to bed. I'll sleep well knowing the Book Cops are on patrol.
Comment by MikeGene — September 13, 2007 @ 12:01 am
September 13th, 2007 at 6:45 am
And following that logic, assuming there is no physical law of the universe that proscribes the limits of science sections vis a vis other sections, every other book in the other sections of the library has the same effect of limiting the public's access to scientific knowledge. So, moving ID books elsewhere doesn'treally help.
Now while I don't mind saying that I have always had a certain fondness for The Cat in the Hat, and Green Eggs and Ham, I can now see that I was a victim of a well-funded PR campaign. It is now clear that the Cat in the Hat was a ringleader in the War on Science.
Dr Seuss, SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 13, 2007 @ 6:45 am
September 16th, 2007 at 3:35 am
At The Panda's Thumb, a librarian is struggling with how to best keep ID material out of the hands of the innocent public.
What should we do without the critics to prevent us from dangerous information?
Comment by Krauze — September 16, 2007 @ 3:35 am
September 16th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Isn't it interesting how so many of the ID critics want to control what other people read?
Comment by MikeGene — September 16, 2007 @ 8:37 am