|
-
Hivemind social net
-
News
- Features
- Blogs
- Events
Calendar
- Editorials
- Monthly
Zine
- Offworld
Report
- Our Daily
RSS Feed
- Google Toolbar scifi
- Movie/TV
Reviews
> Recent movies
> Movies by year
> Movies by title
- Book
Reviews
> Recent books
> Books by year
> Books by title
- Home
- Worlds
- Biography
- Bibliography
- Appearances
- Reviews
- Blog
- Community
- Press
- Links
Become
an Advertiser
- Web
Site Directory
- Search
the Net
- StephenHunt.net
- WoodenRocket.com
- Check
your E-mail
- Non Sci-Fi
News
|
Act of faith
01/12/2005 . Source: Geoff Willmetts 
The only thing we can all really contribute positively towards, muses Uncle Geoff, is the reduction in global warming - to show the next generation that there was once a time when global dimming didn't also make the skies darker when cloudy. Don't forget to be ecology conscious as part of your new year's resolutions. Your world needs you. Hello everyone
The end of another year looming, depending on when in December you're reading this, and time is flying away ever more quickly even in is what must be regarded as one of the worse year's for natural catastrophe and terrorist action. I'd hate to think we haven't seen anything yet even if that appears as distasteful wishful thinking. Then again, humans have rarely failed to surprise me with what they can do to each other for good, bad and indifferent. Of all of these, the only thing we can all really contribute positively towards is the reduction in global warming and show the next generation that there was once a time when global dimming didn't also make the skies darker when cloudy. Don't forget to be ecology conscious as part of your new year's resolutions. Your world needs you.
This is also a time to think about any subjects that I haven't got around to covering this year. One of them is something that's been coming out of America that evolution didn't happen and that the Bible or 'intelligent design' interpretation should be taught along side of or, worse, instead of the scientific version at school. I'm being careful about which religious faith I'm citing here because there are variations of this in many religions through out the world and we are read internationally.
Despite this, there is a general consensus that the scientific evidence that evolution as initially cited originally by Charles Darwin is most commonly agreed upon version of events. You know. That thing about survival of the fittest, direct links from single-celled organisms to more complex species and how mankind stepped up the evolutionary ladder from the other primates. So much evidence backs this up from fossils to genetics. Even the bones recently discovered of a pygmy human sub-species enhances and not disputes this. The opposition? A few loud voices who only see the biblical book as the proof for everything including where humans came from.
So just exactly is this competition? Oh yes, a garden in Eden and the creation of a single human from whom a single woman was plucked from his rib by a deity who singled the Earth out to be the centre of the universe. Shortly after this woman ate a forbidden fruit, which any of you can still buy quite easily at any grocer, they get kicked out of Eden and find there's already a population there or in a place nearby called Nod. How else does their murdering son find a wife and be the actual source of population explosion and the probable source of human kind? After all, the original pair didn't do anything else. Well, they could always spare another rib I guess. If you want to throw a science twist on this, except for the chromosome differences, it could be possible to clone a duplicate from one human rib but I doubt if it could change sex...
Hmmm...that's beginning to make the Bible version of creation practically Science Fiction. Even beats the recognised claim of Voltaire being the first SF writer! We SF fans might be a little(!!!) fanatical where our interest is concerned but even we (I hope) can tell when we're being spun a line that is so against contrary evidence. Even most clergy of various religions will clarify that many first testament biblical stories are allegorical or a lesson than being based on real events. There's even been a spread of some stories, like that of the flood, that has cross-propagated across the faiths than being from one source clearly indicating there isn't even a single source for anything. A large chunk of the early Old Testament was just an attempt to bring a lot of the old stories together to provide a common ground for those joining early Christianity.
If Man was made to intelligent design, why share its orifices for sex and removal of digested wastes? Why not protect the brain from harm by putting it deeper in the body or having a strong skull? Why not make us all super-intelligent with better physiques? Why have such a variety of body shapes, intelligence or emotional make-up? If anything, nature is a hodge-potch of corrective evolution where survival is having the best things to survive a crisis that other animals don't. Anything that involves intelligence design would surely do a better job. Evolution favours survival far more than perfection.
To give credence to something merely on written word faith alone in this, our modern day Science Fiction age, is political correction gone mad yet again. To teach such a contradictory version to impressionable school children as being the correct is risking creating a generation of people likely to be as bright as...well a certain President of the same country this spawned from, which has to be a frightening thought. What should also be sending shivers down your spine is not enough people rising up in protest at such actions. Fortunately, there has been some protest on the subject but it needs more than that. It needs counter-logic that would make it impossible for such actions to rise again and validating it based on simple disagreement. The last thing needed is such a policy slipping under the door because of indifference on the matter.
When I was at school, he says stirring in his rocking chair, we were taught science and religious education yet managed not to confuse reality with faith. A belief in a God didn't mean that science was wrong. When such doubts happens, we tend to see pseudo-religions spring up providing an unfortunate niche for people who are led in what they think down all sorts of bizarre logic channels. The under-lying problem is this lack of trust or believing in scientific evidence that backs up evolutionary theory.
People are led to believe that science is bad and dangerous, despite what it gives them and prefer the ignorant Dark Ages. It's an unfortunate problem than many people like to be told what to think rather than weigh up the evidence for themselves. With fewer people having an active interest in science, it leaves gaps that other people can exploit to persuade otherwise. When such people turn to those who are as ignorant as themselves, then it's always a fear that such misinformation can propagate even further. Oddly enough, it's also another demonstration of a Science Fiction scenario which we are or should already know its consequences. Paradoxically, despite all the good science does, it is seen as a pariah that is mistreating the world. A great way to loose all your home comforts.
Science is dependent on having evidence to back up any hypothesis regarding how the universe works. It also has to be proven independently to stand up as a consensus. Theories might vary if new evidence is presented yet evolution and survival of the fittest is so fundamentally correct that nothing has come along to show that it is wrong. It is one of the most significant indicators of how we came to be that over-rides any superstitious-based alternatives. We went through a phase of believing various gods were responsible for the sun, thunderstorms and all sorts of sundry weather conditions largely cos we had no one there to say we were wrong.
This all changed when evidence of observation proved differently yet early scientists had to contest priests at the risk to their own lives. Few if any were struck down by lightning by saying anything contradictory to religious belief. The threat of a vengeful god was purely a priest invention lost when it couldn't be supported although this didn't stop religions persecuting scientists who did not take their faith's way until over-whelming evidence and people backed the alternative. Common sense ruled...fortunately. In many ways, this also reduced the level of religious control in many societies which speaks more for the need of power and control than faith by those who used it. Leaders might die but religious faiths used to believe they could go on forever.
Having a faith or belief in a higher deity does not in itself place any claims as to what it, he or she can or has done. Doesn't even need a religion to support such a faith. It's a rather odd statistic that a lot of scientists actually believe there might be a god out there. Those particular scientists see understanding the Earth's processes specifically and the universe generally as a means to see what is standing behind it as much as non-believers are driven to see what makes everything tick. Whatever, the result is pretty much the same. What propels a belief that there is something greater out there can probably be attributed to a primitive mind reflex. Man is still very much developing away from some of his old superstitious tendencies but needs to do it with an assurance rather than being pulled back by factions who are afraid to see the world outside the translations of one book. When it comes to fear, many people would rather step back than to see their world crash down around them.
What we don't understand has always been attributed to belonging to a god-like action until we have an understanding of the process. A religion is really, at an abstracted level, a fan club parallel with all the rigmarole of fund-raising and continued support to survive. Actions taken on behalf of such a deity are believed to be right simply because nothing happens to contradict it. Well, until science came along. Then again, it doesn't do anything to contradict a scientific mind neither which should give anyone pause for thought on why it continues. At a very basic level, some religions rather move along in the background than loose all their supporters. However, when a truth meets a falsehood, there can only be one winner.
All religions, if given some analysis, raise particular questions about how you treat the belief in a higher deity that you might believe in. This editorial is not out to change your faith just question the power and knowledge of the people that implement it. If anything, this writer would like to see a wider tolerance from different religions in places like the Middle East in this our supposedly enlightened 21st century but that would take some radical thinking. There is also concern that having a religion versus science conflict that will surely hold back our development and understanding of the world and universe. To do otherwise, would surely put our species at risk. You'd think by now, we were beyond such games with how we treat what we tell our children about the world. Here's to the value of proper education.
Thank you, take care, good night and welcome to the upcoming new year. Be safe.
Geoff Willmetts
editor: SFCrowsnest.co.uk
(Less Serious) Thought For The Month # 1: Something for those of you who've seen the design of the next generation of Cyberman for the next season of 'Doctor Who'. Is it my imagination or does it look the offspring of a Metal Mickey and Robocop match? Both boys but whoever said Cybermen were women?
(Less Serious) Thought For The Month # 2: Watching '2001: A Space Odyssey' again recently, has it ever occurred to you that as soon as HAL lip-read Bowman and Poole's conversation in the pod that he could have ejected both of them out of Discovery with nary a spacesuit or helmet between them? He could also have revived the three hibernauts for the mission and hid the true nature of events from everyone, including Ground Control. 'The AE-35 unit still has a problem.' Hindsight thinking is wonderful, isn't it?
(Less Serious) Thought For The Month # 3: While we're on the Jupiter Mission films, let's look at '2010' again. A quick recap of the whereabouts of the pods from the Discovery in '2001'. The first was lost when HAL disposed of Poole. The second when Bowman entered the airlock to dismantle HAL. Don't say he retrieved that pod cos he also blew its hatch and there was a third inside Discovery already. This third pod Bowman used to investigate the Jupiter Monolith which never came back. So where did the pod in Discovery come from in '2010'? The Bowman Starchild could hardly have returned it because he only returned when Maxim Brailovsky was investigating the Monolith in a Russian pod.
A real Zen thought for everyone: A stopped clock is still capable of telling the time twice a day.
Something Zen for neo-writers to ponder on: Don't lay your all your eggs in one basket. The times I see neo-writers writing a trilogy without actually selling the first book is wasting a lot of time. If you check out any first novel of a series then there is an element of completeness about it but room for expansion. If you're going to do the circuit of publishers then it really is important that you show that you're not a one-idea pony. Keep pumping out different stories until one gets accepted. There's always room to expand stories later.
PS If you've survived this far in the editorial, let me reiterate something from the website newsletter and the above editorial. As you can see from the main page, we have one of the biggest SF/fantasy/horror monthly reviews columns on the Net. Our success has increased the number of books that comes in and our policy is to read everything before giving a review. You want the bottom line about what you're going to choose to read. We road test books so you have some idea of what you're letting yourself in for. That means actually reading the product and telling others what you think. For that, we're always on the outlook for more reviewers.
Apart from the ability to put words into sentences, you also need to know how to précis, either know or do a little research on associated subjects and can express opinions constructively expressing good and bad points about the books you read. You'll even get a little editorial help in how to write good copy and that can always lead to other things. I did say you have to love books and willing to read beyond your favourite authors, didn't I? If you like reading books in the genre, think and show you can write a decent review and, most importantly, live in the British Isles (sorry, expense, time and distance travelled mostly prohibits elsewhere), then use the link below and see our requirements. We can't pay you but a review for the price of a book has to be a good incentive. We have one of the most popular SF review columns on the Net. Do you think you're up to writing a review? If you think you can, then you're really going to think you've landed your hands in the biscuit tin.
Review Guidelines.
PPS: For those keeping track, I'm still about 22 months (December 2003) behind. With going through the ebook samples, I have removed some who've gotten published elsewhere. Thank you for your patience but let me know if you've sold elsewhere so I can reduce my pile or if you've changed address, especially e-mail address. I can't give you my comments unless either is up to date. Currently, doing spot-checks to see if you're still there when I reach your sample in the pile is making it easier on my time and catching up on the slush pile. This isn't much of a repeat, just to show you're not forgotten. Those sending in ebook samples, be prepared for a long wait and read the Guidelines elsewhere on this website They are there to help you do some of the right things and reduce the number of times I'm repeating myself over silly grammatical errors and spelling mistakes that you shouldn't be making. It makes editing a lot easier if any editor has less work pointing out poor English which should have been sorted out in the first place and more focused on other areas of your work.
There's an old editorial adage, if you can't aim for perfection why should an editor nursemaid you to that state? If you're a writer, then you should understand the words and grammar of the job you're supposed to be writing or are you considering it as mundane and boring as any other job to get right? Fall in love with making every sentence the best you're ever written, read up and understand the rules of grammar. Be prepared to put a story away for a few weeks and go back to it for a self-edit. A lot of the time, errors will just stare you in the face when you didn't see them the first time round. Once you know where your weaknesses are, they can be sorted and allow you to move a little higher up the ladder towards making your material look its best.
Common Problems Link
Please don't confuse this with my short story slush pile that is kinda low at the moment. We're always willing to give short story writers a chance to be seen if they can withstand my scrutiny even if we can't pay for their efforts.
Short Stories Link
Don't forget also, we've got a teaching ground of one page stories, so check out the rules elsewhere on the website.
Flash fiction stories link
|
|
