What would you allow in a public library?

[pitabread]

This is a question for those on this forum. If you were in charge of a public library's collection, what would you allow on the shelves in terms of books either related to evolution (if you're a creationist) or creationism/ID (if you're an evolutionist).

I'm wondering if those would allow books from the "other side" in a public library for the public to read and consume.

(Note: I'm using the terms "creationist" and "evolutionist" for simplicity. Creationist would assume any person that rejects the modern theory of evolution, whereas evolutionist would include any person who accepts the modern theory of evolution.)

 

[Paidiske]

I think it's important for a public library to serve diverse needs. It's important to have access to the "other side" of an argument, even if only so that you can learn about that point of view, and thus be better placed to discuss why you reject it.

 

[Gene2memE]

If I was a public librarian, I'd allow Creationist and ID books, but in the religion section (200s under the Dewey Decimal System) rather than the science section (500s under DDC).

This is pretty much what already happens in US public libraries. Most (but not all) creationist works get a classification at '213 - Creation'. There are some occasional controversies about some stuff ID stuff being classified in the 500s, but in general this issue was sorted in the mid 1990s through to late 2000s.

To quote the DDC manual:

[W]hen a religious author is trying to enlighten scientists on a specific scientific matter, class the work with science, while if a scientist is trying to enlighten the religious on a specific religious matter, class the work with religion. The correct classification is determined by the intent of the author, and the interest of the readers that the author is seeking to reach, not by the truth, falsity, or validity of interpretations and premises."​

 

[WherevertheWindblows]

I grew up with both type of books available, I don't see any harm in both being available. I pretty much agree with Paidiske on it.

 

[lambofgod43985889]

if is it a laic library we should accept secular books
people choose the wide path or the narrow path

 

[Ophiolite]

As an evolutionist I would not allow books about creationism and/or ID in a public library, I would insist upon their presence. My personal library has twenty such books (1% of the total); thirty three if you count those which discuss the topics in order to refute them.

Excluding books, is one step away from book burning. Book burning is one or two steps away from burning people.

 

[pitabread]

Interesting, only four creationist responses so far? I'm a bit surprised, thought we had far more folks here on the creationist side.

At any rate, my own thoughts echo others that have been posted. In fact, when I first stepped into the creationism/evolution debate, a lot of material I obtained on creationism and ID were from my local public library. It was nice to have direct access to the source material for many creationist arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

As an evolutionist I would not allow books about creationism and/or ID in a public library, I would insist upon their presence.

If it's a public library (and the OP says it is), I would assume you have no choice but to allow books on evolution to rest on its shelves, else the Antichrist Lovers Union would be all over you.

HOWEVER, the OP lays the choice in the librarian's lap, and there it lies.

 

[Ophiolite]

If it's a public library (and the OP says it is), I would assume you have no choice but to allow books on evolution to rest on its shelves, else the Antichrist Lovers Union would be all over you.

HOWEVER, the OP lays the choice in the librarian's lap, and there it lies.

Did you not even read what I wrote? I would not allow the books, I would insist upon them. If you understood what I wrote then your post is non sequitur. I am stating, I hope clearly (DO YOU WANT IT IN CAPITALS?) I insist the books are there. I demand the books are there. I could only choose not to have them there by ignoring the principles by which I live. That makes my action quite distinct from merely allowing them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you not even read what I wrote? I would not allow the books, I would insist upon them. If you understood what I wrote then your post is non sequitur. I am stating, I hope clearly (DO YOU WANT IT IN CAPITALS?) I insist the books are there. I demand the books are there. I could only choose not to have them there by ignoring the principles by which I live. That makes my action quite distinct from merely allowing them.

My post wasn't about your post, chief.

I was merely reflecting on the OP a little more.

 

[Ophiolite]

My post wasn't about your post, chief.

I was merely reflecting on the OP a little more.

Forum convention is that when one quotes another member's post that the following remarks relate to those posts. Nice to see you are consistent in ignoring conventions, normal English usage and general courtesy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Forum convention is that when one quotes another member's post that the following remarks relate to those posts. Nice to see you are consistent in ignoring conventions, normal English usage and general courtesy.

Whatever.

 

[Lost4words]

If i was able to run my own library i would definitely ban all books on cats!

 

[Ophiolite]

If i was able to run my own library i would definitely ban all books on cats!

I could just about go along with that. After all cats are covered by the internet, which was introduced specifically to facilitate the wide dispersal of cat related videos.

 

[Yttrium]

I would allow both evolution and creationist books, but there wouldn't be much room for either, because of all the manga and anime.

 

[pitabread]

So far there are two votes by creationists who would disallow books on evolution in a public library. It would be interesting to know their reasoning behind that.

 

[AV1611VET]

So far there are two votes by creationists who would disallow books on evolution in a public library. It would be interesting to know their reasoning behind that.

Evolution is blasphemy, sows tares, leads to deconversion to atheism, is endless genealogies, denies man started out walking upright, is a game of connect-the-dots, is a philosophy that appeals to the rudiments of the world, and does not uplift our Saviour in any way, shape, or form.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is blasphemy, sows tares, leads to deconversion to atheism, is endless genealogies, denies man started out walking upright, is a game of connect-the-dots, is a philosophy that appeals to the rudiments of the world, and does not uplift our Saviour in any way, shape, or form.

Alrighty then.

Just curious, but in what way is evolution "blasphemy"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Alrighty then.

Just curious, but in what way is evolution "blasphemy"?

1. We are not mutant copy-errors made in the image & likeness of God.

2. Our Redeemer is not a great ape.

 

[pitabread]

1. We are not mutant copy-errors made in the image & likeness of God.

Do you believe then that any Christians that believe that God used evolution to create species are committing blasphemy?