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

isnt that bigoted? I dont mean that we have to present both creationism and evolution on equal footing, but shouldnth they be presented as viable alternitives?

If you want to see creationist entries in the Edited Guide, why not write some? If they meet the Writing-Guidelines and successfully pass through the PeerReview process, they'll get into the EG.

There is of course a false premise in your argument - that creationism is a viable alternative (to anything). However, I had seen some articles addressing creationism (though I didn't make a note of the numbers). So it would seem that even your initial complaint is inaccurate.

This isn't a feature suggestion. Better places for this include: Challengeh2g2, a soapbox on <./>Feedback-Community</.>, or even (we should really make it against the rules to *actually* write anything) to write an article for PeerReview or <./>thePost</.> yourself.

h2g2 is about *you*, the researchers, contributing.

Spelugx

"isnt that bigoted? I dont mean that we have to present both creationism and evolution on equal footing, but shouldnth they be presented as viable alternitives?"

Because the edited guide only wants factual articles, not fiction. An article presenting creationism as a viable alternative on equal footing to evolution would be fiction.

More to the point, has there been an article written in a clear and consice style that will get it passed through peer review and made into a guide entry? this is a site that is basically written by the researchers, and as such nothing is written to ordr. If there are no such articles on creationism, then why don't you redress the balance rather than whinging about it? It's not up to the editors to order any of us to write anything you know......

tetchy cos she's at work

Zantic

I think Jim Lynn has answered the point in F47997?thread=364579

Seek and ye shall find

That would be Jimster not JL ....

We had a University Project by one Hoovooloo called Evolution and Creationism - C1040. It has some entries on Creationism.

Creationism is not a viable alternative.

They can only be presented as viable alternatives is that is what they are. Since they aren't then they can't be presented in that way. However one of the nicest features of H2G2 is the more humorous articles, so perhaps some covering the laugh riot that is creation science would not be out of place.

This may be because no article on creationism has been submitted by a creationist and got through peer review, nothing bigoted, if the entries aren't up to scratch then it doesn't get in. That's because creation science, though it fraudulent and dishonest advocates would disagree, has NO evidential basis, there is no evidence or justification for a young Earth created in 6 days, or a global flood or anything else in genesis, and no amount screaming about bigotry is going to change the reailty of the situtation. All argument for a young Earth that have been put forward are flawed and have been shown to be so, this is why there may be none showing proof of creation.

Something that would get through peer review would be a more honest approach, presenting of creationist arguments with a balanced view showing the scientific communities objections and reasoning, a make your own mind up kinda thing, also, there ARE several entries in the guide that attempt (not at all successfully mind) to logically point out flaws in evolutionary theory through reasoned thought.

Because of creationisms lack of evidence and deeply flawed arguments, creationism is NOT, CAN NOT, and never will be a viable alternative. It is merely fiction. Evidence to the contrary is overwhemling, evidence in favour is non-existent.

Evidence is everything, anything else is fiction.