Evolution Book For Kids Rejected By U.S. Publishers

An award winning kids book about evolution was turned down by several American publishers because it was too controversial, according to the book's author.

"Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be" has just won the Lane Anderson award as the best science book for young readers in Canada, but author Daniel Loxton couldn't get American publishers to bite.

"I had more than one publishing professional in the U.S. indicate to me that, because of the potential for controversy, it would be hard to make the numbers work," Loxton told The Huffington Post. "They said it was a tough sell."

Loxton pointed out that various surveys tend to show that large percentages of the US population don't believe in evolution.

The author also said he's confident that, if he had kept knocking on doors, someone in America would have given his book the green light.

"We would undoubtably have found a publisher in the U.S. if we looked long enough," Loxton said. "It did, however, seem to be a widespread sentiment that the potential for controversy made a book on this topic for children a risky investment for large children's book publishers."

The book, published by Kids Can Press in Canada, is selling well. At the time this post was published, the book was ranked 1,045 in Amazon books.

The National Science Teachers Association his book fills a need.

"This book complies with the ideas set forth about evolution by the National Science Education Standards and fills a gap in books about evolution for this age group," the association said in a statement.

You can buy the book here.

RELATED VIDEO:

Comments

[ThomasTrom]

01:18 PM on 09/26/2011

I think they should have published the book : - as long as they make sure they keep it within the science - fiction sections.

[PerfumeisToxic]

07:20 AM on 09/22/2011

I would ban it. Not because it goes against any religious ideas. But because it is not true. Evolution is a THEORY. Like atomic theory, the big bang theory etc. When it, and many other scientific THEORIES are presented as FACT then this is actually a lie. And books full of lies should not be published and given to children.

The theory of evolution has much truth in I'm sure. But it also has much error. In 50 years much of what is in that book will be regarded as wrong. Therefore you shouldn't be presenting THEORIES as if they are fact. And I see this over confidence that really amounts to a kind of lie everywhere in science. Theories presented as if they are fact.

We are constantly told about how everything works as if it is a fact. I heard the other day that "we don't really know what causes lightning" I did a university physics course and the "explanation" of lightning was clearly presented as if they had it all worked out. So really what I learnt was a lie... and they knew it. Some years later they change their minds and decide they were wrong. Meanwhile everyone, including children, go on thinking incorrect things.

So science has to be careful to call a theory what it is, and not pretend that they know more than they really do.

[BatDaddy]

09:49 AM on 09/22/2011

That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A scientific theory is not the same as the common language use of the word theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of observable phenomena, encompassing all known evidence and data. A scientific theory has been tested and has yet to be falsified. A scientific theory is the highest possible level of certainty that an idea can achieve. And yes, in science, as more information becomes available, the theory either has to encompass the new information, or if the new information does not fit the theory, then the theory was wrong and is abandoned for a new, better, more well informed one.

Evolution is a fact. It's been observed, tested, and found to be true to the best of our abilities. If you're claiming we shouldn't teach things unless we have absolute certainty of them, then we won't be able to teach anything at all, because it's possible everything could change tomorrow. The earth might stop rotating and gravity could disappear, you just never know. So maybe we should just sit in our homes and stare at the wall.

On that note, you realize gravity is just a "theory," don't you?

[Lorindol]

11:10 AM on 09/22/2011

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

—Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory

[PerfumeisToxic]

12:24 PM on 09/22/2011

The point is not to debate what theory is.

The point is to TELL people that some idea is a THEORY and not a FACT. That it is just a supported guess, and that it could be completely wrong. Not to pretend that some theory is a proven fact when it isn't. Tell the truth. It's just arrogance and egotism that makes scientists want to pretend that they actually know things that they are merely guessing at ( with supporting evidence).

[addisonsteele]

06:41 PM on 09/20/2011

It is ironic that most people who do not believe in evolution are Social Darwinists.

[SF TKF]

03:54 PM on 09/20/2011

I'm so ordering this for my godson.

[EveryCliche]

02:53 PM on 09/20/2011

I have a stand out memory from my sixth grade science class. The teacher was up in front of the class and announces to us that she has to talk about evolution but that she doesn't believe in it and wouldn't be teaching it to us if she didn't have to. If remember correctly she spent less then a class period on it and keep slipping in creationism. And at that age I knew something was not right. I went home that night and asked my parents about it and my dad taught me more about evolution then my science teacher.

[Lorindol]

11:11 AM on 09/22/2011

Than, not "then"

[zmberg]

01:26 PM on 09/20/2011

Don't know why the publishers were nervous. Wouldn't those who opposed to such a book have to, you know, learn to read first?

[David Keith]

11:21 AM on 09/20/2011

Why was the book controversial?

[zmberg]

01:25 PM on 09/20/2011

It threatens the "credibility" of fairy tales much of the adult populace in America cling to.

[kimbanyc]

02:44 PM on 09/19/2011

Creationis­ts basic premise is wrong. Darwinism and creationis­­m are clearly
defined by anyone outside of extreme religious circles as representi­­ng
different definition­­s of the word "theory" based on the context being
used.

Any simple research bears this out

Evolution is a "theory" in
the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an establishe­­d
scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates
propositio­­ns with observatio­­nal consequenc­­es. Such a model both helps
generate new research and helps us understand observed phenomena.

the·o·ry

1. a coherent group of general propositio­­ns used as principles of
explanatio­­n for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity­­.
2. a proposed explanatio­­n whose status is still conjectura­­l, in
contrast to well-estab­­lished propositio­­ns that are regarded as
reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematic­­s . a body of principles­­, theorems, or the like,
belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or
methods, as distinguis­­hed from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the
method of doing it; a system of rules or principles­­.
6. contemplat­­ion or speculatio­­n.
7. guess or conjecture­­.

Darwins Theory of Evolution uses the term relative to its scientific
use obviously

creationis­­m falls mostly under numbers 6 & 7 in the general
discussion of the many faceted USES of the term

Speculatio­­n Guess Conjecture

[Just a passerby]

09:59 PM on 09/19/2011

A) You are right

B) It won't make the slightest bit of difference. You can't reason a person out of a position he didn't use reason to get into. And that's what you're dealing with.

[kimbanyc]

09:52 AM on 09/20/2011

I've learned long ago that there are few if any minds to be changed.here

[addisonsteele]

01:33 PM on 09/19/2011

Given that a recent British biopic about Charles Darwin, featuring prominent actors, could not find a distributor in the US, I am not surprised.

[richola]

12:31 PM on 09/19/2011

American Publishers are obviously not thinking this through. Publishing this in Canada has been a resounding success, where each copy is bound to be read and re-read, possibly even being handed down from one child to another over the years. You could publish in the US, capitalize on the controversy, then sell twenty times as many copies, just so the creationists can have something to burn. Depending on how long you can string out the controversy, we could be talking about several copies per household. After all, a book can be read a countless number of times on a single purchase, but you can burn it only once. This could create a whole new category of bestsellers; a real Hot 100 list!

[MJinCanada]

11:50 AM on 09/19/2011

American publishers also routinely underestimate the intelligence of readers. Remember that Scholastic decided to rename "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" -- thereby setting of the Satanism ridiculousness, and all because they figured no one would ever look up "alchemy" on the internet to find out what the philosopher's stone was.

Kids currently don't learn enough about evolution in school to actually understand it. This book would be a valuable resource and I'm glad we have it in Canada.

[SF TKF]

03:55 PM on 09/20/2011

BINGO!

[Ayla87]

11:26 AM on 09/19/2011

""They said it was a tough sell." [because] large percentages of the US population don't believe in evolution."

Is this a joke? One of the first books I remember reading in the early 90's was a book on dinosaurs. Quite a few of them in fact. And they were graphic too (T-rex biting chunks off a brontosaur).

If books like that were available in the 90's, right after Tipper Gore's censorship crusades (books as well as music), I see no reason why there wouldn't be a market for this book today.

I'm sorry I just have a really hard time believing this.

[TheLibraryOfCodex]

10:02 AM on 09/19/2011

Reject books based on how Earth orbits the Sun too, just in case it causes controvers­y with geocentris­ts.

[normathumb]

08:15 AM on 09/19/2011

Who are the publishers that turned it down? May we see those rejection letters? Could this be a marketing ploy to pump up import sales before US publishing? It is the sort of thing guaranteed to create a buzz.

[calm-down-bro]

11:07 AM on 09/19/2011

When you run out of eggs, do you suspect a conspiracy? Not every story is a scam.

[normathumb]

03:12 PM on 09/19/2011

The author claims the book was turned down by American publishers because, he says they said, it was too controversial. I would like to know is this true or is the author simply creating a stir. I don't think that is too much for you to ask. By the way, my question goes no further than the author. It takes more than one to form a conspiracy.

[Hope Richardson]

12:33 AM on 09/19/2011

What are we, in the dark ages? I can't believe (I mean I can, I just wish I didn't) most Americans don't believe in evolution. It boggles the mind. At least try to make the theory fit with your respective religion. Or gain a brain.