The works of Charles Darwin, the discoverer of evolution, are long since in the public domain. Does that make them open territory for those who would dispute them?
Tomorrow marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species, the landmark book that brought evolutionary theory to the world. And in "honor" of that date, a Christian group is giving out over 170,000 copies of the book -- with a new, fifty-page introduction by creationist Ray Comfort.
A press release for the book and event states:
LOS ANGELES: Over 1,200 Christians across the nation will be giving away 170,000 copies Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species at 100 of America’s top universities on Wednesday, November 18 in honor of the book’s 150th anniversary. Thousands of Atheists have already expressed outrage.
In fact, prominent atheist Prof. Richard Dawkins has told students to rip out the book’s introduction, which is written by best-selling author Ray Comfort.
Comfort will be joining actor Kirk Cameron for one of the 100 book distributions at an undisclosed Southern California university.
The Secular Student Alliance, an atheist youth movement, is also mobilizing student groups to counter the free distribution, according to the group’s recent press release.
While a number of atheists threaten that the distribution efforts will be met with unilateral resistance, others have suggested burning the book.
“We're low on firewood up at the cabin,” writes Greg Laden of Science blogs. “It's not that I like burning books. But this is not burning books."
It's certainly legal to republish The Origin of Species with new material. It belongs to everyone, which means, in a legal sense, that it belongs to no one. But is it ethical?
And should those who oppose it really be suggesting book burning -- even as hyperbole?
Tell us what you think!
Ron WodaskiDark Matters
infmom.net
Alex,
What am I missing? What's their objection to people getting free copies of the book?
~Beth
Visit The Stone River
Marte,
Alex's quote didn't say anything about the original text being altered. Where does that information come from?
Assuming it's true, though, as long as that fact is made clear up front (I agree with whoever said it was unethical not to state that either on the cover or in the foreword), then I should think the group has a right to attach any introduction they like and distribute it if they want. The intended recipients have a right to refuse it, or take it and either read it or trash it. Or both. <g>
As to the Bible, annotated and revised versions are made available all the time.That's nothing new.
People get worked up over the funniest things.
Here's Scientific American's announcement of the book, with a link to a brief podcast and text. The comments alone are worth reading.
Darwin in Battle of Wits against Unarmed Man Antievolutionist Ray Comfort will be distributing copies of the Origin of Species with a new introduction that misrepresents, misunderstands and distorts Darwin's ideas and legacy
<<would you be happy to accept one that was treated by a prominent atheist the way the creationists treated this "special edition" of Darwin? Would you read it, to see where your previous readings had been misinformed>>
I doubt it. But that doesn't mean I think someone should be prevented from producing such a work or distributing it. Unlike some, I don't believe in the suppression of opinion or ideas, no matter how much they may differ from my own. This whole kerfuffle about the bowdlerized Darwin reveals as much about those who are trying to stop it as it does about the perpetrators.
<<I did note with great amusement that someone's working on a "conservative" version of the Bible. Apparently the inerrant word of God is too darn full of errors for their liking and they're jolly well going to put a stop to that.>>
One thing I have learned in life is that the world is full of bizarre patterns of thinking.
Barbara,
You're right--I didn't intend to sound patronizing, an attitude which I dislike and try never to project.
I am just rather bemused by the whole affair. I did say I thought that secretly bowdlerizing the text was unethical--and honestly, if that's necessary in order to support an argument, then the argument is built on matchsticks.
But beyond that, I don't see that it's a big deal. People have a right to believe what they want, even if it flies in the face of generally accepted knowledge. And maybe I'm misremembering, but wasn't this intended to be distributed at universities?* Certainly college kids are of an age that we don't have to fear exposing them to new ideas and possible misinformation. They get that all the time anyway.
(*I went back to check, and I was right. This material is not intended to be distributed to children.)
Carol,
<<And when people try to posit their beliefs as universal truths, factually sound, scientifically, historically or otherwise when they are not -- and when they further try to impose these personal values on the majority, then it _is_ a big deal. >>
Only if those people have the power to do so through legally granted authority or force of arms.
Otherwise, they are powerless to impose their beliefs on others, try though they might, because others have the right--and the power--to reject those beliefs.
Kirk Cameron et al have no power, no authority, only the force of their convictions. People are free to accept or reject creationism or intelligent design or whatever is being posited. No one is being coerced. So, no, in this case, it's not a big deal. Rather, to allow it and then either to embrace or ignore it is the mark of a free society. To attempt to suppress such things...well, we know where that leads.
Hi Beth -
I agree, at least as far as adults and high school/college age students.
- Liz
