gravitybow

I realize that this may be a vain exercise. It's possible that my correspondence will just wind up in the trash. Or it's possible that I'll find a sympathetic ear who is in total agreement. At least that's the audience I'm aiming for. And writing my protest will make me feel better that I didn't just blow it off and chalk it up to the store's ignorance.

Thank you, David Bowden/wide-eyed wanderer, for the info. You had much more success that I did with Google (must have been my lame search terms). I may pursue some of those leads later (I'll put them in my "Carl Baugh" folder). I'm baffled why a bona fide emeritus would lend credibility to the likes of Carl Baugh, though.

Hey, Albion, check the link in David Bowden's post. That's Marilyn. Now we have:

Martin E. Clark
Marlyn E. Clark
Marilyn E. Clark

So now it has become apparent that creationists can clone M.E. Clarks to do their bidding. Everybody run!

Albion

Did you complain to anybody? What was the response?

Glad to see that "Tower of Babel" by Pennock is in the religion section of our local bookshop, not the science section. At least it shows that the shop knows what the issues really are. Behe's masterpiece is nowheret o be found.

Gooch's dad

Since Baugh is completely fraudulent in what he writes and what he claims for his credentials...

I don't feel the least bit guilty 'misplacing' a book like this...oh, say, into the religion section. Or maybe even science fiction and fantasy.



-Kelly

Bubba

Why mess up science fiction???

Bubba

One of the last sane

FWIW <a href="http://www.textbookleague.org" target="_blank"> the Textbook League</a> reviews books for school libraries and tries to weed out things like religious indoctrination. Not exactly scigirl's federal agency, but it's a start I guess.

crab juice

Yeah, why not go for some creative reshelving? Put the creationist and ID books over in the mythology section of the bookstore or library. Hide them behind some ponderous tome that nobody is likely to buy or borrow.

Valentine Pontifex

I am not sure I like the idea of putting the quack science books in some other section besides science. This could very easy be abused by either zealots or librarians who don't know the subject very well. And who is to decide? Sure Wells, Johnson, Gish, Sarfati, Hovind, etc. are clearly quacks but there are a lot of authors out there that blur the line. I am a bit afraid of a slippery slope here.

I am surprised that anyone ever mistook Icons for an evolution book long enough to buy it. The endorsements on the back cover should have made it clear that this was a work of evolution denial. A quick look at the preface or introduction would also made it clear as would a glance at almost any page. I don't think that the charge that Icons was disguised as a mainstream evolution book hold any water. What hold water is that Wells used distortion in his text of his book.

Doubting Didymus

Yes, it's a slippery slope, but scigirls idea for a monitoring watchdog association for books would be the perfect moderator. Many books I know of could really do with disclaimers, or even age restrictions. I am talking about the whole of literature here, not just crap science.

Albion

Exactly. And there it is in the science section of your friendly neighbourhood bookstore, so evolution denial must be bona fide science. Just because we can see through that doesn't mean everybody can.

Richiyaado

Great idea. S.J. Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory would be ideal for this purpose.