The Catholics, for one, have made their peace with evolution long ago. They have an uneasy alliance with the right because of other issues. But get into, say, Lutherans or Episcopalians, and you’re probably sitting farther to the left.

(http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2011/10/19/is-being-a-good-scientist-a-matter-of-what-you-do-or-of-what-you-feel-in-your-heart/ )

for example, see this article about one who does, Todd Wood:

http://www.colossianforum.org/2012/09/03/tim-stafford-on-a-tale-of-two-scientists-and-science-as-a-gift/

Here is a super-fascinating book review this guy did:

http://www.colossianforum.org/2012/10/04/pull-up-a-seat-on-the-other-side-of-the-dialogue-table/

And finally, going right along with this post: http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/creationist-books-in-uk-public-libraries/

Seriously, though, thanks for asking the question. It’s one that should be carefully considered.

Maybe in the future (next Thursday?) when the stacks are closed and compressed, and robots fetch the books from cold dark underground vaults with nary a human in sight, we can give up classification systems as we know them and just serial-number the books. Invite people to tag the records themselves: 2 thought this was Science, 127 Religion, 1 Politics, and 7 Humor. Imagine being able to ask the catalog things like “show me books on paleontology that might be science but there is more than so much disagreement about that.”

I see you have other interests. That’s nice, but it doesn’t need to be on AL’s blog. Contact me via email if you wish further off-topic discussion, but I know little about what you are saying that’s off-topic.

It is interesting that your “Libraries should not collect it” statement sort of illustrates what the AL was saying.

And now, Pizza&IceCream, your pseudonym has made me hungry.

There’s nothing wrong, for example, with a linking a PETA representative’s comments on a National Beef Council blog, but one has to expect they would be received skeptically, at best.

The Cato Institute man and the LJ’s AL both said that librarians set the playing field then complain when people don’t play nice. I am allowed to make that observation without being warned to avoid doing so because of an unrelated matter. Is there free speech if one is constrained to quote from only from politically approved sources?

By the way, notice Way Barra just set the playing field of approved thought by saying, “it might be best to avoid citing sources like the Cato Institute” if I “want to be taken seriously as a public/school library advocate.” He/she is clearly not a free speech advocate.

No.

This poppycock is coming from the same group of scientists that say the jury is still out for the age of the Earth and that evolution is “just a theory”, but they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality can be cured.

Wrong.

Libraries should not collect it. It’s not suppressing ideas; you can still go online to read websites that can tell you that fairy tale. You are welcome to your beliefs, but you cannot masquerade them around as scientific facts. This is about refusing to collect bad science.

And try not to misinterpret constructive criticism for personal attacks. If you want to be taken seriously as a public/school library advocate, it might be best to avoid citing sources like the Cato Institute, which disapprove of the very idea of public libraries and schools.

All I said was, “I just found another person essentially saying what the AL is saying.” Then I backed it up with quotes and citations after your first typically off topic comment that has become your sine qua non. That’s it. Troll elsewhere.

I stand corrected.