More on intelligent design, bias in library collections

Ah Chuck, my boy. You're so far off base, I don't even know where to start. I mention looking at titles on the New Book Shelf and you want me to present a carefully crafted research article like Tomeboy's. Sonny, I'm retired, and I don't do that any more.

I don't have the time or training either. But since you didn't make the effort to prove something as a fact, you might reconsider claiming it is.

It wouldn't surprise me if you're demonstrating why libraries close and bond issues fail--librarians, staff and boards being insensitive to the community.

Me and Darwin and my secular humanist intolerance just got a $6 million bond issue passed with more than 70% support. Do you like apples? How about those apples?

I'm not a supporter of ID myself, but find the level of knowledge about it in this discussion at an all time low.

ID claims that God created the universe. It also claims certain observations about the natural world prove this. It is bad theology and bad science. ID has become this ridiculous tabula rasa for Christians. ID is not the holy land and it's not a quest to save the Christian faith. This is a bad horse to hitch your wagon to. If you use science to prove the existence of God you cheapen science and God.

I truly hope some of these commenters are trolls and not librarians. Otherwise librarians, even the gen-x and gen-y new grads must be rigid, narrow minded and naive (just like the old timey stereotype of librarians)

Open-minded doesn't mean uncritical. I've read Behe's book and Dawkins books and the trial transcript of the Dover case and other relevant materials. I know what the flat-earthers believe. They're just wrong.

when it comes to religion--all religions--its importance to their readers, and the culture.

Nice try. We were talking about ID, not Christianity. They're not the same. And no one mentioned any other faith, except in jest.

Even the comments about witchcraft should be bring howls from Wiccans who probably won't think much of how you are portraying them.

Let them howl.

I think I can expect a PL to be respectful of people of faith since most of the people this library serves are Christians (liberals, conservative, main-line, Catholic, Pentecostals, etc.). With 3 Lutheran churches in town, one of them one of the largest in the country, I could expect something on that denomination newer than 40 years old … I might expect just a tad of curiosity on the part of the librarians (I don't think most actually live here) about what Christians are doing, besides getting their information from CNN.

How do limits or perceived shortfalls in your collection "prove" bias?

Yes, Chuck, it would be a huge surprise to you that people who use computers might also be Christians and that Christian magazines carry articles about computers, the internet, copyright problems, websites to watch, the digital divide, computers in business, and (gasp) libraries.

I resent your attempt to turn this into a "you hate Jesus and His good followers" routine.

1) I never said that Christians don't read computer books or use computers. I said that a PL would get more circs. out of a computer book than one about conservative Christianity. Which is true, outside of the Vatican.

2) I buy books on theology, Catholicism, fundamentalism, Evangelical Christianity, religious history and periodicals that cater to modern American Christians. Why would I be surprised by any of that?

Comments

You obviously aren't working at my PL

"I buy books on theology, Catholicism, fundamentalism, Evangelical Christianity, religious history and periodicals that cater to modern American Christians."

A definition to start with?

ID claims that God created the universe.

A good friend around these parts speaks often "projecting". I suggest this may be applicable here with your prima facie collection development philosophy.

Perhaps working from the point of an understood definition would help this discussion? Nothing in Webster's, for example, mentions God at all. Neither the LCSH. Would you not concede the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence or is Whitley Strieber out-of-bounds at your library too?

Nevertheless, I find your passion here very interesting.

follow-ups

Ms. Bruce,I am convinced of my own eloquence, but are you so enamored with me too that you just post a quote from me? Am I missing something? Is this some kind of Ohio thing?If it is your understanding that I buy those subjects that you quoted, and only those, then I'd like to correct that. I buy in all areas of religious study, those were a "for-instance."Case in point, we have had a lot of interest in Christology since "The Passion of the Christ" came out. So I have been collecting heavily in life-of-Christ books, non-canonical Gospels and apocrypha (SP?) and the like. People also want to know that the hell Aramaic is and can they learn it (no.)Tomeboy,I'm afraid I do not understand your post either. Are you saying that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with God?

Re:follow-ups

I'm afraid I do not understand your post either. Are you saying that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with God?

I want to be clear on our definition of ID. Yours include's "God". Most likely of the Judeo-Christian variety. Why isn't this term used to define ID in Webster's, LCSH or the OED for example?

Re:follow-ups

Yours include's "God". [...] Why isn't this term used to define ID in Webster's, LCSH or the OED for example?

Because the Christo-fanatics who promote Intelligent Design are doing so in such a way as to avoid charges that teaching it in pubilc institutions violates the First Amendment. They are pretending that Intellgent Design, in the same way as "Scientific Creationism", is science instead of religion. Hence, the do not include the term God in their allusions to it. ID proponents pretend that the universe designed itself and directed its own evolution.

Those of us who are rational, however, recognize this hypocrisy for what it is. By doctrine, only God could be the intelligence which could design and direct the evolution of the unverse.

Re:follow-ups

These would be the "Christo-fanatics" at Oxford University Press and the Library Congress?

Perhaps you could look into conspiracy theories as our next pseudoscience topic?

start us off

Mr. Boy,Why don't you give is the definition you are working with? I believe that the popular usage of the term is taken to mean the Christian God creating the world. If, for no other reason, than I know of no other organized groups or researchers working on ID from a perspective other than a Christian one.

Re:start us off

I believe that the popular usage of the term is taken to mean the Christian God creating the world. If, for no other reason, than I know of no other organized groups or researchers working on ID from a perspective other than a Christian one.

Chuck I doubt any source given will do for you or Fang. I've offered the OED, which I'm sure your capable of reading for yourself. My point with this piece is not teleological, but to call attention to collection bias within the confines of a specific subject. You have made it teleological. Through these discussions my suspiscions have been validated by a few, including yourself. Thankfully, your disdain for ID collection development is not shared by most taking the time to email me.

If having CD responsibility, I assume your patrons have been made fully aware of your personal philosophy re those entire subject areas not worthy of purchase? That they understand they cannot read in context those snippets used by Dawkins et al. to support their position? Perhaps enjoy the same opportunity to judge for themselves as you did when reading Behe and the other drivel written by the flat-earthers?

I reckon that's why we have interlibrary loan?

Your patrons should be so lucky as to have a good shepherd as you Chuck.

Re:follow-ups

These would be the Christo-fanatics who would burn you at the stake for not praying the way they tell you to. Since you pride yourself on your ability to look up information, try Christian Reconstructionism and Roosas Rushdoony. Or Fred Phelps. A right-wing nut so far off the bird even the Rethugicans don't want anything to do with him. It's not for nothing people like that are referred to as "the American Taliban".

I have no choice

Since I'm not sure what your disagreement is here, or why you think I make a professional practice of doing things in a way that I do not, or why you feel the need to go all strawman on dat ass, as the kids say -- I have no alternative but to post a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.

Let this be a lesson to you.

really?

Seriously, you two don't want to discuss this anymore?Dang. I mean Joan of Arc let people light her on fire for her faith.

Re:really?

Jeanne D'Arc was railroaded; among other things, her captors dressed her in men's clothing and then cited her wearing of men's clothing as proof that she was a witch.

The only "crime" she committed was to beat a man at a "man's" game. She was simply a better military commander. And at a younger age too.

Syndicate content