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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A660971
An entry on the Jurassic coast of Dorset, UK, a brief life-history of the most important women in earlier palaeontology, and a sketch of Victorian attitudes towards evolution and the rise of geology.
Enjoy.
Frogbit.

"0.1 of all living things" - 0.1 per cent
"terrible accurate" - terribly accurate
"at a fare" - fair
"de facto" means "in fact"; I'm not sure that this fits as you have used it - perhaps 'virtual'
"She during her career she" - During her career she
"no-longer" - no longer
"This put pressure on" - sounds to me as though the Church's domination of Oxford and Cambridge put pressure on, whereas I assume you mean the Church put pressure on
"bargain with their faith, and" - I think 'counterbalance their faith with' might be better
"creators" - creator's

Good article, well researched. I think it's a good candidate for entry - an offbeat piece of knowledge and very readable.

I'm a little concerned obout the title though. Since the article centres on Mary Anning, perhaps mentioning Lyme Regis and (especially) Victorian attitudes to evolution in the title is a little misleading? People searching for info on Lyme Regis probably won't find what they want in this article. Might it be better to cut-and-paste a little to include the Lyme Regis geology around the "her father, a carpenter" passage, or even include it as a seperate entry, then retitle as 'Mary Anning'? (Don't leave out the geology though - I liked it!)

Thanks, Gif, for your careful reading and criticism. I'll see to the corrections presently, and will probably shorten the title. I believe the search engine searches contents as well as titles, so anyone looking for Victorian attitudes will probably get this anyway.
I'm going to put in a little more about Lyme Regis as well.
Frogbit.
PS - I would *never* leave out the geology.

Corrections corrected.

A few more ammendments, including the date od Mary's birth and death(!)

This is an interesting read.

I'm not convinced about the last sentence in the entry 'This satisfied the minds of religious geologists, but is to this day irksome to the clergy who, under the glaring light of modern science, have had to reduce their creators role again and again, to the progenitor of the Big Bang.' Given current discoveries there is again a lively debate about the role of 'God' which some scientists are finding difficult to resist.

I don't want to go off-topic - but

"Given current discoveries there is again a lively debate about the role of 'God' which some scientists are finding difficult to resist"

begs a little light. (No pun intended).

Hi Frogbit!

No, I don't want to go off topic either. As I said earlier, I think this entry is both interesting and informative.

I wasn't intending to convert anyone to a particular opinion by my comment. However, it just seemed to me that this sentence appears to say 'All scientists (or at least particle physicists and astrophysicists) are atheists and that is the only reasonable opinion to hold'.

I'm not denying anyone the right to believe that, however having seen a very lively debate on the BBC recently between religious scientists including particle physicists and astrophysicists debating the implications of the latest discoveries both in particle science and about the origins of the universe, there does at least seem to be room for doubt.

As far as I can see, (and I can only speak on what I have heard from Christian clergy and there are many more kinds to be considered), for many there does not appear to be a great problem with current scientific theory and religious belief.

Did you consider that your last sentence to be a balanced view? Have I misinterpreted your meaning? If so, you may consider rewording this particular bit to make it clearer. I'd be interested to hear what other Researchers think about this one.

'This satisfied the minds of religious geologists, but is to this day irksome to the clergy who, under the glaring light of modern science, have had to reduce their creators role again and again, to the progenitor of the Big Bang.'

Hi Zarquon(s). It may need re-wording, but I was speaking of the religious geologists being satisfied that there was room enough in the universe for science *and* religion - and hey, having your god pushed back to being the creator of the universe isn't entriely unsatisfactory. I wasn't suggesting that atheism rules science - although I do find it particulary interesting that you mentioned physisists - it seems to me that they're re-creating the mystery that produced the need for a creator in the 1st instance.
Hope this clears things up - if not a re-write may be in order.

Frogbit. (Atheist/agnostic, dependent on the weather)

Ahem - *physicists*.

Hi Frogbit!



I think a bit of judicious rewording may help things.

I do agree that it's irksome to fundamentalists, who I've little time for, especially given that they seem to have such closed minds. There was an entry about Darwin a little while ago that was full of the most arrant nonsense.

I'm also in agreement with what you said about physicists.


(ex-agnostic, now Sufi and Quaker)

I seem to remember the Darwin siege - thread, sorry.
Perhaps I should point out (in the entry) that it was the Anglicans who have re-thought their doctrine in order that their creator take more of a back seat, and get away from all that Eden business.

ps Sufi *and* Quaker - come over to my place, if you would, and have a chat about that.

hi
I enjoyed the story of Anne and the Ammonites (that beach sounds pretty !). I also enjoyed the geology. Thanks.

Some specific points (to take or leave, of course):

>>but what makes the location remarkable was its situation some 200 mya1.

- the two tenses of the verb 'to be' don't gel here

>>throughout the entirety of the Jurassic

- throughout the Jurassic period (I think you need 'period' after the adjecive *the first time you mention it*. Same applies to 'Triassic'. May sound pompous but otherwise you seem to be taking things for granted. )

>>were initially though - thoughT

>>The thanks to the efforts of Henry VIII - Thanks to... (although I'm not entirely convinced of the truth of this statement, or at least its objectivity).

>>but they were un-named - could you tell us something about the name at this point? Who did name it, since it's not a Anningosaurus?

>>gentlemen friends - gentlemAn friends


More generally:

- I enjoyed reading the article, coming to it without prior knowledge I learnt something new and it was interestingly presented. About Lyme Regis, about Mary Anning, about the geology of SW England and about some science vs religion debates that went on well before the Darwin/Evolution thing.

- I found your bio of MA a bit odd, to be honest. You open with "struck by lightning when she was one" but only that first line of the paragraph mentions MA. Then, after a para about her unfortunate family members, it is on to her father (no more fortunate, let's face it! ) and the circumstances of finding the first ichth. No real gen on MA.
The next info we have is "Over the years, Mary continued to comb the beach for curios" and from then on we simply picture her running off into storms for a vaguely defined period until 'her cancer took hold' and then she's more or less out of it. Considering the title is 'Mary Anning of Lyme Regis' I personally got more of a feel for LR than MA.

- In my view (please don't take this badly ) this doesn't work as a single article. The last 3 paras don't seem to fit (although I see the overall relevance!). I see the 'Mary Anning of Lyme Regis' thing, but I don't think it needs to go together with your rather 'weighted' final section.

- Sorry for saying 'weighted', but that final section really seems to slam its anti-religionist point home!

- I wonder if you could work your (completely valid) points about the conflict between geological discoveries and religious authorities into the whole piece in some other way. You may well not want to. Up to you, naturally.

- Just to repeat myself, I enjoyed the article; thanks for the read. I just think it could be improved.

Spiff

Hey Spiff, thanks for your considered reply, I'll go back for a good look asap.
Might lose the final section- it seems to be giving people cause for concern. Although, (and I'll say it again) I can't see what offence could be caused by relegating a creator back to the initial moment and getting the ball rolling (instead of being ref).
Speak soon,
Frogbit.

I'm not sure you really have to 'lose' it altogether. It makes a good point that is clearly related to the whole question of geological discoveries and the religious debate they sparked of at the time (must have been some flint in there somewhere among the ammonites ).

I don't know how you will decide to work it (separate article, change of structure, something else?) but I think the point is a valid one.

I can sympathise with your point that creating the entire universe might be considered a more impressive feat than just the Earth (although I think the Bible does have God creating the universe first, then concentrating on Earth afterwards).

Nonetheless, I hope you would accept that you have adopted a tone and vocabulary here that *hints* at your personal convictions!

----------------------

>>It was circumvented by pushing back God's creation of the world to encompass evolution. God's role was, in effect, reduced to being a mere tinkerer with primordial atoms. This satisfied the minds of religious geologists, but is to this day irksome to the clergy who, under the glaring light of modern science, have had to reduce their >>creator's role again and again, to the progenitor of the Big Bang.

---------------------

Hmmm? No?

"This was circumvented...", "God's role was (...) reduced to being a MERE TINKERER with primordial atoms." (!), "irksome to the clergy", "glaring light of modern science", "have had to reduce their creator's role"

I'm not trying to get into a debate about it, just stating that some of this vocab is rather suggestive.

Spiff

OK Spiff, thanks again. I've had a look at the entry in light of your last posting. I'll ammend the typos you kindly pointed out and, initally I thought I may have been a little harsh of the clergy.

BUT it is the Anglican church who backtracked and placed their god on the other side of the BB. They are the ones responsible for diminishing he/she/its role as a carer. I was merely pointing this out.

I am going to leave the last part of the entry intact for the moment, and see what other people feel.

For the record though, I am not anti-religious - I feel that people are completely entitled to worship the deity(ies) of their choice, as long as they don't go around telling everyone else that they have got the wrong god, and don't have to rely on numbers, murder, bullying and unfair heirachies to get their message across.


Frogbit.

Re-titled to Mary Anning of Lyme Regis.

Hi, Frogbit, I've finally been able to give this a thorough read.

(Today's excuse - we had a power cut, and the cat jumped on my knee and waved her fluffy tail right through the flame of the candle I'd just lit )

I think this is really interesting, but the underlying thread between the three parts is probably not obvious enough to someone arriving new to the topic. Perhaps you could put in a few more basic introductory sentences before the section about Lyme? - Something on the lines of 'Some of the most important fossils of the early 19th century were found under the cliffs of Lyme in Dorset. The most successful fossil-hunter of the time was a local woman called Mary Anning.' 'Mary Anning and the Fossils of Lyme Regis' might also work as a title.

I think in the biography section you reach her death a little abruptly, in comparison with the amount of space given to her childhood. A little more about her 30+ years of fossil-hunting (or a little less about her childhood) would balance things a little better.

It might also be nice to mention that some of her most famous specimens can still be seen in the Natural History Museum in London.

Well done, anyway! I like it a lot, I just think the connections need to be pointed out a bit more for people who haven't heard of her before.


Azara

I like this Entry a lot, and personally I don't see a problem with the last paragraph. I don't think it's overly biased - it is unarguably true that Creationists had to deal with some very powerful challenges to their doctrine during the period under discussion.

I suspect that the Eds would want some reference to Ms Anning's line of work in the title: 'Mary Anning - the Geologist' or something similar. Otherwise the casual reader seeing it on the front page might wonder why this particular resident of Lyme Regis should be of interest!

The only other flaw I can see is that a few words and phrases are hyphenated when they shouldn't be. 'Unnamed', 'unknown', 'offspring' and 'breast cancer' do not require hyphens. Those quibbles aside, I think this is a very fine piece of work!

Hi Frogbit. I am going to add my 2 cents to the critique! I hope it doesn't come over as too pedantic.

mya - from a style perspective you might think of using "million years ago" in the main text, rather than as a footnote. It is more readable.

Jurassic - should be Jurassic Period. Same for Triassic Period.

Comma after "As time went by".

You might want to rephrase "many millions of lives were lived" - I would leave it out altogether, and I would start with "During the Jurassic Persiod, countless dramas etc.."

Leave out Jurassic seas - just say seas.

"Oceans" .. "must have been a busy place" - you are mixing plurals with singular words - it should be "must have been busy places"

Explain "pyratised" in the main text. Footnotes should only be used to provide more information to the curious, not to explain a word that is not commonly understood.

"along almost any of the Dorset coast", should be, "along any stretch of the Dorset coast".

I think the local lord in question is Gideon Mantell, who himself deserves something written about him. Mantell, the subject of the book "The Dinosaur Hunters" was the unheralded father of paleontology, being one of the first people to make the connection between the fossils and the obvious contradiction with the biblical account of creation.

"she encountered ".. "the fledgling science of paleontology". I would have said she was an integral part of the foundation of paleontology.

I am not sure she lived in abject poverty - people did purchase her fossils for good money, but she was not wealthy. "Abject" might be too strong a word here.

"It was a given fact", insert "at that time", that the earth was 6,000 years old.

"The thanks to HIII", - Its should be "However, thanks to"

"difficult to alleviate" - just say "particularly intense"

"Compromose" - "decide between" is better. There was no compromise.

Again I hope you don't see it as too pedantic. I am really just trying to help from a style perspective. Take what you think is valuable!

"The Dinosaur Hunters" is a superb book by the way, if you want further information about MA and all the main characters who founded paleontology in this time.