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

Just wondering how long I have to finish.

Josh

As long as it takes - this isn't school!

Seriously, you work till you think you're finished, then let me know. As I said, if what you've written fits with the other entries, it can go straight in as is. If it needs any changes to make it fit better (like, say, taking something out because it's dealt with somewhere else already, or adding a link), I'll ask you to do that in the first instance. In the end, all the entries you and I and everyone else write will go through the hands of the subed, who'll make sure they're in proper GuideML style, and that should be it. There's a nominal end date for the project of 31 Jan, but don't feel bound by that at all - this may take longer than that to do justice to, and some of the Uni Proj's have been sitting there for months and months.

I think it's worth repeating the request to please write something *positive* - what I'm after from you is as clear a description as possible of what you *do* believe, what creationism *is*, rather than what it *isn't*.

What I mean by that is, what I'm aiming for is ONE entry on what the theory of evolution says happened(that's being written by Ste), and ONE entry on what creationists say happened (that's you). The evolution entry won't contain anything at all about creationism, so to balance that, the creation entry shouldn't contain anything, anything at all, about evolution, the big bang, or any other of the scientific theories which are in disagreement with creationism.

*Please* just deal with what creationism says *did* happen, NOT with what's wrong with evolution as a theory (that'll be covered somewhere else).

Because not all creationist believe exactly the same, there will be an entry (written by Mikey the Humming Mouse) on the spectrum of creationist belief (with the absolutely 100% literal Bible interpreters at one end and those who believe in a divinely guided evolution at the other, with you somewhere between, I guess).

I'll be trying, at some point (when I have the time ) to do an entry on the what's wrong with creationist arguments, and a parallel one on what's wrong with evolutionary theory (I've got a cracking tale about an alternative theory of man's evolution which mainstream science ignores for rather odd reasons...). There's plenty of material in both of those to give a reasonable balance, I think.

So, in conclusion, don't worry about deadlines - remember the words of Douglas Adams:

"I love deadlines. I particularly like the whooshing noise they make as they go by..."



H.

Douglas Adams had an answer for everything, didn't he?

As for being "positive", I've always believed you have to take the old pillars down before you put the new ones up. Creationism is based on the problems in evolution. I just don't see how I can talk about Creationism while ignoring Evolution. I think about it though. I guess I can work on that. I have a much harder time being positive than I do being negative. Bad habit, I guess.

Hi Josh,

You said...
"As for being "positive", I've always believed you have to take the old pillars down before you put the new ones up."

How does the theory of evolution consitute "the old pillars"?!

As I understand it, evolution as a concept is about 150 years old, and as a scientific theory it is still being refined.

Creation as a concept and a widely held belief is, shall we say, slightly older? Like, about 5000 years older?

"Creationism is based on the problems in evolution."

Are you telling me that Creationism is a solely negative belief system? That you don't actually BELIEVE anything, you just DON'T believe evolution? What did people believe 200 years ago, before there was a theory of evolution to disagree with?

"I just don't see how I can talk about Creationism while ignoring Evolution."

Do you BELIEVE in Creationism? Or do you just NOT believe in evolution?

This is crucial to getting a meaningful set of entries into the Guide. I can count on Ste to write an entry which is JUST about Evolution, with no mention of Creationism. What I NEED, to balance that, is an entry which is JUST about Creationism, with no mention of evolution.

I'm hoping you can write that - I certainly can't. Tell us about it. Tell us what Creationists believe DID happen.

It would improve your entry greatly if you can include the reason(s) WHY they/you believe what you do, as well. In fact, that would be extremely important. The reason for the belief is of more significance than the details of it, to my mind.

I can assure you that I WILL give space to the Creationist objections to the theory of evolution. But that's really a separate entry, and it's more important, I think, to get an entry in saying what Creationism *IS*, before we get into details.

So I suppose I've really now asked you for two entries... one on what Creationism is, and a separate, later one on what the Creationist objections to evolution are. Funny how these things get bigger once you start thinking about them, isn't it?

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with, and don't sweat the time, it's just a suggested completion date. I'm busy IRL at the moment, but I'm sure we can get this done sooner or later...

Cheers!

H.

Knock knock...

Is it rude for me to barge in like this? I was looking at the current university projects and this looked like something I could write a piece for, if you want. I didn't actually do a pre-med undergraduate degree, and the American Studies department actually offered a course on Darwinism and its ramifications in everything from social programs to literary criticism to the bulwarks of US Protestantism. As usual, the Vatican slept through the whole thing.

I ended up reading a bunch of interesting material, and though it's been a long time since then, I could probably pull a thought or two together. I just need to know if I should go by your article for how scholarly, or what?

Actually, there's reasons why Josh can't talk about Creationism meaningfully without talking about Evolutionary Theory... s**t. I said I was going to do nothing but fluff and funny stuff. Still, there's reasons. That would be what I'd probably end up writing about.

Get back to me, okay? Thanks. Sorry if I gate-crashed rudely and crudely, but I'm like that, or at least, that's what my ex says. (I'd use the little faces but I don't know how yet).

Quincy

Okay, H. You win; I'll write a positive entry. It's just that I'm going to have to basically start over now. As for Creationism being based on the lack of evidence for Evolution and the "new pillars", yes, it is a belief that has been around since the beginning of time, but not until recently has it emerged as a scientific theory.

I guess as long as I have your assurance that you will include objections to Evolution, I can restrain myself.

Since "Objections to evolution" seems to be a central plank of what creationism is about, it wouldn't be much of a project if there wasn't an entry including the Creationist objections to evolution. It is absolutely VITAL that there is an entry on that, I completely agree.

Quite apart from anything else, your original entry, which inspired this whole thing, was pretty close to what I envisage that entry as being like - so you needn't necessarily "start over". What you've already got may be close to a finished version of the *other* entry you can write. (There *will* be an entry addressing creationist objections to evolution, for balance, but your entry should get in...)

BUT - before the reader gets to that, I think it's important they understand what you DO think happened. If Creationism has truly "emerged as a scientific theory", they need to know what that theory is, and how it explains the evidence. That how scientific theories work - observe, theorise, test the theory. If the theory fails the test, even once, you have to come up with a better one.

H.

I guess it WAS rude of me to barge in. I apologize.

Quincy

Sorry, Q, struggling to sit up straight for five minutes at a time so I'm not as talkative as I usually am (not in the list for most verbose researchers, so there must be something wrong with me...).

I'd like to see what Josh comes up with before any second-guessing, because something he wrote was the original reason for the project. Talk to Ste if you want the background. (I'm also interested to know the reasons of which you speak...)

Cheers for the interest.

H.

I just replied to Ste, with what would amount to my contribution, on my page. I don't know how to link that here, but it's just about the most recent posting.

Thanks for the reply. Overworked? Stressed out? Golly, I wouldn't know a thing about it!

Quincy

So, should I write two entries?

One an objection, the other an explanation?

Spot on: I'd ideally like to see two entries from you.

The first, and most important one would be titled something like "Creationism: What I believe" (the actual title is up to you).

That would be the positive one. No mention of evolution, just state what you believe is the origin of life in all its diversity, and ideally *why* you believe that. If you've any scientific evidence FOR it (i.e. specific stuff which *supports* Creation, which is NOT the same as evidence which contradicts evolution...), include that too. Neither I nor anyone else will write an entry contradicting or criticising what you write there, I guarantee it.

This one's important because a reader will want to know what it is you DO believe, before they get on with the next bit, your beef(s) with evolution.

That belongs in a different entry (Title ideas: "Creationist Objections to Evolution" or "A Creationist explains the flaws in the theory of Evolution" or "Origins and Errors: A Creationist's View of the Theory of Evolution" or... well, you make one up! ) , and you've probably got a significant amount of that second entry already done. A sense of fairness forces me to give you this advice: get some help with it, from the best qualified people you can find. Your two entries are going to be *the* representation of Creationism in this Guide for the foreseeable future, so you'll want (I hope) to make it as good as you can.

IF this project gets in, it'll be because it's balanced. To make it balanced, I and one or two others will be writing entries about evolution. One of those entries is going to take the Creationist objections to evolution (i.e. the entry YOU write) and attempt to address them. It is in your interests to include ONLY serious objections. It will NOT look good if your list of objections to evolution simply a list of mistakes you've made that I can point out. (example: DON'T include any mention of Nebraska man or Piltdown Man - there isn't a single textbook in use anywhere which uses these as examples, for the very simple reason that *everyone* knows Nebraska "man" was a mistakenly-identified pig fossil, and Piltdown man was a deliberate hoax. They're simply not relevant to the discussion, and including them would weaken your case.)

SO: get some help. Make your "objections to evolution" as scientific and as accurate as you can. Ask around on site here for help with the detail if necessary - there are a lot of very highly qualified people who come here to play, and I'm sure if you ask nicely they'll be happy to help. Alternatively, ask around at home, maybe even ask your teachers. (if you're still at school?)

One other thing: I've noticed you including discussion of the big bang theory in some of what you've written before. This is really a completely different subject. The big bang is physics, evolution is biology. They have almost nothing to do with each other. If you *must* discuss the big bang, if discussion of the big bang is relevant to Creationism, it's probably best to keep that to a separate entry. (Good grief, that could be a third entry I'm asking you to write! You're going to have to stop talking to me soon, or I'll be asking you to write LOADS! )

Seriously, if you want to include discussion of the big bang, it really should be separate - there's so much biology-related material to go into your second entry already that putting some physics in as well would feel wrong. Your call, leave it out or do another entry, whatever you think.



H.

Oh, and Quincy: thanks, that would be great! If you can put all that stuff in an entry (I see you can do GuideML now...) I can link to it. Can't think of a title myself, see what you can think of. I'll be updating the Project Index page this weekend, and I'll add your name and a link to the entry then.

And actually, I'm not overworked or stressed, actually, I just can't sit up straight, or walk, or do other things you need a healthy intact spine for right now. Chiropracter ahoy!



H.

Josh if you want me to go over the biological objections so we don't get another "nebraska man", give me a shout.

I am particularly thinking of the famous peppered moths... oh, I won't start that one again in any detail, hehehe.

Ste

Hi H. and everyone,

Okay, yes. I'd be happy to hammer the thing into article form. Do I take Kuhn out, or say more about him, is my main question? See, I learned the history stuff in one context, and read Kuhn in a different one. Kuhn made the history so obvious and logical, where it had seemed sort of baffling before (religions other than Judaism weren't ever anything I understood well, though I think I do a LOT better than many scientists). The big problem with including Kuhn in the article is that every junior level corporate jack-ass uses the expression "paradigm-shift" nowadays, to mean something totally different from what Kuhn meant, so I would have to summarize _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ (this should be required reading in high schools for crying out loud! ). BUT, my whole point is based on the fact that the theory of evolution (aka Darwin) WAS a "Scientific Revolution", and a "paradigm shift" so extreme that we can't discuss it meaningfully without using concepts unique to the post-Darwinian paradigm, and NEITHER can Creationists.

Ste suggested I should call the article something like "The History of Creationism". See what I mean? Inside a HISTORICIST paradigm, there's no avoiding it. I'm inclined to call it "Creationism: Biblical Literalism Striking Back", or "Creationism: Protecting a Belief System" or something like that. I don't want it to read like a history. I want, as best I can, to present the known, static, God-created-this-and-we-all-know-it, AHISTORICIST paradigm in a way that is as fair to it as you can be, given we are totally unable to actually see through their eyes . I don't agree with it, but I understand how if that is what you believe to be inarguably True, you have no choice at all but to come up with a "Creationism" to counterbalance (there's another word for my title, maybe) "Evolutionism" and "Secularism".

How deep should I go into Kuhn, is the question? I don't want it to bog people down. I'd sure LIKE it to be something that makes people WANT to read this totally indispensable, brilliant book, that it's only been around forty years, and people hardly read, especially scientists. They write it off as "philosophy". There should be a smile for that.

Get back to me, willya? When you can. I can knock the article together in a few hours any old day. So, did you hurt yourself, or is this one of those "doc, I sneezed funny, and now I can't sit or walk" type back problems -- read "you're getting old, sonny" -- ? You have my sympathy. Backs... scientific proof that the human body is NOT a miracle of Intentional Design, because they're not real well adapted to standing upright and walking on our hind legs, and we've been doing it for about ten thousand years now. Proto-hominids in Ancient Africa were heard to say "Oy, my aching back!" in proto-language. It takes more than ten thousand years for a species to adapt from brachiation to walking upright, and we still haven't done it.

Quincy (I am no "Q" -- don't I wish? I wouldn't even mind being a total jerk, if I could just have that much power for a little while... )

Ooh, blimey, where to start. Well, the way I see it, Josh is going to give the actual Creationist point of view, in two entries covering (1) "this is what Creationists believe", and (2) "these are our problems with the theory of Evolution".

However, what I think you *can* write, based on what I've read so far, and what I think the project *needs*, is something under a title like...

"Why Creationism is Necessary"

Until you pointed it out, I didn't even realise we needed an entry like that, but now you have, there seems no way of doing the article without one. I don't think you'll need to consult with Josh, or anyone else for that matter, because I can't see an entry under that title stepping on the toes of either Creationists or Evolutionists.

As to how "erudite" to be - erm... I'd aim at the average subscriber to "Scientific American". Any more specialised than that, and you'll likely just lose your audience, and less and you'd (a) alienate the reasonably bright and (b) probably get bored before you finished.

I think it's a fair bet the average regular user here could be described as a relatively well-informed layman in any given field, so go on that basis. If you can provide an ISBN of recommended books, so much the better.

I've written a whole bunch of entries on several subjects which got Edited, so click my name and look at the "Edited Entries" - be sure and click "see more Edited Entries" 'cos I wrote quite a few. There are simpler and more complex entries in the guide than these, but they'll at least give you an idea of the level of detail *I* aim for.

How's this for inspiration - in your position I'd now be contemplating writing an entry, unconnected to anything else, explaining exactly what a "paradigm-shift" really IS, with examples. I wish I could write it myself... I'm sure it would get into the Edited Guide. A link to the appropriate Dilbert cartoon would be good...

Back complaint: carrying another infantryman on my shoulders across a slippy field, I sat down and didn't get up (training only, I hasten to point out...). Six years later I seriously overdid my speed into a jump on a snowboard park in Tignes, and unfortunately didn't fall over when I landed - a nice flat, hard landing on seriously compacted snow. Almost exactly two years after that, I got out of my car. That was last Monday, and my spine is still S shaped, but not in the plane it's supposed to be S shaped...

My personal favourite bit of "proof" of no Intentional Design is: choking. If you were a God, would you, in your infinite love for your creations on earth, design them so that the tube they breath through and the tube they eat through *cross* each other? I mean, there is NO defensible reason for that to happen. As an engineer, it's one of the REALLY BIG design flaws about the human body that wind me up. It's COMPLETELY unnecessary, and for a significant number of people EVERY DAY it's fatally inconvenient. Of course, if you believe in evolution it's simple to explain - something that crawled out of a swamp 600 million years ago had that feature by pure chance, and it wasn't inconvenient *enough* to get selected out. So now us, the apes and every other vertebrate can choke. Great. Still, there is one upside to the whole thing. If it wasn't for that quirk of evolution/design, Heimlich wouldn't have become famous.

H.
(it doesn't stand for Heimlich...)

Well, that'll teach you to involve yourself in heavy weight-lifting and extreme sports like getting out of cars!

Choking ! Excellent point. Superlative! ROFL . Phew. I needed that! In my line of work, you see what they choke ON too, and the things that aren't too disgusting are actually very, very funny -- but we don't tell those jokes to people who don't work in morgues, because the humor is a little on the ... Choking!

I REALLY needed the laugh, because I've been indulging in Jewish Worrying. I let a person who was a jerk have it for being a jerk, so now I have to feel guilty and worry about did he deserve it or not and should I feel bad and if so how much, and how about the people he made feel bad... it goes like that, only in circles, preferably for hours. And on Shabbat no less!

Yes. I can see writing up Kuhn as a separate entry. I've seen the style and level of your writing. I read your articles. They're very interesting and not over most people's heads, and I think I can do that. You're right that mine is really "Why Creationism Happened" more than either side, so I don't have to worry about covering the same ground as anyone else.

It could actually be very short and to the point, and not mess around with Kuhn at all. I LIKE the "ahistoricist/historicist" paradigm shift part is why I'm tempted to leave Kuhn in. Otherwise, it's just: The theory of Evolution was the first thing to ever call the Biblical Story of Creation into Question, and this was the answer from people who felt the need to defend Genesis. Not long, not deep, not hard to understand.

You tell me, boss? I left my brain in my locker at the morgue, before I left. I only do what I'm told.

Quincy

Hmm... I don't know. Short and to the point is good, but not *too* short. I don't even know how to go about suggesting a length. Personally I tend to just write, and see how long it ends up being when I've said everything I think I have to and after I've cut out everything I don't need.

I really can't guess how long it would need to be to do the thing justice, so I'll just suggest you write it and see what *you* think of it, then let me know and I'll say longer/shorter/just right/huh?. Do do that entry on Kuhn, though, and put it in PR. We could use an entry on "paradigm"...

H.

Ok. I can do both.

Well, it turns out the jerk I gave a real bad time isn't a jerk, he was just acting and sounding like one, which makes me look like a jerk, for telling him off.

I'm so proud. I've apologized. Now I can quit the Jewish Worrying and go straight to Guilt for any pain I might have inadvertently caused him by biting his head off for inadvertently causing other people pain, especially since my pain-causing was more advertent than his.