Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gravitybow · 08-19-2002, 08:33 PM

I'm walking around the Science section in Barnes and Noble, looking for Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics by Robert Pennock. A few weeks ago, I had seen a copy on the bookstore shelves, but I wasn't ready to spring $36 for it at that time. Now I had a gift card that covered most of the expense, so I was looking. I'm standing in front of the shelf where I last saw the Pennock book. Within easy arms reach are books by Sagan, Hawking, Gould, Dawkins, Futuyma, Kitchner, Alfred Russel Wallace, etc. I get to the bottom shelf and, lo and behold, there's this little plum:

Why Do Men Believe Evolution against All Odds? by Carl E. Baugh. This is pretty outrageous, that any of this charlatan's books should grace the same shelf as dedicated, reputable scientists who have made genuine contributions to knowledge. What's more, the book's spine bears his name with a "PhD" after it, as if he had the scientific credentials to back it up!

This blurb at the Barnes and Noble site also appears on the jacket cover:

Quote:

About the Author
Dr. Carl Edward Baugh is founder and director of Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, Texas; scientific research director for world's first hyperbaric biosphere; scientific research director for water reclamation and energized plant systems; and the discoverer and excavation director of two major dinosaurs: Acrocanthosaurus in Texas and Stegosaurus stenops in Colorado. He holds a degree in theology from Baptist Bible College, a Masters in archaeology, and a Ph.D. in education, both from Pacific College of Graduate Studies.

However,
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html" target="_blank">Some Questionable Creationist Credentials</a> and
<a href="http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/degrees.htm" target="_blank">A Matter of Degree: An Examination of Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials</a> pretty much outline the vaporous, bogus nature of Baugh's claimed credentials. I particularly like the degree he conferred on himself as President of the International Bible College. And his currently claimed Ph.D. is from the unaccredited Pacific College, a diploma mill run by his partner Clifford Wilson. As Glen Kuban points out, "Thus, all of Baugh's alleged science degrees seem to trace circuitously back to Baugh himself and his partner Wilson--through their own unaccredited religious schools and/or branches of them."

"Dr." Carl Baugh is neither a doctor of theology nor of science.

Baugh's ideas are so nutty that even <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html" target="_blank">other creationists warn against using them.</a> Not only is it not "good science," it's not even good pseudoscience! Of course, you can always visit his <a href="http://www.creationevidence.org/" target="_blank">Creation Evidence Museum</a> to see his latest "scientific" enterprises for yourself.

The book's publisher, Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd. has nothing at all to do with science books. One site describes their wares as "premillenial, pre-tribulation, and new world order." Their titles include gems such as Toward a New World Order: The Countdown to Armageddon and The Coming Persecution of the Church and Fourteen Things Witches Hope Parents Never Find Out.

The book's forward was written by:
M.E. Clark
Emeritus Professor
College of Engineering
University of Illinois

I can't find any reference to a professor M.E. Clark at the University of Illinois' various websites. But the forward was written in 1999, and professors move, retire, die off, etc. It's still odd that the only other book I can locate online that might be by this distinguished-sounding engineer is one titled The Bible Has the Answer. That author is Martin E. Clark, and he wrote that book along with creationist Henry M. Morris. Some of you guys may know who M.E. Clark is. I'd appreciate a little information.

OK, so the world isn't going to end because one daft creation science book is sitting on the wrong shelf, right next to Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.(!!!) The bottom line is that Why Do Men Believe Evolution against All Odds? has a sorry pedigree for a science book of any sort, even a pseudoscientific one. (At least Behe is a real biochemist, small comfort.)

I would like to write a polite letter to Barnes and Noble requesting that they move Baugh's book out of the Science section of their stores into something more suited for this kind of delusion. It can go in Religion, it can go in New Age and Occult (beside alchemy and astrology), or Science Fiction/Fantasy (or perhaps not, since most of those writers understand science better than Baugh). It can even go on a perforated roll where it would be most useful. Baugh has a right to put any harebrained idea he wants to out there for public consumption, as distateful as it may be. But this type of fraud doesn't belong with the Science books.

I'll work on a draft, but any suggestions would be appreciated.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]</p>

scigirl · 08-19-2002, 08:44 PM

Quote:

But this type of fraud doesn't belong with the Science books.

Someone else here recently brought up the idea that we go after creationists with the fraud angle. Was that you Starboy?

I think this would be a fascinating case.

Can freedom of religion shield you from knowingly committing fraud?

Either the creationists would have to claim ignorance (I didn't *know* about all the evidence for evolution like human/chimp chromosome fusion!) which would undermine their credibility, or they would have to fess up to fraud.

Interesting. . .

scigirl

Doubting Didymus · 08-19-2002, 08:54 PM

The public opinion of pop science books is very high these days. (Deservedly, in my opinion . I love pop science books! There's no way I am going to learn about physics from a textbook.), there really should be better guidelines in bookstores for what goes in the science section. You don't see scientology or raelianism books in the science section, even though they contain scientific discourse at least as verified as creationism.

A pharmaceutical company is not allowed to sell pressed grass seed as a cure for cancer UNLESS IT CARRIES A DISCLAIMER, specifically stating that the claim is not backed up by research. By the same token, books with no scientific content should not be hawked to the gullible as though they came from the pen of hawking himself.

'The universe in a nutshell' should not go on the same shelf as 'the universe of a nut'.

Doubting Didymus · 08-19-2002, 08:58 PM

I must add: I would never ever condone the banning or burning of any publication. Unscientific religion books, however, must be cleraly recognisable as such, or the public is being defrauded.

scigirl · 08-19-2002, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
A pharmaceutical company is not allowed to sell pressed grass seed as a cure for cancer UNLESS IT CARRIES A DISCLAIMER, specifically stating that the claim is not backed up by research. By the same token, books with no scientific content should not be hawked to the gullible as though they came from the pen of hawking himself.

Yes, unfortunately there is no agency like the FDA for claims made by groups on products other than food or drugs.

Heh, let's make one.

FDA = Freedom from Dumb ideas Agency!

Doubting Didymus · 08-19-2002, 09:19 PM

Do you know, I think that is the best idea I have heard in a long time. Obviously the creationists are allowed to do what they are doing, but unless there is some real science involved, they don't really have the right to claim that there is, and by these kinds of publication they are kind of sneaking under the peer review process that protects the public from the rest of the bad science.

If I claimed to be a confirmed catholic, and published a book 'disproving' the anti-birth control dogmas using bad quotes from the pope, would I really have the right to claim that the book is a catholic publication? Of course not. I am not a catholic, and my book would not be acceptable to catholics, so the book should not be called a catholic book.

Doubting Didymus · 08-19-2002, 09:23 PM

Another thought: You get off lightly, scigirl. Carls books' title clearly allows those crazy women to believe whatever they like as long as they keep their mouth shut and submit to men like the bible tells them to. It's not like they could do something as masculine as science anyway.

Richiyaado · 08-19-2002, 09:53 PM

I've noticed that bookstores, especially mega-bookstores like B&N, frequently mix Creationism/ID books with science books. I think the reason is that people working in bookstores aren't all that aware of the of the evo/cre debate. I suspect they just go by quick scans of the covers.

The thing is, you can usually spot the creationism books right off, as the covers are so garish (like Baugh's). ID book covers usually look better and are harder to distinguish. Then there's the problem with titles. I wonder how many people have picked up "Icons of Evolution" thinking that it's just another book explaining evolution and maybe they should learn something about it. I certainly think this was calculated when designing the cover.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

Doubting Didymus · 08-19-2002, 10:05 PM

Yes, and similarly, the guy at the counter of the chemist is not qualified to give prescriptions.

Scigirls idea for an organisation that can put 'not known to contain science' disclaimers is perfect. 'may harm the development of your child' might be a good one too. 'causes lung cancer' might be wishful thinking, however.

Albion · 08-19-2002, 10:12 PM

Quote:

I wonder how many people have picked up "Icons of Evolution" thinking that it's just another book explaining evolution and maybe they should learn something about it. I certainly think this was calculated when designing the cover.

I did. I then bought it just to get it out of the shop for a while, and had a grumble to the person behind the counter that while this book was in the science section, there were no science books about evolution there. I was glad to see that the next time I went in there, they hadn't replaced it. Any time I see "Darwin's Black Box" sitting there "gracing" the science section of a bookstore, I suggest they get (and recommend) "Finding Darwin's God" as well.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2002, 08:54 PM	#3
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	The public opinion of pop science books is very high these days. (Deservedly, in my opinion . I love pop science books! There's no way I am going to learn about physics from a textbook.), there really should be better guidelines in bookstores for what goes in the science section. You don't see scientology or raelianism books in the science section, even though they contain scientific discourse at least as verified as creationism. A pharmaceutical company is not allowed to sell pressed grass seed as a cure for cancer UNLESS IT CARRIES A DISCLAIMER, specifically stating that the claim is not backed up by research. By the same token, books with no scientific content should not be hawked to the gullible as though they came from the pen of hawking himself. 'The universe in a nutshell' should not go on the same shelf as 'the universe of a nut'.

08-19-2002, 08:58 PM	#4
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I must add: I would never ever condone the banning or burning of any publication. Unscientific religion books, however, must be cleraly recognisable as such, or the public is being defrauded.

08-19-2002, 09:19 PM	#6
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Do you know, I think that is the best idea I have heard in a long time. Obviously the creationists are allowed to do what they are doing, but unless there is some real science involved, they don't really have the right to claim that there is, and by these kinds of publication they are kind of sneaking under the peer review process that protects the public from the rest of the bad science. If I claimed to be a confirmed catholic, and published a book 'disproving' the anti-birth control dogmas using bad quotes from the pope, would I really have the right to claim that the book is a catholic publication? Of course not. I am not a catholic, and my book would not be acceptable to catholics, so the book should not be called a catholic book.

08-19-2002, 09:23 PM	#7
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Another thought: You get off lightly, scigirl. Carls books' title clearly allows those crazy women to believe whatever they like as long as they keep their mouth shut and submit to men like the bible tells them to. It's not like they could do something as masculine as science anyway.

08-19-2002, 09:53 PM	#8
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	I've noticed that bookstores, especially mega-bookstores like B&N, frequently mix Creationism/ID books with science books. I think the reason is that people working in bookstores aren't all that aware of the of the evo/cre debate. I suspect they just go by quick scans of the covers. The thing is, you can usually spot the creationism books right off, as the covers are so garish (like Baugh's). ID book covers usually look better and are harder to distinguish. Then there's the problem with titles. I wonder how many people have picked up "Icons of Evolution" thinking that it's just another book explaining evolution and maybe they should learn something about it. I certainly think this was calculated when designing the cover. [ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

08-19-2002, 10:05 PM	#9
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Yes, and similarly, the guy at the counter of the chemist is not qualified to give prescriptions. Scigirls idea for an organisation that can put 'not known to contain science' disclaimers is perfect. 'may harm the development of your child' might be a good one too. 'causes lung cancer' might be wishful thinking, however.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.