Reshelving antievolution books in the name of science

Every time I go into the Hastings bookstore here in Butte, Montana, I get annoyed to see antievolution books in the science section, especially since these books are not scientific in their antievolutionism, but motivated by the intelligent design movement or other religious factors. So, I usually remove the books from the science section and reshelve them in the religion section. Usually I find the books eventually returned to the science section, and wonder if the bookstore employee returning them ever thinks, “Why do these particular books keep ending up in the religion section?”

So, I keep moving them. Today I went to Hastings and had my camera with me. The copy of Signature in the Cell I moved a few months ago was in neither the science nor religion section, and was probably purchased. Today I moved The Edge of Evolution and The Darwin Myth away from the shelve directly under where copies of Dawkins’s The Greatest Show on Earth were, and placed them next to – I just had to – the Adventure Bible and the Princess Bible in the religion section.

BEFORE

The Edge of Evolution & The Darwin Myth mis-shelved in the science section

The Edge of Evolution & The Darwin Myth mis-shelved in the science section

AFTER

Behe's and Wiker's antievolution books in a more proper location

Behe's and Wiker's antievolution books in a more proper location

I of course am not the only one who does this sort of thing. A few years ago I learned of the blog Biologists Helping Bookstores via Pharyngula.

About these ads

123 thoughts on “Reshelving antievolution books in the name of science

  1. This is the way the theory of Evolution has successfully conquered the classroom. Tag one interpretation of the data as “Religion,” and your own interpretation as “Science,” and you can keep a real quest for learning from happening. That is the kind of censorship that caused me to waste years of my life believing evolution. Please reconsider your method and allow a more open debate.

  2. You should let the people read those books and take their own conclusions on what is science and what is not, unbiased by your “censorshops” impulses.

  3. @themysteryof – What do you call intelligent design if it isn’t religion? What sorts of people are out there “working on” intelligent design. Predominantly Christians. Talk to me when you can show me any evidence for intelligent design.

    @themysteryof & Hamilton – if I were stealing the books and then throwing them in the dumpster behind the bookstore, then that would be censorship. People can read those books, they’ll just find them in the proper section of the bookstore.

    @Enezio – Yes, I am a graduate student in history, focusing on history of science. And now you are going to show me how ideas in the history of science that were not part of the status quo became legitimate science, right?

    @Luiz – Good for you!

  4. That pity, and vc is proud of this? Therefore that each day more I find q I am certain. Dawkins and its followers are the worse fanatic types of religious.

  5. @themysteryof Please explain what it is about Intelligent Design (or whatever brand of Creationism you ascribe to) that merits its inclusion in the science curriculum _but not_ the inclusion of astrology, alchemy, magic, etc. I refer you to this.

  6. Do you think all books in the science section are 100% fact, EXCEPT for anything that questions neo-Darwinism? If not, then what other books do you disagree with that you have moved to other sections? What gives you the authority to decide how bookstores should classify their books?

    I hope they realize who you are and ban you from their store.

  7. The problem stems from the Library of Congress cataloging books into subjects based on what the book itself says. The concern is that creationists and intelligent design proponents make their work appear scientific, therefore it gets catalogued as science. See here and here.

  8. @Karen: When I clicked on your link I was expecting to be redirected to a professional research paper about why Intelligent Design and/or in this particular case, the mere questioning of the paradigm of Darwin, is classified in the same category as astrology. Instead, I got a comic strip. Have you really, honestly thought about this?

    On the contrary, you along with any reasonable thinking person acknowledges Intelligent Design in some way, shape, or form. If you were a casino owner and someone ‘guessed’ the right number at the roulette wheel 100 times in a row, would you dismiss it as chance, or would you think there are grounds to reject chance in that case, and investigate who the person is and how they are winning so much? How would you feel if someone told you questioning this specified series of improbable events was along the same lines of astrology? If you can honestly say you would feel offended, then we are getting somewhere. :)

  9. @Robb

    *takes a deep breath*

    First, that you used the phrase “100% fact” shows that you do not understand what science is. It’s not an assertion of truth, it’s a method. You might start here.

    Second, I didn’t link to the comic because that’s the best I can do, I linked to the comic because I think that’s the best YOU can do.

    Third, Re. ‘Have you really, honestly thought about this?’ *rolls on floor and laughs very, very hard* Um… yes, Robb, yes I have.

    Fourth, about your roulette wheel analogy… Are you saying that evolution is improbable? Really? Which part?

  10. The theory of Evolution is only a point of view, one interpretation of the evidence. Actual functioning science could have progressed just as far without it. It is needlessly tossed into many fields, but it is only propaganda. One thing that I saw as soon as I became open-minded enough to consider Design, is that the evolutionists are more prone to ignore some bit of evidence that doesn’t seem to fit.

  11. @themysteryof – “evolutionists are more prone to ignore some bit of evidence that doesn’t seem to fit.” Really? Such as?

    Robb will probably rail me for using this mock conversation, but it works.

  12. @themysteryof

    ‘The theory of Evolution is only a point of view…’

    The theory of evolution is ‘only a point of view’ only if you use ‘point of view’ in its broadest possible sense, broad enough to include things like, oh, gravitational theory, germ theory, heliocentric theory…

    ‘…one interpretation of the evidence.’

    Regardless of whether you use ‘evolution’ to mean the phenomenon itself or the theory that explains the phenomenon (because the word ‘evolution’ can stand for either), it isn’t an ‘interpretation’, it either is the evidence or an explanation of the evidence, respectively.

    ‘Actual functioning science could have progressed just as far without it. It is needlessly tossed into many fields, but it is only propaganda.’

    This is false. How else would we be able to predict drug resistant malaria strains? How else would we be able to use various animals as models for human medical research? How else would we formulate hypotheses about the biotic response to climate change? How else would we use endogenous retroviruses to trace the radiation of the great apes?

    You want propaganda? Have a look at religion.

    One thing that I saw as soon as I became open-minded enough to consider Design, is that the evolutionists are more prone to ignore some bit of evidence that doesn’t seem to fit.

    I’m with darwinsbulldog on this one: show me your evidence… evidence that both 1) evolutionists ignore evidence and that 2) Design believers don’t.

  13. Karen–you didn’t answer my roulette wheel question. Would you feel bad if someone equated your investigation of such a man as a ‘witch hunt’ for instance? Set evolution aside for a second.

    Do you think it is often justified to conclude that some events and observations are best explained by the result of intelligent causation? I am talking about ID in its most raw sense. ID does NOT always have to apply to the question of Darwinism and/or the origin of life. Do you dispute that it is reasonable to conclude that intelligence is often a valid explanation for some things?

  14. Also, when you say that ‘science is a method’…so you’re saying that 100% of the books that are not anti-Darwin only assert things based on the scientific method? You, I, and everyone who might read this knows that is nonsense. That would make for one hell of a boring selection that would never amount to any kind of book sales. LOL

  15. I do a similar sort of thing with the books like Dawkins’ “God Delusion” or Hitchens’ “God is not great”. The problem is though, the these books are neither “religion” nor “science”, but would suit “popular philosophy” section, if such existed. I think they should be part of philosophy section anyway.

  16. Robb,

    I didn’t answer your roulette wheel question because 1) I disagree with the premise of your question (there is no evidence to believe that someone can guess the right number 100 times in a row without cheating) and 2) your roulette wheel scenario is not even remotely analagous to the complexity of biological systems. But, suspending disbelief for a moment, as I think that’s what you’re asking me to do, I would not dismiss it as chance – it’s too statistically improbable – and so yes, I would want to ‘investigate who the person is and how they are winning so much’. But I would seek for natural explanations (as opposed to supernatural), like a rigged wheel, for example, and so I don’t think anyone would actually suggest what I was doing was analagous to astrology. So if they did suggest that, I wouldn’t be offended so much as baffled. But, suspending disbelief for a moment again, and assuming there were no cheating mechanisms (though in reality this search would have to be exhaustive to an extreme), then yes, I would think they must have some kind of power I don’t understand, and then no, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone unfamiliar with my exhaustive investigations accused me of witch hunting.

    On to your next question, ‘Do you think it is often justified to conclude that some events and observations are best explained by the result of intelligent causation?’ Of course I do. For example, when I see Stonehenge, I conclude that it was created by an intelligent agent, i.e. humans. Or, if SETI were to receive prime number radio pulses form outer space, I would conclude it was created by an intelligent agent, i.e. aliens.

    You seem to be trying to lead me to deduce that complexity in the natural world can only be explained by an intelligent cause, but that is simply not true. We have natural explanations and an intelligent designer not only doesn’t need to be invoked, but also, if it were, it would only require yet another explanation, i.e. who designed the designer?

    Next question, ‘when you say that ’science is a method’…so you’re saying that 100% of the books that are not anti-Darwin only assert things based on the scientific method?’ No, of course, books that are not anti-Darwin assert all kinds of things, only some of which are based on the scientific method. An example is The Aquatic Ape hypothesis. It’s not anti-Darwin but it does assert something that is only anecdotally connected to evidence. It’s a ‘just so story’. It’s provocative but ultimately unsupported (so far) by rigorous science. The reader should be able to parse which parts of the book have scientific support and which parts of the book are speculative. Evolution falls into the ‘scientific’ category, not the speculative category.

  17. I can’t believe how low and childish Darwinists can be. On the one hand, they claim to be “scientific” and “reasonable”, on the other hand, they act like religious fanatics on a crusade to protect the holy doctrine of Darwin from heresy.

    What on earth are you afraid of? If Darwin’s case is as strong as you think it is, why not allow people to read both sides of the argument and decide for himself? (That, by the way, was Darwin’s own plea) If Darwinism is as strong as you think it is, then it will stand.

    However, it is not. It is the only area of “science” where scientists get VERY emotional when you question their theory. ID provide strong, empirical and scientific arguments, while Darwinists reply with smears, lies and childish pranks like THIS. The reason for this is quite clear: The most important “evidence” for Darwinism, is the PHILOSOPHY that “science must always seek a natural explanation, even when all the evidence point the other way”. For over 50 years, abiogenesis researchers have unwittingly proven that intelligent design and interference is a crucial ingredient for making the building blocks of live. Even so, the most important question about the origins of live is not one of chemistry, but of information: What natural mechanism will provide the information in the RNA world? Natural selection? Oh, I’m sorry, I thought magic is not part of science, even when you call it something else. I’d say some intelligent being is far less magical than the notion that chemistry and pure chance (or some other undefined natural process) coded the RNA so it can have meaningful function. Or, I suppose abiogenesis researchers are all practicing magic, because design = magic.

    The one thing that really convinced me of ID is not so much the strength of ID arguments and evidence, but the pathetic and insecure replies from Darwinists, specially their pathetic attempt to equate Darwin skepticism with religion. It is interesting that you’ll read more about religion from Darwinists than from ID proponents.

    Oh, and if you think that ID is as valid as astrology, then I challenge you. Teach astronomy with astrology, and see if you get the same result as with the Evolution/ID debate. I bet you will not.

  18. I’m going to try and ignore the creationists posting here. I’ve been doing the same thing, moving ID books into the fiction or religion section.

  19. Ummm INtelligent Design is not anti-evolution.

    But anyway I have been doing something similar for years-

    I have been taking books by Dawkins, Carroll, Mayr, Darwin, Gould, Eldridge, et al., and placing them in the children’s fiction section.

    I also have some nice pictures.

    Oh BTW I do the same at local libraries.

    Now I will step-up my practice- of to a Barnes and Nobel today…

  20. Oh I just saw what they said on ENV! Vandalism and censorship! Its all part of the “great big coverup”, they’re on to you. Soon they’ll see our plans to enforce our evil science onto all school kids rar rar rar.

  21. summerwino- “I’m going to try and ignore the creationists posting here.”

    smear tactic – purposefully confusing ID for creationism (Regardless of the fact that ID proponents are scientists, and used to be Darwinists themselves before the evidence convinced them it’s wrong. Also regardless of the fact that not all Darwin septics are religious.)

    “I’ve been doing the same thing, moving ID books into the fiction or religion section.”

    Pathetically childish. You are not helping your cause by publicly admitting to such actions. It shows that you are insecure, and insincere. Instead of playing around with people’s businesses, why not buy the book instead, and write a decent criticism of it. (And with this I do not mean a repetition of the same old shallow anti-ID propaganda, but a criticism that is actually based on the content of the book)

    Future generations will be appalled at the way this generation of Darwinists tried to stop the advance of science. The ptolymean solar system modal was useful for a 1000 years. However, when a new model was introduced that explained the movement of the heavenly bodies better, it was time to get rid of the ptolymean system. The time has come for Darwinism to join the ptolymean solar system. The only thing that keeps it going is its momentum. If Darwin first proposed his theory today, with all our knowledge of biochemistry, his name would’ve been soon forgotten. Darwin is, and always was, the prophet for a materialist world view, rather than a scientist. As such, the almost religious devotion of Darwinists to his dogma, even in the face of clear refuting evidence, makes perfect sense. If you can use the Darwinian mechanism to produce a unicorn from a horse, then I’ll admit it’s science. After all, horned animals frequently appear in the fossil record. If Nature can repeatedly produce this effect using nothing more that variation and selection, it shouldn’t be too hard for a “SCIENTIST” to repeat it. Science is NOT what you IMAGINE to be possible, it is what you can DEMONSTRATE. Abiogenesis researches are demonstrating that it is quite possible for intelligence to reproduce live using complex recipes. Darwinists, on the other hand, have yet to show how mutation and natural selection can produce new information.

    I won’t be holding my breath, though. LOL

  22. Childish? No, not really. As a scientist that has to deal with the stupidity of creationism regularly, I think that it is probably doing a lot of good to move the anti-science books out of science.

    I fail to see the difference between ID and creationism, they both can’t put forward any evidence, they both try and erect a false dichotomy, and they both fail to identify any flaws in evolution.

    I think you need to read more about evolutionary theory. There is a good children’s book out by Daniel Loxton that may be able to help you. If you can’t distinguish between natural selection and mutations, theres not much point me considering your comments sincerely.

    I could point out the incorrectness in your way of thinking, but you’d only fall into never-ending rhetoric.

    Please, bring something to the scientific table. An evidence based , journal accepted manuscript, highlighting how the main processes of evolution are incorrect. Then we can talk.

    I’m sure if science was whatever I imagined it to be, I wouldn’t be doing my PhD now would I?

  23. Oh my, Hannodb, you are full of strongly worded accusations, aren’t you? Might I gently suggest you read the wikipedia article on logical and rhetorical fallacy before continuing on your current course? For example, ‘ID provides strong, empirical and scientific arguments’ and ‘all the evidence points the other way’ are examples of the fallacy of proof by assertion, ‘Darwinists are religious fanatics’ is an ad hominem argument, and equating evolution with abiogenesis in order to attack it is a straw man. Run along, now.

  24. Oh, and a couple more things following your rant at summerwino which I only just saw:

    Intelligent Design is a religious idea. It’s creationism. This has been upheld in a court of law.

    summerwino shouldn’t have to write a criticism of ID when there are so many good ones already available.

    ID is the ptolymean solar system model in your analogy.

    As you said yourself (all caps removed), ‘science is not what you imagine to be possible, it is what you can demonstrate.’ We’re waiting.

  25. Karen

    Unless you stop reading what Darwinists say about ID, and ACTUALLY read ID material yourself, I don’t really see the point in discussing this with you. And yes, I’ve read lots of evolution materials, and often found them lying.

    One thing I do agree on is that there is no point in arguing the matter with you, as you are prejudiced towards evolution. You will not be able to see the flaws I point out to you, and you will refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence I put forward. And, even if I’ve got you cornered, you’ll counter with “science must exclude design by definition”, and so admit you prefer a materialistic explanation that’s wrong over the best explanation given the evidence.

    In fact, you already did so when you refused to answer my unicorn challenge, or the problem of information. The reason is quite simple: You presume a materialistic solution to the problem of live exists, and then simply force the evidence to fit the theory uncritically. ID does not PRESUME a designer, it CONCLUDES a designer. Unless you have a better theory, which you don’t, THIS is the best explanation.

    Oh, and there is of cause another Darwinist tactic I failed to mention: If you do not see it their way, you’re either ignorant or stupid. I know exactly what Natural Selection is. I know that natural selection only occurs where there is live. This did not stop Michael Ruse – one of the prominent Darwinists – from claiming that live could’ve arisen from mistakes in crystals, “which opened the door for Natural selection”. But of cause, this is typical of Darwinists: They say absurd things to the ignorant public. When someone catch them out on their own words, they go “Oh, but we already know that’s wrong” – or even worse “Evolution never claimed that”, and goes on to present you with level 2 lies. Once you’ve worked through those lies, you go on to level 3. Debating Darwinists is almost like playing an arcade game. Or pealing an union. Ultimately, Darwinism is not falsifiable, as the goal posts constantly change.

  26. Tactic 4 – Arguing irrelevant semantics: such as “There is no such thing as darwinism”

    I’ve been around the block a couple of years, I’ve seen it all.

  27. From http://www.nolanchart.com/article/print.php?ArticleID=6095
    “I feel I need to validate my claims about Eugene Scott: “It’s clear that Haecel may have fudged his drawings some what, to look more like his ideal than they actually are. Now, does that actually take away from what we know about the relationship of embriology to evolution? Not a bit. The whole Heacel embrio story has been greatly blown out of significance. It is a minor footnote in the history of science, and actually, it’s been known for ten or fifteen years that Heacels embrios are not to be relied apon. The reason why the diagrams are reproduced is because they’re easily available, there’s no copy right on them, it’s an easy way to illustrate a point, and I would argue that the basic point that’s being illustrated by those drawings is still acurate.” – Eugene Scott from the NCSE, from the DVD “Icons of Evolution” Not only is Eugene Scott making excuses for false evidence in the textbooks, the claim that the “basic point that’s being illustrated by those drawings is still acurate.” is also wrong. First of all, the real embrio’s don’t just look a little different, they look A LOT different. Secondly, this is not the early state of embrionic development, but the middle stage. When you go back to the early state, you’ll find these embios look even less alike. This completely counter the darwinist arguement that early embrionic similarities point to a common ancestor, as these early similarities simply doesn’t exist. Not only is Heacels drawings wrong, it completely distorts the evidence, as the real embios make a very poor case for darwinism. Even Stephan J. Gould critisized the continued use of these drawings, yet Eugene Scott choose to defend the lie. If Heacels fraud was discovered last year, the drawings in the text books could be excused. But if they’re still there after 15 years, it is no longer just a mistake, it’s a lie. Eugene Scott is either ignorant of this subject, or she is blatantly promoting lies in the name of science. What she fails to understand is that the general public has a deep respect for scientists, and trust them to tell the truth with integrity. Her abuse of that trust is costing the scientific community the respect and trust of the public. This is not the first time that I’ve seen the NCSE misrepresent evidence which they don’t like. I would not trust this “scientist” anywhere near my children, if I had any, and I would be deeply suspicious of any “scientific” arguement made by her.”

    Sorry, Karin. The NCSE is a joke, and I fail to see how reading more Darwinist lies will make it more scientific. Like I said, it is not so much the strength of the ID argument that convinced me, it is the pathetic response from Darwinists.

  28. “and equating evolution with abiogenesis in order to attack it is a straw man.”

    It is not. Unlike evolutionists, abiogenesis researchers does ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH! It is therefore ironic that evolutionists often refer to “abiogenesis” as a hypothesis (Which they secretly believe to be a fact anyway) and Darwinian evolution to be a “fact”. Where are the breading programs to prove Darwin right? Where are the unicorns? Oh yeah, right. We don’t want to get too close to reality, we might just get proven wrong. Wait, I remember, there are breading programs with fruit flies and others, and they all FAILED to produce something which natural selection would choose for.

  29. So, a scientist who moves books around in a bookstore is a bad person, but creationists who ban and censor books from public libraries and public schools are good people and going to heaven? The logical disconnect there goes a long way to explain why certain people believe in “intelligent design” and spend their lives trying to redefine the definition of science.

  30. Matt

    I challenge you to back up your claim. ID proponents and the DI NEVER advocated the removal of books from libraries. That is what Darwinists do. I suppose you expect me to excuse you for confusing creationists with ID.

    Also, it is Darwinists who redefined science. It is Darwinists who blur the border between science and naturalist philosophy. Only when you presume that live MUST have a purely natural origin, can you accept Darwinism so uncritically.

  31. Hannodb, I was an evangelical Christian and a creationist until the age of 20 or so. I’ve read the ID arguments. I read them before, during and after my deconversion. I am now a scientist working on evolution and biodiversity and I have a PhD in genetics. So don’t accuse me of not reading the ID material or considering the ‘flaws’ you point out. I have considered them, with an open mind, and have concluded that they are all either fallacies, misrepresentations or misinterpretations. I’m sorry I didn’t answer your ‘unicorn challenge’, but frankly, your grasp of genetics, variation and natural selection seemed so unsophisticated, I wasn’t sure where to even begin (though I considered beginning with the fact that we already have dramatically altered domesticated animals through artificial selection). I’m going to stop here because I have work to do and because the rest of what you wrote was just a series of ad hominem attacks that don’t merit response.

  32. The accusations of censorship and vandalism that you’re getting are a bit dramatic, aren’t they? I’d like to know how what you’re doing “may very will be illegal” because I can’t figure it out. It just seems to me that you’re putting those books where it’s more likely that they’ll get read–I mean, most people browsing the science section are pretty unlikely to buy an ID book. I’m just sayin’…

  33. as a librarian and bookseller one might think this needs to be handled at the LOC level. Here is a link to a petition that simply asks that ID books not be classified as science. Maybe they should be moved from the 500s (science) to the 300s and regarded as a social manifestation rather than a religious one (200s). Maybe ID books might do best in the 100s with all the other supernatural books… right next to Bigfoot and Witches.

  34. Karen

    Once again, I must doubt your claim that you’ve read ID material, as you do not see the difference between Creationism and ID. I do believe you’ve read Creationist material, but – and I apologize if I’m generalizing here – I’m VERY skeptical that you’ve read much ID material with an open mind. Even if you did not agree with ID’s conclusion (which, by the way, is not God) you would’ve known better than to equate it with Creationism. Your insistence that anyone who disagree with Darwinism has a religious agenda seriously makes me question how sincere you are about your open minded approach ti ID. You should’ve known that there are scientists out there (not necesarily ID supporters, but open minded towards it) that are nonreligious and still is skeptical of Darwins theory. One example: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/what_darwin_got_wrong_intellig.html, but there are many more. Your insistance that ID is religious with a religious agenda, makes me

    “though I considered beginning with the fact that we already have dramatically altered domesticated animals through artificial selection”
    This is hardly an argument. In fact, this is EXACTLY an argument against Darwinism. As David Berlinski says: we just don’t see the kind of plasticity we would expect if Darwinism is true. Yes, we’re able to change the variables, but not the program. That is EXACTLY what I’m trying to achieve with my unicorn example: Horns are relatively simple structures with no intermediates, and which frequently appears in the fossil record. Changing a dog to be smaller, or to grow longer hair is not an addition of information. If anything, you are reducing genetic information. Non of the current dog races possess anything new which the original race did not have. Growing something new which the species never had, like a horn, that would be impressive. However, you just don’t see that happening anywhere in nature or breeding programmes, so that begs the question: how do they evolve?

    Of cause, to avoid the question, you will label me as “ignorant”, but the challenge remain: Provide a reasonable testable scenario in which a non horned animal can evolve. It is not without reason that I picked the horn and not the eye: Horns have no intermediates: You have small horns and large horns, but they are still horns. Secondly, new horned animals frequently appear in fossil record, which should suggest that if nature can repeat this feature, a human breeder should be able to do so too. Therefore, according to Darwinian theory, if Natural selection is replaced with Human selection, it should be quite possible to breed a unicorn from a horse.

  35. You know what my biggest issue is with Darwinists?

    When a Darwin critic comes along with a well researched criticism of Darwinism, it is labelled as “an attack on science”.

    When a respected Darwinist make a idiotic statement in public – like Michael Ruse’s crystals – silence is golden. It doesn’t matter how far fetched your claim is, the deciding factor is always: does it support Darwinism or not.

  36. Karen and darwinsbulldog,
    Where is the evidence? I think Michael said he hid it in the Religion section. But seriously, a lot of evidence does get hidden there. I went to the Library to check out a book on Design for a friend. I knew they had one because I donated it. We finally found it hidden in the Religion section. Astrology and alchemy though, are the forerunners of modern science. It wasn’t all nonsense, some actual scientific progress was made. Something may look like magic if you don’t understand the process behind it.
    You’re probably aware that the Tree of Knowledge the Bible talks about is the tree of “scientia,” in Latin. ( Science ) The word “Supernatural,” is not in the Bible. That which people think of as supernatural is probably only something we don’t understand. The debate is not between religion and science, or natural vs. supernatural. The only separation to be drawn is the known from the unknown, and the actual facts from opinions about the facts. Take a look at some of the books we’re talking about. Some of them ( not all ) are written by qualified scientists in many fields.

  37. ‘Where is the evidence?’ Seriously? Are you wikipedia-impaired or something? If so, I’ve heard ‘why evolution is true’ by jerry coyne is a good place to start.

  38. Oh and about that earlier caps-locked outburst claiming that evolutionists don’t so any actual research… how, I wonder, do you explain the 260,000 peer reviewed articles that come up when you search PubMed for ‘evolution’?

  39. Regardless of the evolution vs. creationism debate (who gives a damn), what every commenter has failed to note is how childish this act was. Not only does it show what levels of pettiness the author is willing to go to, it also inconveniences those working in the bookstore.

    My suggestion to the author is to find a more constructive means of getting his point across.

  40. Pingback: Discovery Institute: Censored by Vandals! « The Sensuous Curmudgeon

  41. “@themysteryof – What do you call intelligent design if it isn’t religion? What sorts of people are out there “working on” intelligent design. Predominantly Christians. Talk to me when you can show me any evidence for intelligent design.”

    Actually you can write your statement both ways and they’d be true: What do you call evolution if it isn’t religion? What sorts of people are out there “working on” evolution? Predominantly atheists. Talk to me when you can show me any evidence for evolution.

    Science?! Yeah, whatever.

  42. Pingback: Vandalizing Bookstores and Censoring Books in the Name of Darwin « Faithandthelaw's Blog

  43. As a fellow graduate student, I am quite saddened by this act. It doesn’t matter whether it is for a good cause or bad, legitimate concern or not, or whether I believe in flat earth or unicorns or Darwin or ID, vandalism just doesn’t have a place in a civilized society. To be engaging in vandalism and then to blog this without remorse is just astounding to me, and I pity this blogger…

  44. Now now, we’ve resorted to name calling. I think you’ll find that moving books within a store, without damaging or destroying them, is not vandalism.

    I’m sure a civilised society also aims for progress in thinking and science, rather than trying to project myths onto facts, bending them to fit some backward ideology.

    I think you need to get over this “us and them” mentality as well. The poor, humble creationists up against the giant juggernaut of evolutionists. I can’t fathom how scientists have become the embodiment of evil and moral corruption for simply sticking to the facts?

    I hardly think this is militant Darwinism. And if you are going to invoke homosexuality as a derogatory term, you really have a lot of growing up to do.

    Unless you meant happy, because that we are, there is so much joy in using the wonderfully testable theory to find out about the world. Really, you should give it a go sometime. The biological world is incredibly fascinating and evolution is what we use to explain it. We don’t give up when it gets too hard and invoke a deity, we use our wonderfully evolved minds to tackle the problem.

    I feel sorry for you that feel threatened by scientific advances, the rest of us are enjoying the wonder immensely.

  45. Another evidence Why Neo-Darwinian thrives by bravado and religious zeal plus censorship and great fanfare like Darwin Day rather than honest debate. If he thinks this makes evolution more palatable by the brain, please do so for every libraries and bookstores in the world. Who knows by the time he finished his job, Darwin is reduced to a mere footnotes in history of science.

  46. summerwino,

    Sure I love it when you think hiding books and putting scientific books to religion section will promote scientific advances, too much reading of God Delusion on your part I think … It does decrease my IQ by a substantially for awhile when I read it and in your case it does addle your brain permanently.

  47. Jonathon, if it makes you feel better, I’ve never read the “God Delusion”. I don’t need those kind of arguments to appreciate evolutionary theory.

    Evolution stands on its own, and people are free to make up their own minds about religion. What I object to is when the religiosity of someone dictates their opposition to evolution. Its a horrible situation to deal with.

    The books are still there to be bought by someone, we are merely clarifying that “anti-science” books should not be next to “science” books. If the shops don’t agree, they can easily refuse our patronage.

  48. Yes! I can enter the fight! Ah, I love this. *cracks knuckles and other joints (not the neck though, that’s creepy)*

    Jonathan – “Another evidence Why Neo-Darwinian thrives by bravado and religious zeal plus censorship and great fanfare like Darwin Day rather than honest debate. If he thinks this makes evolution more palatable by the brain, please do so for every libraries and bookstores in the world. Who knows by the time he finished his job, Darwin is reduced to a mere footnotes in history of science.”

    Honest debate? Evolutionary biology needs some honest debate? Why, you’re absolutely right – when biologists are discussing the details of the theory And this is what currently happens. But when theologians, engineers, mathematicians and biophysicists start pretending that they have the authority to challenge the science based on DISHONEST and unscientific arguments, well… there’s your problem. A little honesty there would go a long way.

    Perhaps, instead of complaining about the books being moved, you could actually read what people are saying about the books that would make them want to move them. I know it’s tricky, reading things that you might not, to begin, agree with, but you’ll get used to it.

  49. Naon Tiotami

    You make the point exactly: The only people who has the authority to question Darwinism, is Evolutionary biologists. Not even biophysicists are qualified, in your opinion.

    By the way, most ID material is published by SCIENTISTS, and they advance SCIENTIFIC arguments. It is the Darwinists who insist on giving it a religious dressing.

    Of cause, this is typical circular reasoning of Darwinists: A scientist that question Darwinism, is not a scientist. Therefore, there is a consensus among scientists that Darwinism is true. Same with the peer reviewed journal argument. I’ve heard the pathetic criticisms of ID from prominent Darwinists. If these same Darwinists are the ones doing the peer reviewing, then science is in a difficult spot indeed. Newton’s work was never “peer reviewed”. It was published in a book, so anyone can read it for themselves, and form an informed opinion. There was no Science Thought Police back then. And then they say ID scientists are not persecuted!

  50. Oh please. When have ID-creationists ever produced something that has advanced science?

    If they could only demonstrate their idea, scientifically, us scientists would be more than glad to embrace a new way of understanding. A paradigm shift that changes the way we think would be monumental!

    If it can be demonstrated scientifically, it will be taken on board and looked at properly. ID-creationism has yet to do this.

    Instead the creationists just try and attack evolution, fail abysmally and need to concoct stories about how the “Darwinian institution” won’t play fair.

    It’s really pitiful. And you seem set in your ways, I’m sorry that you have let an ideology determine the way you think and stop you from finding out about the natural world.

  51. Hannodb – “You make the point exactly: The only people who has the authority to question Darwinism, is Evolutionary biologists. Not even biophysicists are qualified, in your opinion.”

    Oh, fine – THEORETICALLY it’s possible that an expert outside of the field could have an argument/piece of evidence that falsifies evolutionary theory (you must judge arguments, not people), but you have to look at the bigger picture. In the ID/evolution “debate”, you have on one side people who know what they’re talking about in the field of evolution – people who have dedicated most of their lives to studying this area of science – and on the other, non-biologists (with rare, RARE exceptions) who mostly have theological issues with evolution and start from that preconception and bias. (Don’t use the argument that evolutionary biologists have preconceptions as well, because that’s a load of crap. Spare us.) This causes them to attack a scientific theory that they, as has been shown repeatedly, do not understand enough.

    “By the way, most ID material is published by SCIENTISTS, and they advance SCIENTIFIC arguments. It is the Darwinists who insist on giving it a religious dressing.”

    The first point is semi-correct – some ID proponents are scientists, but some are not. There are mathematicians, philosophers, historians, lawyers and engineers amongst the highest ranks in the Discovery Institute.

    The second point is plain wrong – they don’t advance scientific arguments (simply stating they do doesn’t make it so: plus, it forces me to counter in the same way, as you haven’t given me any examples, so this is just bad arguing on your part), and even if they were all scientists, scientists don’t always make scientific arguments. We’re all human.

    “Of cause, this is typical circular reasoning of Darwinists: A scientist that question Darwinism, is not a scientist. Therefore, there is a consensus among scientists that Darwinism is true.”

    Incorrect, if simply for the reason that the “Darwinist” term is never used by the people who are actually being called “Darwinists”.

    I’m not saying that a physicist can’t do good work in physics while they advance dodgy arguments against evolutionary theory – that’s very possible, and does happen. What I am saying is that you won’t find evolutionary biologists, people who ACTUALLY KNOW what’s going on with evolution, advancing the same arguments as non-biologist ID proponents against evolution. In fact, they won’t advance any arguments against evolution, because there aren’t any that are scientific or valid.

    “Same with the peer reviewed journal argument. I’ve heard the pathetic criticisms of ID from prominent Darwinists. If these same Darwinists are the ones doing the peer reviewing, then science is in a difficult spot indeed.”

    Great subjective argument. Unless those criticisms have been criticised for being so “pathetic” and I can see them (and agree with the science and arguments being put forward), then I’m not going to agree, and neither is anyone else who doesn’t accept that argument without thinking or demanding evidence.

    “Newton’s work was never “peer reviewed”. It was published in a book, so anyone can read it for themselves, and form an informed opinion. There was no Science Thought Police back then. And then they say ID scientists are not persecuted!”

    You think that Newton’s work was never tested, never criticised by any scientists at all? Peer review is one of the pillars of the scientific method – it is required so that the errors and biases of individual scientists can be effectively removed from their results and conclusions to see if they hold up without them. Other scientists at the time and later didn’t accept Newton’s ideas about light, gravity and motion without any thought – they had to test them to see if he was right. And he was.

    ID proponents, if their argument held up, would have no problems submitting their posts to peer review. But they know that they will be rejected (for whatever reason they have in their heads – I’m not necessarily suggesting that it’s conscious fraud, they could just be rationalising it all away JUST LIKE YOU ARE NOW).

    ID scientists are, in a sense, being persecuted, but it’s for a good reason – the stuff they try and claim is science just isn’t, and the scientific community won’t stand for it. You can claim that it’s unfair, but trust me, it’s VERY FAIR.

  52. “you must judge arguments, not people”

    Funny how few Darwinists actually practice this good piece of advice.

    “people who have dedicated most of their lives to studying this area of science”

    And therefore have good financial and profesional motivation to toe the Darwinist line. I hardly see an how an Evolutionary Biologist would admit the entire theory is wrong.

    “and on the other, non-biologists (with rare, RARE exceptions) who mostly have theological issues with evolution and start from that preconception and bias.”

    Ofcause, it is much easier for Darwinists to pretend that ALL critics of Darwin have religious motivations.

    Micheal Denton – Wrote the book that started it all. “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”. Though he did not propose an alternative, this book brought introduced a refreshing critisism of Darwins theory to science.

    Michael Behe – used to be convinced of Darwinism, until he studied the evidence for himself. He still believes in evolution, but also recognise its limits. His book “Darwin’s black box” was critisised even before Darwinist formulated a proper answer.

    David Berlinski – Agnostig. Hardly someone with a religious agenda.

    Dean Kenyon – Co author of “Biochemical predestination”. Genetics has forced him to admin that life could not have a natural origin.

    To name but a view.

    Yes, many ID scientist do happen do be religious as well, but it is quite clear that they do not bring their religious believes to ID. They base their arguments on empirical evidence. To use this as an argument is in itself a mixing of science and religion (Atheism)

    “This causes them to attack a scientific theory that they, as has been shown repeatedly, do not understand enough.”

    You mean they havent been brainwashed enough. This is a tipical flaw of Darwinian reasoning: If you do not agree with it, you do not understand it. Even scientists who spend years researching it “do not understand it enough”, simply because they disagree.

    “The first point is semi-correct – some ID proponents are scientists”

    I’ll congratualte you for making this admition. It is a small step towards recovering from dogmatic acceptance.

    “The second point is plain wrong – they don’t advance scientific arguments (simply stating they do doesn’t make it so”

    Lol. Ofcause, “scientific argument” according to a darwinism means “A statement supporting darwinism”. The problem of information in the genome based on empirical facts, as well as the fact that no known natural process have the ability to produce information. This is a fact determined by people who study information as a science. Yet, Darwinists will refute this, calling it “unscientific”, calling into question observed truths in other fields of science, without providing a reasonable alternative (And I’ve heard those who tried, few as they are), all in the name of Darwin.

    “even if they were all scientists, scientists don’t always make scientific arguments.”

    …except when you’re promoting Darwinism.

    Incorrect, if simply for the reason that the “Darwinist” term is never used by the people who are actually being called “Darwinists”.

    Wrong again. Richard Dawkins himself used this term in Expelled. You know, that movie that Darwinists violently object to as a huge misrepresentation, while the idiocracy that came out of the Darwinists own mouths are conveniently ignored.

    “while they advance dodgy arguments against evolutionary theory”

    ANY argument against evolution is concidered dodgy by Darwinists.

    “You think that Newton’s work was never tested, never criticised by any scientists at all? Peer review is one of the pillars of the scientific method”

    Not at all. However, Peer review practiced back then implied: you get your work published, and then critised. Peer review todays mean, if you don’t conform to the orthodox view, it doesn’t get published at all. I’m all in favor of peer review, but peer review that is transparent.

    “ID proponents, if their argument held up, would have no problems submitting their posts to peer review. But they know that they will be rejected ”

    Not at all. Stephan Meyer had his work published in a peer reviewed journal. However, because it introduced ID, the peer review was questioned. And judging from the close mindedness of Darwinists, it is no surprise.

    “ID scientists are, in a sense, being persecuted, but it’s for a good reason – the stuff they try and claim is science just isn’t, and the scientific community won’t stand for it.”

    Based on the say-so of Darwinists and nothing more. I’ve heard how many Darwinists claim that science “REQUIRE” a natural explaination. So we would rather go around in circles searching for a materialist origin of live, than to simply have the evidence speak for itself.

  53. On that last statement, the consequence is clear: It does not matter how good your argument is, how strong your evidence is, if your conclusion is not naturalistic, “it is not science”.

    Well, if that is what science is, it should be blown out of the water! Science is suppose to be a search for the truth, regardless of what the truth entails.

  54. “Funny how few Darwinists actually practice this good piece of advice.”

    Well, most people who defend evolution just get sick and tired of the same old arguments that they’ve heard one hundred times before, so they may slip into a bit of name-calling. But they won’t say that the arguments are invalid because X is “an idiot”, but that X is “an idiot” because they believe that their arguments are valid.

    “And therefore have good financial and profesional motivation to toe the Darwinist line. I hardly see an how an Evolutionary Biologist would admit the entire theory is wrong.”

    Ever heard of something called FAME and PRESTIGE? Or the Nobel Prize? If a scientist actually overturned evolutionary biology with a legitimate, scientific theory that was better supported… they would be one of the greatest scientists of the decade (in the textbooks). Don’t tell me there’s no incentive.

    “Ofcause, it is much easier for Darwinists to pretend that ALL critics of Darwin have religious motivations.”

    Well, most of them do. And you’re about to list people who aren’t religious, here we go…

    Just because some people in the ID movement don’t have a religious motivation, it doesn’t mean that the vast majority of them don’t either.

    The few people you named are in the minority.

    “Yes, many ID scientist do happen do be religious as well, but it is quite clear that they do not bring their religious believes to ID. They base their arguments on empirical evidence. To use this as an argument is in itself a mixing of science and religion (Atheism)”

    Is it clear? Meh, I don’t really care, at the end of the day. I don’t care if they were all religious fundamentalists – what I care about, in a scientific context, is the science. Is it there? That’s what I care about.

    So, are the ID arguments based on science? No, they’re not. Bloggers such as myself, as well as scientists, have constantly gone over the arguments that are supposedly “scientific” in support of ID, but in the end they either turn out to be: unfalsifiable or arguments from ignorance – both rendering them unscientific.

    If you want more about this from my point of view (and writing style, whatever that is), you can go here: http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=1049 . Tell me what you think, please, I want to know.

    “You mean they havent been brainwashed enough. This is a tipical flaw of Darwinian reasoning: If you do not agree with it, you do not understand it. Even scientists who spend years researching it “do not understand it enough”, simply because they disagree.”

    Here, the term “research” is nebulous, as anyone can claim that they have “researched” something yet they haven’t done anything substantial at all. Going to university to study something is a good as it gets with “researching” a topic – reading some books by a few people is hardly an acceptable substitute.

    “I’ll congratualte you for making this admition. It is a small step towards recovering from dogmatic acceptance.”

    I’ll also congratulate you, but for being a slightly condescending.

    “Lol. Ofcause, “scientific argument” according to a darwinism means “A statement supporting darwinism”. The problem of information in the genome based on empirical facts, as well as the fact that no known natural process have the ability to produce information. This is a fact determined by people who study information as a science.”

    WRONG. Pure wrongness. Wrongity wrong wrong wrong.

    I’ll leave you one thing to think about here – gene duplication.

    ” Yet, Darwinists will refute this, calling it “unscientific”, calling into question observed truths in other fields of science, without providing a reasonable alternative (And I’ve heard those who tried, few as they are), all in the name of Darwin.”

    I just gave you an “alternative”, as will every evolutionary biologist that you ask. Have you ever asked this of a biologist and looked at what they responded with?

    “Wrong again. Richard Dawkins himself used this term in Expelled. You know, that movie that Darwinists violently object to as a huge misrepresentation, while the idiocracy that came out of the Darwinists own mouths are conveniently ignored.”

    Fine, Dawkins used the term, but I, and many other people, disagree with the use of the term – any word with an “-ist” is just deceptive.

    I think Dawkins uses it in a way that is different to others – he is a “Darwinist” in the fact that he accepts Darwinian gradualism as opposed to “punctuated equilibrium”, an evolutionary hypothesis proposed by the late Stephen Jay Gould. This was a big thing in the 90s, if you know your history of science.

    “ANY argument against evolution is concidered dodgy by Darwinists.”

    Yes, because they are. Do you think that we would be considered unbiased if we found some of the arguments to be compelling? It’s actually possible (and very true) that all of the arguments that I have seen are false and invalid – without me just THINKING that they are because I’m a biased, ol’ Darwinist with an agenda of atheism and baby-eating.

    “Not at all. However, Peer review practiced back then implied: you get your work published, and then critised. Peer review todays mean, if you don’t conform to the orthodox view, it doesn’t get published at all. I’m all in favor of peer review, but peer review that is transparent.

    There are so many scientists and papers that could be potentially published today that there needs to be some sort of filter to block out the super-crap stuff from cluttering up the journals. The fact that no ID papers have been published could mean a conspiracy, yes, but then again… all the stuff could just be as unscientific as it has been shown to be outside of the journals. I know which one is easier to believe and backed up by evidence.

    “Not at all. Stephan Meyer had his work published in a peer reviewed journal. However, because it introduced ID, the peer review was questioned. And judging from the close mindedness of Darwinists, it is no surprise.”

    Link to the paper, please. Was it about information theory? I bet it was. Hah.

    “Based on the say-so of Darwinists and nothing more. I’ve heard how many Darwinists claim that science “REQUIRE” a natural explaination. So we would rather go around in circles searching for a materialist origin of live, than to simply have the evidence speak for itself”

    There are good reasons for having natural explanations in science – mostly due to the nature of supernatural explanations by default: they are untestable, unfalsifiable and therefore give no real information about the world. If you believe that they can be scientific in nature, please describe how the meet the basis requirements of a scientific hypothesis. (By the way, people have tried before in the past, and they all failed pretty badly.)

    “On that last statement, the consequence is clear: It does not matter how good your argument is, how strong your evidence is, if your conclusion is not naturalistic, “it is not science”.

    Well, if that is what science is, it should be blown out of the water! Science is suppose to be a search for the truth, regardless of what the truth entails.”

    Again, explain how a supernatural explanation can be scientific, then I’ll take your claims about the topic of the nature of science seriously. Please. Come prepared to a discussion like this.

  55. “Ever heard of something called FAME and PRESTIGE? Or the Nobel Prize? If a scientist actually overturned evolutionary biology with a legitimate, scientific theory that was better supported… they would be one of the greatest scientists of the decade (in the textbooks). Don’t tell me there’s no incentive.”

    Wrong. He’ll be labeled a creationist and loose his prestige and his job, which is exactly why many scientists are not very vocal about their ID views. Even Darwin critics who do not support ID are treated this way. Darwinists do not tolerate dissent.

    The one thing you should have expanded upon, you didn’t:

    WRONG. Pure wrongness. Wrongity wrong wrong wrong.

    I’ll leave you one thing to think about here – gene duplication.

    Making a copy of existing information is not the same thing as creating new information. That’s why I do not consider a man with 12 fingers as evidence for Darwinism: nothing new has been created. Uhm, I did mention my Unicorn example as a true test for new information.

    I could probably comment more extensively (And get into trouble at work) but I think it will only end up in an infinite loop.

    I will, however, look at your blog. Seeing as you asked so nicely.

  56. “Wrong. He’ll be labeled a creationist and loose his prestige and his job, which is exactly why many scientists are not very vocal about their ID views. Even Darwin critics who do not support ID are treated this way. Darwinists do not tolerate dissent.”

    Hey, I never claimed it would be easy to do – you’d have to have insanely good evidence and a rock-solid hypothesis. As such, nobody has done it (and I don’t think they ever will). But the potential is there, and that’s the main point.

    “Making a copy of existing information is not the same thing as creating new information. That’s why I do not consider a man with 12 fingers as evidence for Darwinism: nothing new has been created. Uhm, I did mention my Unicorn example as a true test for new information.”

    No, you didn’t mention it. Perhaps you should some time.

    Hmm, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding of gene duplication. Here – read something else that I’ve written on my blog, this time focusing on something that Jonathan Wells had to say on the topic (I’m sure you respect his arguments etc.) – http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=871

    (I know it seems like I’m plugging my blog, but really – it’s the easiest way to condense an argument that I’ve already covered and move it out of these comments.)

    “I will, however, look at your blog. Seeing as you asked so nicely.”

    Thank you, I appreciate it.

  57. I haven’t read it all, but I can already tell you this:

    Darwinism is not falsifiable.

    It predicts that we should see a steady gradual evolution in the fossil record. We do not, we see animals suddenly appearing, hanging around for a couple of million years, and then disappear as they appeared with no net evolution.

    It predicts a small variety of simple creatures gradually evolving into more varied and more complicated animals. Instead we have Cambrium explosion.

    It predicts unlimited plasticity, and yet in breeding programs, while you can change the existing variables of the animal, you can not create anything that didn’t exist before – no matter how gradually.

    It predicted that 90% of the genome will be junk DNA with not function, but the latest genetics discoveries suggest that this so called “junk” actually do have function – A prediction of ID.

    There are lots of empirical facts that should’ve falsified Darwinism long ago, but instead, the theory is simply being altered to accomodate the new data. A lot of Darwinist predictions was WRONG, and yet, it’s never quite good enough to falsify the theory all together. Nothing in Darwinism is falsifyable, anything can be altered. As Berlinski said, it’s like a room full of smoke. Nothing is clearly defined. The reason is quite simple: It’s the only available NATURALISTIC explaination, and therefore is concidered true, regardless of the evidence. Evidence that should’ve falsified evolution, is simply used to “adjust” the theory, with proposterous ideas such as “Punctuated Equilibrium”.

    As for ID, if Darwinists may “improve” on their theory, why not ID theorists as well? Darwinism is allowed to evolve, ID is not. (Excuse the pun)

    The big problem is also that that Irreducible Complexity HAS NOT BEEN REFUTED. I have heard the whole “Type 3 secretion device” argument from dr. Kenneth Miller, and all it demonstrated is his inability to understand the argument. So if you take away 90% of the Bacterial flagellum, you get a secretion device. 90% is hardly a smooth evolution from the one to the other. If you take away a single core component of the flaggelum motor, you get something that is complete useless. For it to function AS A MOTOR, you need all the parts in place. Also, since we have the technology to code DNA, I suggest Darwinists demonstrate how, with known genetic mechanisms, you can start off with a Type 3 secretion device, and end up with a BF.

    On the other hand, I’ll challenge Darwinists to demonstrate P.E. in real live. Since this is suppose to explain away the “rapid evolution” between fossil species, it should be possible to reproduce in observable experiments.

    Or, if you’re like Dawkins who prefer the gradual approach, how do you explain away the fossil record?

    Or how do we explain how Darwinists create imaginary Ape men from a handful of bone fragments? Is this scientific? How come we always get to see the “Artist impressions” of the ape men, and never the hard evidence? The few cases where I did see this, it was quite clear that a lot of imagination filled the gaps.

    Tell me, why do Darwinists condone it that embryo drawings, which are known to be fakes for over a 100 years, are still presented to the public as evidence? Is this good science? If Darwinists are so concerned about the integrity of science, why are they so unconcerned about the fact that their theory is not presented accurately to the public?

    I’m sorry, but the bar IS being set a lot higher for ID than for Darwinism. Some Darwinists go so far as to expect ID to present the designer, which is ridiculous.

  58. Hannodb – Is that in response to a blog post of mine? If so, could you please put that in the comments to that post? I don’t think it’s that appropriate here.

  59. PART 1 “Casey goes into explain it in a little more detail, but he uses weird Information Theory language that I, quite frankly, don’t understand. The thing is though, I don’t need to understand it, nothing he could say could ever add any more plausibility to his strawman argument. Why is it a strawman? Let’s find out.”

    PART 2 “So, you have the photocopy of the paper and the original paper. These represent the duplicate gene and the original gene. So far, you have exactly the same amount of information as you did before. But what happens when you cross out a word and put in a different one in its place? Suddenly, you don’t have two copies of the same paper anymore – you have two different papers. Each can now be read and a different piece of information can be received from each one – and one of those pieces of information is completely new.”

    As I thought. Your idea fell flat on its face. Part 2 fails, and it fails quote possibly because of what you didn’t understand in Part 1.

    When you remove a word, you do not have NEW information, you have BROKEN information. Yes, it will create a mutation, one which natural selection WILL NOT CHOOSE FOR. Why? because information are islands of meaning drifting in a universe of gibberish. Unless you intentionally seek it out, you will not get there by chance. Your model for creating new information will be about as successful as someone making a random change in my computer code.

    This is a perfect example of how Darwinists ignore the truth in other scientific fields to uphold their own theory. So Information theory is irrelevant to your case? If mutation in the genome is the basis for your new information, I would say Darwinism falls flat in the face of Information theory.

    Maybe Evolutionary Biologists are EXACTLY the wrong people to evaluate their own theory, because they IGNORE what is known in other sciences.

  60. Pingback: Vandalism and Censorship? « A Natural Evolution

  61. The methodologies used to establish and test Intelligent Design (ID) theory are exclusively empirical, mathematical and logical. NO religious considerations, teachings or dogmas are even remotely employed in ID’s methods. Therefore ID is ‘science’.

    Conversely, mainstream Darwinism/evolutionism starts off with the religious dogma that all scientific explanations MUST be a-theistic. Moreover, its proponants insulate Darwinian/evolutionary theory so that it cannot be falsified or even questioned.

    Darwinism/evolutionism (like religious creationism) is therefore NOT science at all, but religion.

    You are re-siting the wrong books.

  62. Pingback: The Discovery Institute needs a dictionary « The Dispersal of Darwin

  63. Pingback: Antievolutionist says my reshelving unscientific books is “a global terrorist action” « The Dispersal of Darwin

  64. Why do you think this stuff belongs in the religion section? It’s awful science and even worse religion which is even more susceptible to stupidity as well as cultural anxiety!

    My computer has a recycle bin. Don’t book stores? They need to get up to date. Let’s face it. This stuff is just plain old fashion trash.

    You are still playing the fair and balanced game when you suggest this nonsense has a legitimate place in the public realm.. Lies and untruths aren’t religion

  65. Pingback: Happy Darwin Day! « Homologous Legs

  66. Okay, I can’t help weighing in again to address a few things that really bug me: the claim that evolutionary biologists don’t do actual research, the claim that there’s no evidence for the evolution of morphological novelties (Hannodb’s unicorns for example), and the claim that there’s no explanation for how these morphological novelties might evolve (the old ‘no new information’ trope).

    There are so many examples that could be used to refute all three of these claims, but there’s one in particular I want to share…. I just can’t help myself…

    Temporal comparison of Broad-Complex expression during eggshell-appendage patterning and morphogenesis in two Drosophila species with different eggshell-appendage numbers. (pdf here)

    See how the name of the first author is KE James? Yeah? Well, that’s me. In this peer-reviewed research we documented the developmental patterning variations that correlate with observed morphological variations between species. Our results suggested a working model for how eggshells with two appendages ‘evolved’ into eggshells with four appendages, through changes in gene expression in response to spatially dynamic cell signaling pathway feedback loops.

    Here’s the kicker. The eggs of one species can be made, experimentally, by overexpressing or inhibiting certain genes in these pathways, to resemble the eggs of another species. I’m talking about experimental conversion of a two-appendaged egg into a four-appendaged egg …or even a one-appendaged egg, sort of like a… like a… unicorn.

    And, proud though I am of my work, this isn’t even close the best example of these kinds of studies, because we still haven’t got to the stage of demonstrating whether what is happening in the experimental manipulation is the same thing that happened during evolution, or just a good mimic of it. But don’t put it past us.

    The best examples, where they’ve actually gone and taken that extra step, are the kinds of things going on in the labs of <a href="http://www.molbio.wisc.edu/carroll/&quot;Sean Carroll and John Doebley, for example. I suggest you familiarize yourselves with the work of these two for starters, then come back and we can talk more about ‘evidence’.

  67. These past several decades have revealed just how bankrupt Darwin’s hypothesis truly is. Unfortunately it has 150 years of support behind it. As we all know, scientific ideas with that much time invested into them wont die easily within the establishment. What makes it so much worse in this case is that Darwinism isn’t just an idea, but a secular religion. We have the creation miracle (abiogenesis), the God (nature), the messiah (Darwin). We have Darwin Day in which Darwinists celebrate the messiahs birth. Worst of all, we have fundamental Darwinists rejecting modern science due to it contradicting their preferred views.

    We can see just how insecure Darwinists are by their behavior. Fallacious strawman attacks on I.D., peer-view corruption, expelling well qualified scientists, refusing the debate despite the fact that the public overwhelming supports I.D., etc.

    Folks, this is not the behavior of a confident group of people. This is the behavior of a group of people who realize their precious worldview is slowly becoming obsolete, people who are deeply afraid, terrified of what modern science has discovered and the implications it brings.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the greatest scientific revolution of all-time in Intelligent Design. Those who oppose the revolution make flat-Earthers look sane by comparison.

    Long live science. Long live truth. Long live Intelligent Design.

  68. I see that none of the cdesign proponentsists actually bothered to provide evidence for Intelligent Design. All they ever do is say “evolution is teh wrong” and then run away. No evidence. No research. They seem to think that all they have to do is disprove evolution and Intelligent Design will win by default. Too bad that real science doesn’t work that way. Stop telling us what evolution supposedly can’t do and start showing us what ID can do.

  69. Pingback: Coffee!!: Miss Shelver strikes again, but this one must use men’s room, I gather | Uncommon Descent

  70. Not only does Michael D Barton vandalize private businesses by moving merchandise where customers cannot find and buy it, also requiring the business to spend extra time (money) to correct Michael D Barton’s vandalism, but Michael D Barton boasts about his petty activities on a website for all to see.

    Except I’ll bet that you don’t identify yourself to the bookstore owner and tell him what you’ve done.

    A pretty pathetic character is Michael D Barton, regardless of whatever academic achievements he boasts about in his biography page.

    If you engage in your fun in my own bookstore, I will call the police and press charges.

  71. @Dennis – I urge you to look at my response post to West’s claim that I vandalized books, here. Where, I ask, is the vandalism?

    And, if you called cops and said there’s a guy moving books (like, 2 of them) in a bookstore, they’d tell you to leave them alone.

  72. Moving books? Really??!! …and you boast about this?? WOW!!! What a COWARD!!! Are you really THAT afraid of how weak the Darwin argument is??

    Dude, grow up and try using logic and argument to make your point. Don’t embarrASS all of the other Darwinists with your weakminded ways.

    YAWN.

  73. @ Mike – You REALLY know HOW to USE the CAPS lock ON your COMPUTER, don’t YOU?

    What about the logic and argument given by Karen James in all the comments before this one?

  74. It’s not like Mike was capitalizing all the letters in random words, there was some “design” to it, whereas yours is more random. Which use of capital letters made more sense in the end?

    As for referencing Karen’s above comments, obviously there’s a lot there (not all purely logical) and it all can’t be addressed in one post (and it’s possible it all can’t be addressed, and I’m not trying to say it can be), so I’ll address a couple of her shorter posts-the back-to-back ones at 11:13 am and 11:23 am on February 10.

    First, Wikipedia is a very poor resource because (nearly) anyone can update it (most of the time). Although it is useful for simple overviews on some topics, its entries are naturally biased by the writer, and the writer could be anyone. This is especially troublesome on “charged” topics like evolution, global warming, etc. She may choose to use it, but I certainly wpuldn’t recommend it.

    Second, I find it remarkable that someone would reference “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne as a scientific book in this thread, especially as compared to “The Edge of Evolution.” Has she read the first and last chapters of Coyne’s book? If so, how is that book not about religion? The rest of it has religious comments sparsed throughout as well. I’m not about to spend/waste the time to do it, but I’d be interested to see some tallies on the number of religious references in the two books I’ve mentioned, as I’d expect to see Coyne’s book dominate that competition. If that’s the case, “Why Evolution is True” should go into the religion section before “The Edge of Evolution.”

    Finally, with reference to the 11:23 post, let’s use Karen’s approach to evaluate several terms. I used PubMed (today) to search the following terms and obtained the following number of hits:

    Evolution = 259,226
    Gravity = 25,319
    Creation = 26,052
    Design = 660,042

    According to her metric, is creation is more scientific than gravity? Clearly, this metric fails for obvious reasons (and the way it fails for creation also affects evolution). However, even after one rejects her metric, the huge number of hits for “design” may indicate that humans know a lot about design, so I must thank Karen for pointing this out to me.

  75. These books that you are misplacing; have you read any of them thoughtfully, or do you just blindly follow where your prejudice leads you?

    Are you not able to see what an embarrassing light this sophomoric and partisan game puts you in?

    I thought religion had the market on fanaticism.
    Guess not.

  76. On what basis does a bookstore shelve books? Maybe Dennis can tell us how he makes a decision. Or how he calls the cops on people he finds who pick up a book and leave it at new location. Are there signs that say all books must be returned to the exact shelf location or you will be subject to fine or imprisonment?

    If I find Steven Meyer’s book in the Science section, how do I know it wasn’t moved there by an ID advocate? The Library of Congress doesn’t think it is a science book. What if the book store decides to put “On the Origin of Species” or “The Bible” in the fiction section? How do I know when I walk into a bookstore, why a book is where it is?The indignation over something so minor is hliarious.

  77. You are an intellectual coward. You are so afraid of questioning your beliefs, and they are beliefs, that you do not even want to acknowledge any questions exist. You must know your beliefs are very weak and are so afraid more people will learn just how weak you, and your beliefs are. If you do not question science it ceases to be science and simply becomes dogma. Einstein said he didn’t care how many people believed him, it would take only one to prove him wrong. You are a sheep, following the crowd, to scared to think for yourself.

  78. I am compelled to call attention to Joe G‘s comment above that, “I have been taking books by Dawkins, Carroll, Mayr, Darwin, Gould, Eldridge, et al., and placing them in the children’s fiction section.

    Awesome. Introduce kids to critical thinking and reasoning skills at a young age. They’ll learn to think for themselves and be better for it. Can you put some on the tween and teen aisles too?

  79. To Karen:

    Anyone who has ever built a computer system knows intuitively that you simply cannot make a major change to an existing system one line of code at a time–not if you expect the system to continue to work after each addition. The reason is that a system consists of many parts fitting and working together. You can’t add one small part at a time and expect it to work in the absence of the others. And organisms are systems, extremely complicated systems.

    What science has failed to find any evidence for, either in the laboratory, in nature, in breeding by humans, or anywhere, is the proposition that novel biological features can arise as the result of a series of small changes to an existing organism–not if you include the requirement that each change results in an organism that not only works, but is in some way more “fit” than its progenitor. This is the central thesis of Darwin’s argument, and this is what scientific discoveries have failed to support.

    Put simply, there is no scientific evidence that random mutation and natural selection can result in macroevolutionary changes.

    If you know of any such evidence, I would love to see it. And please, don’t invoke the fossil record. The fossil record shows that life has become increasingly complex and variegated over time; it does not show that random mutation and natural selection constitute the mechanism by which this occurred. In fact, the fossil record supports a design hypothesis much better than a Darwinian one. It fits the pattern evidenced by the evolution of human technology (e.g., the evolution of the computer, the airplane, sound recording, etc.) much better than that predicted by Darwin himself in Origin.

  80. Mike, you should be ashamed. Your tactic is childish and pathetic. Sheesh. Next time you move books to the fantasy section, make sure to take Dawkins’ books on religion along.

  81. You creationists who cry out with one voice ‘where’s the evidence?’ haven’t said much of anything since I posted my comment actually providing some new evidence (well, it was published in 2003 but it will be new to you because it doesn’t appear in Icons of Evolution). There have been 9 creationist comments since then only 2 of which have even mentioned my post, and even those haven’t addressed the evidence I gave beyond Steve calling it ‘not purely logical’ (without actually explaining what wasn’t logical about it) and Bruce just backpedaling further into God’s Gap by regurgitating those old discredited lines about macroevolution and http://www.google.com/custom?q=mutations&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org”>mutations. Poor show, people.

  82. Scott, I used Wikipedia links for the fallacies because they are good footholds for fallacy n00bs and because the definitions of the various fallacies is hardly one of the ‘charged topics’ to which you refer. More to the point, I find it ironic in the extreme that a creationist is leveling the criticism that Wikipedia is ‘…naturally biased by the writer, and the writer could be anyone.’ You know, because creationists are never ‘naturally biased’ and everyone knows what well-recognized authorities they are on evolution. *snorts* You went on to claim that Why Evolution is True is not ‘scientific’ but completely ignored the peer-reviewed science I gave you. Bah.

  83. Lastly, Scott, you say that the reason my PubMed metric ‘fails for “creation” also affects “evolution”’ but that’s just not true, because when PubMed finds hits for ‘evolution’, the articles are actually using the word to mean ‘evolution’, whereas for ‘creation’ they’re talking about things humans created. My point was to refute Hannodb’s ridiculous claim that evolutionary biologists don’t do research.I mean, there’s a whole journal called Evolution, for pity’s sake.

  84. Karen,

    Where do I ever claim to be a “creationist“? Your numbers about creationists commenting since your earlier post are a bit misleading, because you’re assuming they’re creationists, and, more importantly, several of them probably never even read your post(s) because they seem to focus on the actual blog post.

    Instead of addressing my Wikipedia comments directly, you try to point out that creationists are biased–of course they are! That was my point – everyone is biased and in Wiki’s case it’s very difficult to know what the underlying bias is because anyone can edit it. When reading Signature in the Cell or Why Evolution is True, at least I can make an educated guess as to the bias of the author. I think you proved my point here and managed to get in some ad hominem attacks against creationists while you were at it.

    I’m glad you got my point about PubMed – not all of the results fall under what is being discussed here. But you think that is only true of creation? You said:

    the articles are actually using the word to mean ‘evolution’

    Is that really true? The fourth article I found in my search was “Correlation between lactosylation and denaturation of major whey proteins: an investigation by liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry.” Here, the authors use the word evolution more along the lines of something changing with time, and I’m guessing that is true of some of the other search results too. That’s not the definition that we’re using here.

    As to the peer-reviewed science you “gave me” (I don’t see how you gave it to me, since you didn’t address a post to me until today, 3 days after my post, which responded to a darwinsbulldog post where he said to look in the earlier comments, which I did, although I didn’t read far enough to see your later comments with your journal article, which was my mistake), let’s have a look. Your paper deals with the effects of EGFR and DPP on the appendages of Drosophila, and you say this refutes 3 claims:

    “the claim that evolutionary biologists don’t do actual research, the claim that there’s no evidence for the evolution of morphological novelties (Hannodb’s unicorns for example), and the claim that there’s no explanation for how these morphological novelties might evolve (the old ‘no new information’ trope).”

    So does your paper actually refute these?

    Well, the first one is that evolutionary biologists don’t do research (note that I don’t believe this claim, but you said it’s addressed by this paper). According to your earlier post (Feb 10, 8:18 am), you have a Ph.D. in Genetics (presumably that’s what you were doing when this work was done), not Evolutionary Biology. Additionally, Celeste A. Berg is listed as a “Professor of Genome Sciences”. So, to me, that says this paper doesn’t refute that argument. But, seriously, it’s easy to find some research done by Evo Bio’s, so while this paper doesn’t refute the first claim, it’s refuted easily enough.

    As for the second claim, it’s a bit sticky, depending on the definition of evolution you choose. If it’s just change in form, then clearly this paper supports evolution. But, then again, so does some of my own work in building instrumental sensors (they evolved with time as I learned better chemistries). However, I see no evidence in the paper that morphological novelties have evolved ab initio, which is the type of evolution being discussed in this thread. The appendages already exist in nature, and you (and others) know a way change their number by figuring out some of the chemicals needed to accomplish this…kind of like what I do with chemical instrumentation. So how does that show that novel appendages evolved? I certainly don’t see the evidence. Making a horse grow a fifth leg or third eye is one thing, making it grow a unicorn horn through natural selection/mutation is an entirely different matter.

    Finally, does the paper address how new things might evolve? Certainly not. It shows mechanisms by which we can intervene/manipulate and change some morphological expressions, but it doesn’t show how these morphologies appeared in the first place.

    What I do see in your paper is science showing how the number of appendages in Drosophila can be manipulated by human design. But I just don’t see how it can be used to refute the last two claims you said it did, and it only refutes the first one if you or your graduate advisors claim to be evolutionary biologists even though you aren’t officially labeled as such (again, I never believed the first claim anyway).

  85. Pingback: Reshelving anti-evolution books on Skeptically Speaking podcast « The Dispersal of Darwin

  86. “Where’s the vandalism,” you asked.
    Only a narrow-minded idealogue who will take any excuse to justify his own behavior could fail to see it. I explained it in my original post. You are causing the bookstore to lose money both in lost sales and in additional employee time to fix your petty tampering of their stocks.
    “The books remain in the store, and accessible to book buyers,” you wrote. No, you are wrong. Books are not accessible to buyers when they can’t be found. Your comment is just one more pathetic rationalization to try and justify your behavior.
    You and your friends are beyond reason about the Intelligent Design issue, so your website is not worth the effort to debate it. But one can still hope that you are open to persuasion about simple (and I do mean “simple”) ethics. What you are doing is childish, wrong, and inexcusable. In all your advanced education, did you somehow miss those kindergarten lessons about being good?

  87. @Jean – If I saw Dawkins’ The God Delusion in the science section, I would move it, because it doesn’t belong there. As for being childish, I disagree – I see my actions as grassroots skepticism.

  88. I really liked this comment on Skeptically Speaking by K.O. Myers of
    Grassroots Skeptics:

    “I worked at a mega-chain bookstore as a salesperson and a manager for almost five years. Every night, we had to spend a certain amount of time after the store closed policing the shelves, making sure everything was put back in its proper place. It was a drag, but necessary if we ever hoped to find anything the next day.

    Most of the items that are moved around a store like that are purely random. Folks pick something up, carry it around for awhile, read it or not, and put it down wherever they are when they decide not to buy it. Stuff wanders all over a store in that way.

    Which is why particularly apt misshelves tended to stand out. When something from the New Age section got stuck in Fiction, it was always good for a chuckle, at least for me.

    So the people who have to clean up after re-shelving are going to see it as a mixed bag. On the one hand, they might appreciate that the new shelve might be appropriate. On the other, they’re obliged to move it back. Their sales depend on being able to find the books they have in stock, and that depends on being able to look the book up in an electronic inventory and then go to the shelf and grab it. If the book isn’t where it’s supposed to be, that’s a probable missed sale, so most stores probably won’t be inclined to leave the books in a section that’s incorrect, at least as far as their corporate-imposed inventory categories are concerned.

    As far as effectiveness, it’s difficult to say. I don’t have any idea what it’s like to not already have a strong feeling about whether or not Intelligent Design is science. I suspect that seeing an ID book in the science section might lend it some legitimacy in the eyes of a person who doesn’t know much about the issue, but it’s only my suspicion.

    In terms of our reputation, I think that’s a big old “meh.” The only people who are going to notice that the books have been moved are the bookstore employees, and people who know enough about ID to already have an opinion about which shelf it should be on. The pro-science folks will think it’s great. The pro-ID folks will hate it and call it censorship.

    Thing is, the pro-ID people don’t like us anyway. And it’s useless to try and act nice enough that they don’t have an issue with us. So I think, on balance, that I’m in favor of guerrilla re-shelving. It might raise the awareness of a bookseller here and there. And it might make it a little harder for ID proponents to sell their books as science. It’s relatively harmless, and the ID folks are going to hate us if we condone it or not.

    I might answer differently if I was still wandering around a gigantic bookstore, re-shelving at 11:45 pm on a Saturday night. But I’m not, so I say keep it up.”

  89. Scott, you seem to be trying to say my research only addresses the duplication or modification of existing structures rather than the evolution of ‘real’ morphological novelties. But here’s the thing: all morphological novelties started out as duplicated or modified versions of existing structures/functions. Variation of a trait within a species is novelty, and the gradual accumulation of selected variants over long periods of time is what produces what you or I would perceive as something new and remarkable. Isn’t that awesome?

  90. Karen,

    That would be awesome if it were true. But, to date, I haven’t seen evidence that would indicate that it is true. Your comments above asserting that it it’s true are just supposition (or as you complained in your Feb 10 6:16am post, proof by assertion). But I can definitely see how, with this assumption, evolution is supported by a variety of results…as a result of circular logic.

    This discussion thread is ridiculous and waste of people’s time at this point. Pro-evolutionists ask “What about this evidence?” I critique several of their posts and they say “No, this other evidence.” I then critique that and the response is “You don’t understand evolution, it really can add up” (all quotes paraphrased). This happens over and over again with discussion threads I read…the people here on both sides aren’t going to change their beliefs, so we might as well stop posting.

    My thought for both sides of the “debate”? Critically read the actual evidence. No, I’m not talking about the conclusions you see in textbooks or Scientific American, but read what the actual experiments do and realize what assumptions have been made. Let the science speak for itself instead of letting the author’s bias trick you. This can take time and effort, but I think you’ll understand what’s really going on much better. It’s a bit scary at first, but no so hard in the long run. As a start, I recommend that everyone here read Karen’s paper. What I see is good science showing how adjusting compounds used in the development of fruit flies can change morphology. I definitely do not see proof of evolution…read it and find out what you see.

  91. ’…to date, I haven’t seen evidence that would indicate that it is true…

    Are you Google-impaired or something?

    …’the people here on both sides aren’t going to change their beliefs, so we might as well stop posting.’

    I used to be a creationist when I was younger. Moreover, a 65-year-old relative of mine, a lifelong creationist, changed her mind when she read this. So it’s possible.

    ’My thought for both sides of the “debate”? Critically read the actual evidence. No, I’m not talking about the conclusions you see in textbooks or Scientific American, but read what the actual experiments do and realize what assumptions have been made.’

    I am up to my neck in ‘the actual experiments’ – I do them, and I read about them, every day – and from this I have discovered that there is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution of all known life on earth from a single common ancestor.

    ’Let the science speak for itself instead of letting the author’s bias trick you. This can take time and effort, but I think you’ll understand what’s really going on much better. It’s a bit scary at first, but no so hard in the long run.’

    Indeed.

  92. Scott, , you said, “What I see is good science showing how adjusting compounds used in the development of fruit flies can change morphology. I definitely do not see proof of evolution…”.

    Is the cumulative effect of changes in morphology over long periods of time, leading to enough changes that a group of organisms can no longer breed true with its ‘cousins’ so difficult to understand?

    Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory with more factors than that, but Karen is showing you a foundation of the edifice. You’re looking at the brick and ignoring the building it’s mortared into.

  93. Scott, the nature of you critiques has been mainly to dodge the point by claiming whatever examples I/we propose aren’t true novelties (i.e. truly new structures/functions in nature as opposed to changes in number or slight modifications of existing structures/functions). Perhaps you might care to list some things that you do consider to be true novelties (no unicorns’ horns, but things that actually exist in nature) but that you think can’t have evolutionary explanations and must therefore have been intelligently designed.

  94. The bulldog: “I did learn about being good. Perhaps those who make films about creationism and intelligent design missed those lessons in school.”

    >sigh< All that education, and you justify yourself by pointing to other people whom you think misbehave, therefore your own misbehavior is OK.

    And your quote from Mr Myers is revealing: "I might answer differently if I was still wandering around a gigantic bookstore, re-shelving at 11:45 pm on a Saturday night. But I’m not, so I say keep it up.”

    Others argue from principle, not whether the action directly impacts them or favors their own side in the controversy. You are wrong to be tampering with others' property and business, causing them lost sales, wasted time, and alienating customers who can't find what the business says is in stock. Nothing you've written gives an excuse. You remain a pathetic individual who doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

  95. @ Dennis – I am not saying it justifies my actions, I am saying that you are in no position to make such claims about me given that people in your camp (creationism, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it) do far worse.

    Enough with the name calling, please.

  96. Hannodb,

    Don’t know if anyone has pointed this out to you yet because I have not read all the posts, but you tend to use the verb “live” where I think you mean to use the noun “life”. Not trying to be negatively critical, just pointing it out.

  97. Michael, while I am sure that you have a strong opinion about creationism vs darwinism, think about the additional work you make for the employees at Hastings. They have no control over where books are to be placed. If you have issues with the catagories try taking it to the corporate level rather than vandalising a store the rest of us enjoy.

  98. @ joeblog – While I don’t question your suggestion that finding other avenues for my concerns may be more effective, please don’t use the word “vandalism” to describe my actions – I did not destroy anybody’s physical property.

  99. My apologies for mis-speaking. It was not my intention to antagonize you. I was just pointing out what you are doing is wrong. The folks at the store level have no control over correcting what upsets you so much. So doing what you do is petty. Don’t you think?

  100. I don’t think what Michael has done is petty: it’s a small but bold statement that the definition of what makes a “science” book should mean more than a publisher slapping a label on it.

    I’ve worked in retail: it would be an inconvenience that stock isn’t where it should be, but retail stores are not completely static entities either. Plenty of customers pick up and put down items. Tidying up is part of the job. And you know what? Sometimes, if something is in the wrong place, a retailer may move it to a more appropriate home, for whatever reason. Happens all the time, it’s a type of merchandising.

    Now, books tend to be arranged a certain way, according to certain information. It doesn’t mean a small change by customers will have no effect in the long run. Michael isn’t alone doing this.

  101. @Naon Tiotami “Great subjective argument.”

    Because you subjectively said so Naon, and whatever you say is subjective is, because you said so. And is your “Great subjective argument.” peer reviewed? Please submit it to the Mainstream Liberal Science Guild Approval Process before making such a claim, it’s very unprofessional.

  102. Don’t you have anything better to do? When you’re in somebody else’s house, do put the underwear in the proper drawer too? Does the owner of the house appreciate this or have you arrested?

  103. Pingback: First cup of coffee!! At last – a man for Misshelver! | Uncommon Descent

  104. Taking creationist books out of the science section of a bookstore and reshelving them in religious sections may not technically be proper behavior, but it’s much less terrible than dressing up creationism and forcing it into the science classroom.

  105. I just wanted to post that at my workplace some idiot, whom I presume was inspired by people like you, comes in every week to my store and transfers books from the Science section (I.D. and the like) to Religion and any Conservative Political books we have on display to the childrens fiction. Then I have to spend the better part of 3 hours that I already don’t have to put them back according to the corporate layout. If you have such a problem talk to the store manager or call corporate but please stop adding more work to an already long day.

  106. Here’s a novel Idea; why don’t you juveniles try reading the books for yourselves instead of putting all your faith in the politically correct drivelings of emotionally troubled science authors with childhood axes to grind? Stereotyping a genre you only know of from mimicking the parroting of other parrots reveals the embarrassing folly that results when people slavishly follow an ego-driven dogma by blind faith while naively calling it science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s