Shall we write Chapters a letter?

There is a reason why I don't shop at popular music stores: they don't seem to be able to get their genres right. I'm a bit of a "genre Nazi", and it annoys me to see breakcore albums placed under "techno" or albums by pop groups placed under "punk" (HMV is the worst for this kind of thing), so I do my music shopping online. This goes for books as well as music. One place where I'm satisfied with the sorting of the stock, though, is Chapters. Chapters usually does a good job. Usually.

I was browsing at Chapters yesterday when I noticed something a bit disheartening. They had a table with a pile of books on it, under the header "Ideas and Opinions". They had Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great, along with Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation and some Christian apologetics books, which is fine. A lot of those matters are ideas that need to be shared and some of them boil down to personal opinions. But what really irked me was their inclusion of On the Origin of Species.

Darwin's seminal work is not merely an "idea" or "opinion". It is the genesis of the foundations for all of modern biology. To call it an idea does not do it any justice, and to call it an opinion is to do it an incredible disservice! Yes, the book was built upon ideas that Darwin had while journeying on the Beagle, but calling it simply an idea has the connotation that it's something unsupported by evidence; it's tantamount to saying evolution is a mere hypothesis rather than a scientific theory. Calling it an opinion is blatantly wrong; there is a fine distinction between fact and opinion, and evolution is as much of a scientific fact as you can get.

What's more is that, upon looking through Chapters' science section (where Chapters usually puts On the Origin of Species), I came across copies of Michael Behe's IDiotic Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution. Perhaps the bigwigs at Chapter's are unfamiliar with the Dover trial, but Intelligent Design is certainly not science and should not be found under the Science section. If any book should be found under "Idea's and Opinions" then Behe's trash would be it. The girlfriend and I just happened to have a pen and a sticky note on us, so we left a message for the Chapters staff, asking them to move it to a more appropriate section, like philosophy or religion.

Alas, I think it will go ignored.

Perhaps we should write Chapters a letter. I can understand their wanting to be impartial in the current culture war over evolution and putting Origin in a neutral category, but it's simply wrong. Evolution is science. Evolution is not "just a theory" or "idea" or "opinion". Writing a letter will probably do nothing - and maybe I'm just being a "genre Nazi" again - but maybe it's something we, the secular and scientific community, should consider.

The Crichton Dilemma

I have a deep, dark secret to admit. I am a fan of Michael Crichton.

Now, to a lot of people, admitting such a thing is no big deal. "What's wrong with enjoying his work? I mean, Jurassic Park was great!" they might say. But to someone as science-centred as myself, it is a big deal.

I've been a fan of Micael Crichton for a long time. The first book of his that I read was The Lost World, the sequel to Jurassic Park, back when I was in 4th Grade (I remember it clearly, my 4th grade teacher asking me if my parents approved of me reading something filled with explicit language and violent, gorey scenes - the book was entirely unlike the crappy movie version). Since then, I've read about half of his most well known works (Sphere, Timeline, Prey, State of Fear, and Next). And I liked them. All of them. And I'm eagerly awaiting his next book, to be released this December. The reason I like his work is because they always include lots of science. Whether it be the science of genetics, as in Next or quantum mechanics, as in Timeline, Crichton's books have always been centered around science.

But what has caused alot of science-minded folks to dislike him is the precieved "anti-science" message his books have. Jurassic Park had genetically reconstructed dinosaurs....that went on a rampage, destroying and killing all in their path. Prey featured nanotechnology and self-reproducing nanobots...that devoured people and took over their lives. Timeline had timetravel and quantum mechanics....and people ended up going back in time, getting killed in horrific ways. Alot of people read his books and walk away with a feeling that Crichton is completely anti-science, like he's saying "Look at all the terrible things that science causes! People die and their lives are ruined because of what science does!" and this has caused alot of people to shun him and his work.

I look at it differently though. I dont see Crichton as having a totally anti-science message. Rather, his work acts as a caution. His stories all tell of the bad things that can happen if we do not use our newfound discoveries and technologies in a responsible manner. Crichton is not saying science is bad. He's saying "Be careful. Science can give us some totally amazing things but it can be terrible if we are not responsible". And this is a message that I agree with completely. I absolutely love science (so much that I have dedicated my life to it!) but it is easy to see how science can be dangerous if used improperly - look at the atomic bomb, for instance.

This is not to say that I support Crichton and his views entirely. Crichton is known for being a climate change denier (his book State of Fear was about 'ecoterrorists' deliberitely changing the climate to convince the public of, well, climate change), and has even said that SETI is more of a religion than science (!). However, this is immaterial concerning his views on whether science is good or bad.

Nevertheless, I am a fan of Michael Crichton. Many people may think that, as a scientist, I should be ashamed of that. But I'm not. His stories are always interesting, thrilling and carry an important message of scientific responsibility (even if he does get some of the scientific details wrong). Why should one be ashamed of liking that?