Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 08 2012,17:26)|
|Kristine, you may find this interesting.|
Oh, thanks! Yes, I had a very interesting discussion with one of my professors in library school - a Christian and an opponent of creationism/Intelligent Design - about this very issue.
Though this may shock FTK, Dembski, et al, I actually argued and my professor agreed that the Library of Congress MARC record, showing these Library of Congress Subject Headings
|Religion and science. |
Intelligent design (Teleology)
God --Proof, Cosmological.
were the most objective, except for perhaps "naturalism." I preferred "teleology" to "creationism" because I would have classed anything by Gish, say, as "Creationism (Teleology)", thus providing the link between ID and creationism while distinguishing that they are two agendas.
I also preferred "religion and science" to just "science." I came across a blog by a librarian who groused that, since creationist/IDist books were "about science" he felt forced to class them as "science," and I disagreed.
As a librarian, I am trying to be objective. I am not a cataloger, but if I were, it would be my job to help the patron find what s/he is looking for, esp. in a public library, without making judgements about why they are looking for it. Therefore, I would not just classify these books as "religion," but to completely exclude religion from the subject headings would also be inaccurate and serve another agenda.
Library catalogs are stodgy, anyway! I am all for adding reader's reviews and tags, but nothing beats the flexibility of Amazon, I am sorry to say.
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr