h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A670213

A jointly written entry. Josh the Genius was having some trouble making his entry on creationism balanced enough to make it Edited Guide material. I've added my own comments for balance, and I hope the result can be considered for Edited status.

Josh has specifically said here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F78168&thread=156554&skip=5

that he's refuted or conceded all the points I've made, and I have nothing to add either, so as a debate it's essentially complete as it stands.

I think this entry should go into the Edited Guide because it presents the evidence for Creationism, (sort of), *and* the other side of the debate. It is therefore balanced, whereas lack of balance was the main problem of the original entry, in my opinion.

Josh and I are both quite keen to see an entry on Creationism get into the Edited Guide, so I hope this can go some way to fulfilling that...

Any comments or suggestions will be gratefully accepted (by me at least...)

H.

I've been silently watching the whole furor over the creationism entry from the beginning. Your initial post seems like the most sensible thing yet suggested. However, when I read it, I found that it was just your "scientific basis, my arse" criticism of Josh's entry. It's altogether too combative to be read as a debate. If the two of you would work together to make it match what you describe in your post, I think it would make an excellent entry. The information and knowledge is there, on both your parts, all that needs to change is the attitude, on both your parts.

According to the published guidelines, only factual articles, not opinion, are accepted for inclusion in the Edited Guide... and this piece does not go any way near meeting that criteria.

This piece works quite well as a Guide Entry.... and of course it will be found and read by anyone doing a Guide Search on the subject.

I fully agree with Theantrope here. We've got the thesis and antithesis now, but the synthesis is not yet there. At least, the grammar and style points aren't really contributing anything useful to the subject in question.

Point taken. Those'll come out then...

H.

Loonytunes wrote:
"According to the published guidelines, only factual articles, not opinion, are accepted for inclusion in the Edited Guide... and this piece does not go any way near meeting that criteria."

As far as Josh is concerned, everything he wrote is entirely factual and not a matter of opinion *at all*. He's specifically said he won't change the content of *his* article simply because other people disagree with it.

As far as I am concerned, I've presented in rebuttal, *facts*, verifiable by consulting commonly available textbooks on biology, zoology, physics and astronomy. Admittedly, I have allowed some opinion to creep in (!) but the essence of the entry is *entirely* factual.

Additionally, this article demonstrates the fact of the existence of Creationism, and sums up in essence their evidence *for* the Creation (i.e. none) and their evidence *against* evolution (i.e. flawed logic, misunderstandings of basic scientific principles and lies).

The Creationist use of flawed logic is not a matter of opinion, it is clearly demonstrable *fact* - "evolution is wrong therefore creationism must be right" - that is just not logic.

The Creationist use of misunderstandings of basic scientific principles is not a matter of opinion, it is a clearly demonstrable fact - see the whole bit about protons and neutrons.

The Creationist use of lies is not a matter of opinion, it is a clearly demonstrable fact - reference to Nebraska man implies that it is in any way an accredited "missing link", whereas the *truth* of the matter is that the scientific establishment regards it as a regrettable mistake and it does not appear in any textbook.

One fact which currently does not appear in the article is the extent to which creationism is taught in schools in the USA. If anyone can furnish me with information on that subject, I would appreciate it, as I think in addition to providing the facts about Creationism, it is important to point out where it is being taught to children.

H.
Just the facts, ma'am.

I've removed grammar and style point corrections, unless they're supporting another point (e.g. principal/principle confusion leads into the common mistake of considering atomic nuclei solely as protons and neutrons, without regard for underlying quarks).

H.

I suggest that you don't submit a joint entry with Josh until you get his permission.

Didn't Josh give his permission?

Evolution is taught differently in the USA depending on the region. The Pacific and North Atlantic seaboard states tend to be more liberal. Here in Washinton I was taught evolution as a scientific theory and there was no controversy in my community. However, we also watched "Inherit the Wind" and discussed why many people disagree with it. In the Center and South, the more conservative areas, the teaching of Evolution might meet with more resistance, but this has declined in recent years. Alabama is currently the last state to place warning stickers on biology textbooks in public schools indicating that the "Controversial theory of Evolution" is contained therein. All states, I believe, allow students to 'opt out' of lessons about Evolutions as it might conflict with religious beliefs. Nobody in any of my classes in Washington ever opted out.

Very helpful, theanthrope, I'll put some of that material in tomorrow (it's very late and I have to get some sleep...)

I put Josh's name on the author list because about half of *my* entry was text from *his* entry, and if I didn't credit him it would look like plagiarism. I've produced quite a few Edited Entries with help from other people, and I've always been quite keen to see them credited (the entry on Jet Engines in particular...).

I didn't get his permission because I didn't ask for it. I didn't ask for it because I didn't see any point - he completely ignores 99% of the questions or comments directed at him by me and most other people, and in fact seems not to realise that he is doing so. I have asked him all sorts of things on many occasions, and so far the only response I've had to all that was a short note telling me that he was offended that I was pretending to be Jesus(!).

Since I've written the substantially factual part of this entry, and made it what it is (i.e. balanced, etc.), and since I've given him credit for providing some of the content, I personally don't see any pressing need for his *permission*. I could be wrong, of course, and I'll take what advice can be offered, as long as you don't ask me to do the impossible.

H.

Well, I for one, would like to to create a universe from scratch, if you can manage it. :P

...like YOU to...

Hoovooloo, the h2g2 Edited Guide is a place where helpful, informative, factual articles reside. There are numerous other places on h2g2 where debates can be held.

A Google search on Creationism brings up some good factual articles... Point of clarification... you don't have to belief in something to write accurately about it.

From the Guidlines...

9. Try to be Well-balanced

h2g2 is a great place to have opinions and get things off your chest, but for the Edited Guide we're looking for well-balanced entries rather than subjective rants. We're looking for entries that show both sides of the argument, especially on potentially contentious topics, such as:

Cigarettes
Mormonism - A Question and Answer Session
Evil from a Western Perspective
Condoms

Hoovooloo, you didn't ask Josh's permission because you knew you wouldn't get it. The Editors are entitled to do what they like to the stuff we submit, but I for one would feel very bad if you took one of my articles, dissected it and submit that into Peer Review.

This article has absolutely no place in the Edited Guide.

On the other hand, there's nothing to stop you writing an article such as "Common Misconceptions about Evolution" with all of Josh's misconceptions rephrased in your own words, not just lifted straight out of his rant, with an explanation for each as to why it is misguided. It will have to be a lot more even-tempered than your entry is at present before it is accepted.

OK? So what has happened? Where's the entry gone?

I've been watching this debate for quite some time... I tend to agree with the above if this entry is what used to be the "Creationism, my arse" entry. It's really not the synthesis (yet).

About having him in the author's list: I think in this case you would need a permission.

HELL

PS: I would like to point to the convo under the entry.

HV

Do you *really* want this in the Edited Guide? Honestly?

Personally this smacks to me of rubbing salt in a wound.

I really do hope not.

Geoff

Hi Hoovooloo,

I can understand how you might feel that this was a fair compromise following the 'delightful' thread about the original article. I am afraid I tend to agree with some others here that there is a hint of an attempt to 'put one over' on the original author here. I haven't reread the 'my a**e' piece again (if that is what it is) but I can imagine that it may appear rather negative.

I had one idea, for you to take or leave. How about a 'factual, informative and balanced' entry on what can go wrong in a debate between a convinced (but perhaps ill-informed) creationist and a community who place a heavy emphasis in 'scientific' fact and recognise the (probable) validity of the theory of evolution. Would you be allowed to 'quote' an example of such a 'debate'? This might enable you to avoid appearing to attack any single individual whilst still presenting two viewpoints, and perhaps some general points about the nature of debate and dialogue.

Any thoughts?

Spiff

At Gnomon's suggestion, I've rewritten the entry. Just as well, as it happens, because it had been hidden (like Josh's original) by the moderators.

It now contains no text written by Josh, and is all my own work, so he's off the author list and questions of permission and plagiarism do not arise.

It is significantly more restrained, and does not and never did (since being submitted to PR) contain the phrase "my arse".

I would caution anyone intending to comment to please read it again, as it is now significantly different from the version originally posted. I would appreciate any input anyone may care to give on the anthropic principle, otherwise I'll just take that bit out - it's plenty long enough already...

Oh, and it's in plain text. I'll jazz it up with GML when I get the chance, but the content is there...

H.