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

Ok, sorry, I think I've got the lot now!

Spiff

I wasn't being *that* deep (but thanks for implying that I could be )!

I just said what I thought needed saying. The fact that there are the names of ten books of the Old Testament in that paragraph is completely incidental - it was intended as a quiet nod and to the author of this very controversial entry.

H.
Six feet tall and a quarter of an inch deep.

Frogbit,

"the evolution of the for instance"

so he's a linguist as well as a biologist?

(And sweaty psalms)

That should of course have been "the evolution of the eye for instance."
But it wasn't a terribly successful eye, which is why it didn't survive.
Thanks, potholer.

In reply to an earlier point, of "where is the creationism reference?", the reference is in just about every arguament, which get trotted out in an identical manner every time you talk to a creationist.

The fact that it comes complete with identical factual errors to the creationist quotings points to this being written by a creationist.

The refusal to correct factual errors which have had detailed rebutals given which destroy the erronious point also points to the author being a creationist.

Just about every one of these creationist arguaments was dealt with before the discovery of dna, but the central tenet of this article, that evolution is wrong, and it is because of these examples is still cranked out every time you talk to a creationist.

On the other hand, Josh has made some good points which could form the basis of an article along the same lines.

Theories are never totally correct, they are just sucessive approximations.

Scientists do make mistakes (and sometimes commit fraud). The correct response to this is to take less notice of this scientist next time, not, as josh seems to be saying to throw out a working theory because one of it's advocates is deluded or crooked.

please josh, do continue to work on this as an entry, as it has a lot of potential. but do bear in mind that if most people think something is wrong, and can give good reasons why they think it is wrong, you have to at least consider that they are right. While it is possible for the one person marching differently to be in step, and everyone else to be wrong, they odds don't favour it.

Also, your numbers don't seem to add up.

On the subject of book recommendations:

Gould is good, yes.

Darwin IS worth reading (someone said they wouldn't recommended him Has that person read the books I named?) His theory is not the current cutting edge, no. His prose is magical, and his naturalist's eye is keen. His theory, as presented by him, is important, historically. His books also present the theory of evolution back when it was small enough to fit into a couple of books. They offer invaluable historical perspective.


Another good modern account is "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett.

Dennet is also good. I didn't recommend against Darwin's works per se, I just thought they might be a little bit of a handful if you hadn't read anything else on the subject - Gould writes essays which can be sipped like a fine wine, or consumed like burgers, dependent on your mood at the time.
Frogbit.

, Frogbit.

Fair enough; essays are bitesized. Hope I didn't come across rude up there.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'The Writing Workshop'.

We would certainly like to include an h2g2 entry on Creationism (in the same way we accpeted an entry on Astral Projection - A593002) so that people can make up their own mind. There are several good points so far in here, which is why it's worth keeping.

Unfortunately, this entry, as it stands, does not properly address the 'standard' arguments in favour of Creationism, and has a number of flawed assessments of the theory of Darwinian Evolution. It's important to understand this theory before putting forward a credible counter-theory...

Bless you, kind sirs, you won't regret it. I promise.

So you want to help substantially with that article?

In any other case, your remark was perfectly superfluous.

To promote better writing, yes, I will help.
The superfluity was a very self-moderated expression of the relief I feel that the siege is over for the moment.

I've been doing a lot more research and hopefully I'll have this entry back in the peer review in two weeks. If there's one thing I've learned, research is not to be taken lightly on here.

If there are any particular elements of your research you'd like a opinion on before modifying the article, drop me a line on my homepage and I'll do what I can.

Ditto.

(Off topic)
If anyone's vaguely interested, I'd appreciate comments on my cave development article, especially from people who don't know much about caves who could tell me if it leaves them better informed, or more confused. There will be a part 2, but I thought putting everything in one article might make it a little heavy going.

josh, if you need help, drop me a line, either on my home page or by email.

My problems with this article are down to the current content, not the writing style, or the idea. I look forward to reading the update.