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

Oops, small argument with the return key whilst posting.

Gif

Hi Giford...

"I'm actually glad you've taken this out of PR - I was about to post something saying I didn't think that one author could do this justice."

Precisely why I've asked for a Uni project on it.

"In order to be a neutral stand-alone, you need to make the Creationist case much more convincingly."

Precisely what I've asked Josh to do as part of the Uni project.

"If you are sure the evidence supports your case (and I am sure it does), you should have the confidence to present the opposition case as well as possible, and let your audience decide for themselves."

I'm asking Josh and anyone else who can help him to put the best case they can as part of the Uni project, and only partly because I'm confident the evidence supports evolution. If nobody volunteers, I'm prepared to do it myself, and if I'm called on to write an entry in support of Creationism, I shall do so to the best of my ability, albeit with gritted teeth which I hope won't show (although I think I've got a volunteer already - cheers Geoff! ).

"Hopefully, becoming a Uni project will address all those points, so I guess I am flogging a dead horse here"

Possibly...

"but I'd hate to see such an important subject have a biased article written about it."

Which was, I think, the reason for all the objections to Josh's original. I hope if we can get a project sorted out, Josh can write an entry you might consider "biased", explaining Creationist beliefs, but the bias will be balanced by other articles linked from it.

"I wouldn't want to see a Uni project without any Creationist input."

Well, I've asked Josh as politely as I can for his input. If anyone knows any other creationists who could help, please let me know. I'm perfectly prepared to write the Creationist side myself, but I'd rather not lay myself open to charges of bias if possible.

"I also feel that Irreducible Complexity deserves more explanation than you have given it."

I responded to as much detail as Josh gave. As I now understand IC forms a principle plank of the Creationist argument, I will be wanting to include (a) a fuller explanation of it and (b) a fuller rebuttal of it (if possible... )

"Tacking Josh's name onto an article that we all know he'd disagree with vehemently was a rotten trick (though he did use Dawkins as an argument against evolution... )"

And he put the headline "Darwin's Great Hoaxes" on a section which dealt with neither Darwin nor hoaxes, if we're talking about rotten tricks... and I can't say that giving Josh due credit for using his text in my entry was done for entirely honourable reasons. Mea culpa.

"and I'm glad you've withdrawn that. In my book, that would have to count as a 'personal attack'."

I think that's a bit strong. I used his text, so I credited him. I guessed he wouldn't like it, of course... Interestingly, however, I have heard NOTHING, not a single word, from him on the subject - not a complaint, not a rebuke, nothing. In fact, to date, the only time he has so much as acknowledge my existence was to tell me he was offended that I was pretending to be Jesus. Given that I'd "proved" I was Jesus by "proving" the non-existence of gravity, I'm not convinced he got the point of that particular analogy...

H.

HVL -- If you don't find someone to write the Creationist entry, I could probably do a decent job. I'm one of those at the far right-hand of the Creationist spectrum (i.e., believe in a divinely-influenced evolution), but I have friends and family throughout the spectrum. I could probably do a decently balanced job, looking at the different kinds of Creationist thought and the theological and scientific reasons for those beliefs.

mikey

You sound perfect. I'll add you to the list of contributors at the Index page on that basis... (although I'm still looking to get a contribution from Josh, if he's still using the site...)

H.

Hi H,

Sounds like we agree on everything except the likely level of offence caused to Josh by the use of his name. Since it's unclear whether he even saw this entry, it's probably safe to drop the subject.

Now I definitely hear the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Dead Horses pounding at my door ...

Gif

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'Creationism: Fundamental(ist) Errors'.

This entry has been made into a University Project: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A672248