The Mezzanine Floor

You might have seen the recent news coverage about Wikipedia administrator/bureaucrat/checkuser Essjay. I’m not going to make a statement about whether or not I believe his actions were justified. However: good grief, people, don’t go off on someone for lying. How many shady secrets do you have in your history?

Alright, to contradict my earlier statement, I’m not happy about what’s happened (even though he is one of the best contributors), partially because I’m a Wikipedian myself, but overwhelming someone’s talk page with abusive comments is not the proper way to go about dealing with things. As Ryan Chappelle would say, “There’s a thing called due process; it’s why we have juries and judges and courts”.

Why is it that when a person tells you there’s over a hundred billion stars in each of the hundred billion galaxies in the universe, you believe them, but if someone tells that you there’s wet paint on a wall, you have to touch it to make sure?

I’m not usually a fan of clichéd rhetorical questions, but this one is, I think, fairly deep.

They’re both subjects of empirical and experimental science; what’s the difference between them?

Is it that humans draw the line at curiosity that actually requires some effort?

Or are people more likely to believe scientists than they are to believe a random sign on a wall?

Given the amount of pseudoscientific weirdness that scientists come up with (string theory, anyone?), the latter answer seems rather terrifying…

On the other hand, the former answer isn’t exactly complimentary to Homo sapiens sapiens.

So, we have two options: either lay off touching wet paint, or start building massive telescopes in our back gardens.

I think the paint is much easier.

So… I haven’t posted in absolutely ages. But I do have some interesting things to say, partially because of two newspaper opinion columns, which were, not too unsurprisingly, consecutive. I mean, it is a current event, even if it’s been so for, well, thousands of years.

By the way, I’m typing this in very low light, so please forgive me if I misquote the article.

Actually, hang on…

*unplugs speaker system*

*plugs in bedside lamp*

Let there be light!

Yes, I’m in bed; I’m not feeling too well at the moment.

(Audience: Start the post, already!)

OK, OK…

Actually, I’ve only just done all the above actions between the last paragraph and thi- *is hit by a rotten tomato* *wipes sauce off* Social commentary coming right up.

The first column is “Science Notebook”, The Times, Sunday 30 October, 2006, authored by Terence Kealey. Whilst talking about the rift between the Gouldian and Darwinian camps of evolution (and concluding that they’re both right, in a way), he makes this little comment (emphasis added):

They [religious fundamentalists] therefore seize on any apparent weakness in the data to proclaim that the world was created at 9am on October 23, 4004BC, as Archbishop Ussher calculated from Genesis (or at whatever date their different holy books determine).

At the risk of sounding pedantic, may I point out that Archbishop Ussher calculated Creation to have occurred at 6pm on 22 October 4004 B.C.? (The Jewish day runs from 6pm to 6pm.) Kealey is probably mixing this up with John Lightfoot’s chronology, which, although also placing Creation at 6pm (in 3929 B.C.), was once misquoted as putting it at 9am.

So, please, Mr Kealey, know thine enemy before thou speakest of him. For thine enemy shall not be well pleased upon hearing thy words, and, as thou art naughty in his sight, he shall blow thee to tiny bits, and snuff thee.

In any case… Mr Kealey goes on to explain that by combining Gould with Darwin, one can “explain the missing links”:

If evolution is compressed into short bursts, then the chances of the transient missing links being fossilised are small… As for the missing links, bring them on, because thanks to Gould and Pagel we know that their very absence only strengthens the evidence for evolution.

Erm, no, it doesn’t, Mr Kealey. This is a basic law: if event E is explained by Theories A and ~B, E is evidence for neither. But E is for evidence. (Sorry; I couldn’t resist.)

Do you see? Missing links are explained by creationism, because one wouldn’t expect to find links of that sort. Missing links are explained by evolution, because the links shouldn’t be fossilising in the first place.

Let me break it down for you:

#1. Creationism says you won’t find links.
#2. Evolutionism says you won’t find links.
#3. There are no links.
#4. There is no cabal.

Does this prove that evolution is true? No. Does this prove that creationism is true? No. As far as this debate is concerned, it’s irrelevant. Or a hippopotamus, depending on whether you’re Chico.

Now, onto the meatier stuff, which, incidentally, is earlier on in the article. Hoodwinked! must be rubbing off on me with all its nonlinear storytelling.

Religious fundamentalists of many stripes hate evolution by natural selection.

There are actually certain creationists who do happen to believe in devolution by natural selection. In fact, natural selection is the greatest idea that Darwin ever presented to the world, because it’s actually evidence for creationism - at least, against evolution.

Now, I’m not committing the same error for which I just corrected Mr Kealey above.

Because it is against evolution.

Let me explain:

#1. I am a creationist, and I do actually believe that the earth is roughly 6,000 years old.
#2. I believe that God created original “kinds” of animals. Many people (including some creationists) read this as “species”, but it’s not, partially because it was written over 3000 years before Carolus Linnaeus.
#3. Said original kinds had far more genetic information than today’s animals. As these kinds bred, genetic information was transferred from generation to generation… however, various information was lost in each offspring. This would explain, for example, different types of dog/wolf/dingo/etc. - there was an original dog “type”, which has devolved (by losing information) into the vast range we have today. (Think of inbreeding amongst modern pets, but on a larger scale.)
#4. Now, after the Flood, the animals on the Ark bred, and their descendants moved around. Different groups of descendants had different concentrations of information. Those with the information to survive in that environment did; those who didn’t didn’t (natural selection). But - and here’s the important thing - all the information was originally present.

That’s quite diffent from “goo-to-you-via-the-zoo” evolution, where huge amounts of new genetic information are added (unless you think that an amoeba has more genetic information than you do).

So, now, that’s all wrapped up (the first column, that is), and I’ve pretty much exhausted myself.

I must go now… and have dinner. At almost 9pm. Wow.

Next post expected not any time soon.

     

*How can it be that God is love when blood rolls down upon our land and fathers lose their only son? Where is the hope? Oh, God, we pray for White Ribbon Day… But how can it be that You could love when blood ran down that wooden cross? Your Father gave His only Son… You came for peace, You came to die for White Ribbon Day! 

How can it be that God is just when flesh is torn from young and old and children run in bloody fields? Where is the hope? Oh, God, we pray for White Ribbon Day… But can it be that You are just when flesh was torn for young and old? Now, here we stand, saved by Your blood; we’ll stand with courage, we’ll live and die for White Ribbon Day…

And we pray for peace to flood our hearts again; only God can save our nation now… and we long for joy to fill our streets again; only God can save our nation now…

Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah for White Ribbon Day! Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah for White Ribbon Day!

(”White Ribbon Day”, copyright Martin Smith, 1996)

 

*     

  

No apologies to John Lennon, but nothing to kill or die for sounds rather boring.

I mean, at the heart of any story is conflict, whether internal or external. I’m not advocating war or bloodshed, I’m just quoting Lennon’s own postmodernist view, as spoken by George S. Patton:

“If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”

Would Lennon defend his cause strongly enough to die for it knowingly?

Does George S. Patton want everyone to think the same as he does?

Is there no end to postmodernists’ self-contradiction?

I think I feel a parody coming on…

Next post expected, ooh, let’s say tomorrow.