Top 20 NYT science bestsellers mostly not exactly about science

“On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Darwin used theological arguments far more than Meyer does.” Which should really come as no surprise...

What is surprising (or rather perhaps amusing) is that you seem to be aware that Darwin's book is heavily laden with theological arguments whereas Meyer's is not, and yet you consider the former "science" and the latter "religion". . cantor

"On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Darwin used theological arguments far more than Meyer does." Which should really come as no surprise given that he did study theology and, at one time, was planning to become a parson. Acartia_bogart

Explain to me why creationist books should be in the science section and not the religion section?

Depending on the book, it would be due to the fact it discusses science and not religion. Joe

I think Darwin deserves more credit than he sometimes gets in the ID community. Given what science knew at the time, his theory was brilliant and quite plausible (though not a slam dunk, as he understood). Further, he candidly admitted that there were serious weaknesses & objections, such as the explanation for the Cambrian (Silurian back then) explosion. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Darwin used theological arguments far more than Meyer does. anthropic

Maybe we SHOULD move Origin of the Species to the religion section of B&N? It certainly contains less science in it than does Darwin's Doubt and Signature in the Cell. OldArmy94

Well said Cantor! Darwin's Doubt is based on science. Meyer points out that even Darwin recognized problems in his own theory and that if those problems (such as the lack of transitionals in the earliest strata)could not be solved then his whole theory was weak at best. Meyer is only allowing the solution to these problems to go beyond naturalistic explanantions because the naturalistic explanations are absurd! ringo

Explain to me why creationist books should be in the science section and not the religion section?

Because Darwin's Doubt is not a "creationist" book. Any more than Origin of Species is an "atheist" book. You can't have it both ways. cantor

"Your reply just proves that you are an incorrigible troll, uninterested in rational discussion. If you would like to discuss this, by all means. Explain to me why creationist books should be in the science section and not the religion section? Acartia_bogart

This just proves that Barnes and Noble is better at categorizing subjects that Amazon or the publisher.

Your reply just proves that you are an incorrigible troll, uninterested in rational discussion. cantor

"If you really want to know what today’s science-minded public reads, you need to look at the “Christianity” section of Barnes and Nobles. That’s where I found Darwin’s Doubt last year, even though its dust jacket clearly states “SCIENCE/LIFE SCIENCE/EVOLUTION” This just proves that Barnes and Noble is better at categorizing subjects that Amazon or the publisher. Acartia_bogart

Someone who is an introvert has particular personality traits. He isn't "struggling with mental issues." ricotorpe

Indeed. They science as a noun. A thing.Not a verb. Not a mere methodology. they desire to present all conclusions in these fields as coming from a higher standard of research called science but are actually history, interpretation, or trival knowledge things. these authors seek large audiences and thats the purpose. its not to teach or advance science. Its not the right list to put these books in the science list. Robert Byers

For several days after Signature in the Cell came out, I stopped by a local Barnes and Noble on my way home, and moved the copies of the book out of the religious section back into the science section. It is what it is. Upright BiPed

As for Darwin's Doubt in B&Noble, I've noticed exactly the same thing, the attempt to keep it in the religious ghetto of books. Amazon is a bit better, as it is #1 in Organic (under Evolution), Paleontology, and (groan) Creationism. Obviously Amazon put it in the latter category at the behest of critics, as Meyer is not a creationist nor advocates creationism in the book. But the scary label does help keep the curious from reading the book, which is the purpose. anthropic

An intriguing look at what today’s science-minded public reads

If you really want to know what today's science-minded public reads, you need to look at the "Christianity" section of Barnes and Nobles. That's where I found Darwin's Doubt last year, even though its dust jacket clearly states "SCIENCE/LIFE SCIENCE/EVOLUTION" But no where in the index of Darwin's Doubt can you find "Christianity", "Christ", "Jesus" or even "religion". You can find "God" in the index under "The God Delusion" and "God is Not Great" which of course are books you will only find in the science section. awstar