Slashdot

I recently used the phrase "not altogether dissimilar" in an e-mail. I didn't think it was strictly unique, but I thought it was fairly original to my style. Then I was reading some five-year-old stuff I'd written, and I saw myself use the phrase again. I had no idea I had acquired it so long ago.

So I did a Google search for it, and found 7,500 results. I was vaguely disappointed.

[Pedantic tangent: When "dissimilar" begins an adjectival phrase, folks seem to be evenly split as to whether the preposition should be "to" or "from". I prefer "from," but I'd love to know if either is strictly correct or incorrect.]

Someday I'm going to write something meaningful and understandable where every four- or five-word string is unique on Google. Then I'll probably consider my meaningless and pathetic life and shoot myself in the face. <.<

If the Institute for Creation Research said "Our studies have shown that the earth is most likely 6,000 years old", you would either dismiss it summarily, or at least say "Show me how you conducted your study."

If an Apple alum says "Our studies showed that using the mouse is faster than using keyboard shortcuts", you should at least say "Show me how you conducted your study."

If the Apple study did not test experienced, fluent keyboard users versus experienced, fluent mouse users, the study is meaningless.

I'm planning to post this next time I see a creationism story about to hit the front page. I got a subscription especially to get this in as a first post. But if I never get the chance to, I want it to be here in case someone, somewhere stumbles across it some day. The next-to-last paragraph suggests a guideline for creation vs. evolution discussions, so if you don't want to read the rant, skip down and read only the last bit. Comments and criticisms are welcome and encouraged.

CREATIONISTS: You have got to get it through your thick skulls that your personal definition of "theory" is NOT the same as scientists' definition. When YOU say "theory" you mean "speculation." When THEY say "theory" they mean "an explanation that takes all observations into account". You hurt your own team when you say things like "Evolution's just a theory!" as though that means you can disregard it as frivolous speculation.

You have also got to get it through your thick skulls that evolution-related phrases like "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" apply strictly to biological (or, for the latter, originally economic) matters that are observable today in nature. They do not and were never supposed to apply in any way to ethics, morals, or any other guideline for human behavior. It's only a handful of radical extremists who think that they should be moral guidelines, and as you know you have your own crazies among you, you would be wise not to judge all evolutionists by their crazies.

EVOLUTIONISTS: You have got to get it through your thick skulls that there will always be, and there perhaps should be, a difference in how the public perceives your science and how they perceive the rest of science.

Other science involves disprovable hypotheses that can be tested via experiment. Other science yields results that can be reproduced and observed today.

Your science involves undisprovable hypotheses that cannot be tested via experiment. Your science yields educated guesses about the past, which cannot be observed today.

Creationists do not disbelieve you because they are anti-intellectual idiots who disrespect science. They disbelieve you because there is a profound difference between "pure" sciences, like physics and mathematics, and your science, which is a mixture of biology, archaeology, history, and a hint of Twenty Questions.

EVERYONE: You have all got to get it through your thick skulls that there are at least two meanings of the phrase "the Theory of Evolution." One "Theory of Evolution" is purely biological. It says that species change over generations. The other "Theory of Evolution" is historical. It says that human beings evolved from earlier creatures, which evolved from earlier creatures before them, ad infinitum.

Neither creationists nor evolutionists earn their side credit or attention when they listen to someone on the other side obviously talk about "Theory of Evolution" A, and then respond as though they were talking about "Theory of Evolution" B.

This happens all the freaking time in these threads. A creationist will go on about the "Theory of Evolution," and it's obvious that he means that all beings came from one or a few single-celled life forms. Then some moron evolutionist will pop up and say "NUH-UH, the Theory of Evolution is observed today, it happens all the time!!" Or maybe some evolutionist will be talking about the "Theory of Evolution" being observed today, and some moron creationist comes up and says "NUH-UH, we don't observe dinosaurs turning into birds today!!"

This is the sleasiest, basest, dirtiest, and most dishonorable and dishonest tactic you can pull. Creationists think evolutionists will go to hell, evolutionists think creationists would go to hell if there were one, but the people who will actually go to hell are those who deliberately misinterpret their opponent in an attempt to defeat them.

To keep people from suffering this gross dishonor, I suggest the following change in terminology. When you're talking about single-celled organisms being the origin of all life, refer to "The Historical Theory of Evolution". When you're talking about the generation-to-generation changes we really truly do observe today, refer to "The Biological Theory of Evolution". This may not make either side understand the other's core values and beliefs, but it will at least keep them from misunderstanding each other's words.

That is all.

Edited to remove "adapt" and "adaptation", as those are misleading, almost-inaccurate terms.