Godlorica

It's not fiction because it has no plot. It's not anything else because of numerous factual problems. That book was terrible and is littered with inaccuracies. Even the central premise is nothing very new which has been covered before in better written science fiction books.

Why don't organisms evolve to become more simple? Adams ponders. Well, they do all the time. The tape worm is an excellent example of a creature that has gotten simpler rather than more complex.

Why aren't creatures evolving now in a way we can see? Probably because evolution tends to move slowly. However, in the last 100 years, a new species of mosquito has evolved in the London Underground and some rattle snakes have developed a new organ which allows them to sense the presence of warm-blooded animals.

This is highschool level biology. Did Adams do any research whatsoever?

And predictably, because Adams didn't worry at all about his characters, the smartest person on earth is (wait for it) a man! he's replaced by ... a man! who is in turned replaced by . . . a man! Maybe it's because men "want to feel useful" whereas women "just want men to make sacrifices." With such universal and awe-inspiring revelations about gender, Adams certainly can tell that only men have what it takes to be the smartest people.

This book is so bad that I almost don't want to read Dilbert anymore. All of Adams works are tainted by the terribleness of his "novel."
 

Worst. Book. Ever. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating. I wouldn't really call it a book.
 

seems to me that the authors of the first two comments here neglected to read the introduction.

Adams writes:
"The description of reality in God’s Debris isn’t true, as far as I know, but it’s oddly compelling. Therein lies the thought experiment:

Try to figure out what’s wrong with the simplest explanations.

The central character states a number of scientific “facts.” Some of his weirdest statements are consistent with what scientists generally believe. Some of what he says is creative baloney designed to sound true. See if you can tell the difference. "
 

The second anonymous is right.
 

I read the introduction. I could put disclaimers on my own sloppy writing too, but it wouldn't make it less sloppy.

It might be worth it if the main point of the thought experiment was truly compelling and original and was never addressed in better science fiction. This is not the case. In stead it's a plea for intelligent design wrapped in a blandly sexist frame story.

Oh and this comment may include inaccuracies which you may disagree with. But you may find the main idea of my comment here to be worth thinking about.
 

There is nothing wrong with the "simplest answer", in that all aimple answers that are wrong are wrong because there is either a simpler answer orit is plain illogical. The simplest answers are by definition are the best, the real problem is what we define as simple.
 

Awesome book! A great read. I have read it through at least 4 times now, and enjoyed it each time.

It certainly IS fiction, just as the author claims. It also DOES have some factual inaccuracies (just as the author also claims.) But, of course, factual inaccuracies are par for the course in fiction, are they not?

Rock on Scotty!
 

Some of it is hokey and some of it is quite good. The theory that God intentionally annihilated himself, and the Universe is the result is pure pandeism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism), so that idea has been around for at least a hundred years. But Adams describes it in very simple and sensible terms, not like I've seen before. He does put some neat twists on it too-- that God is somehow reconstituting through human activity (i.e. that mankind itself is on the way to becoming God) is very Asimov (or a million other sci fi authors who came after).
 

Another Pandeism book coming out this fall?
 

Les said:
"However, in the last 100 years, a new species of mosquito has evolved in the London Underground and some rattle snakes have developed a new organ"


I heard about a species of moth that turned from predominantly off-white colored with some gray-colored oddballs, to vice versa, during the industrial revolution, because the soot was a sudden and massive change in the environment - any moth displaying the gray-coloured gene had a better chance of hiding from predators. It's an excellent example of evolution at work - I'm sure it's googleable.

However, I think you were a bit harsh on poor ol' Douglas Adams. He wrote Dilbert! And the book's not THAT bad, although I admit I've only read a couple chapters so far.
 

Uh Paul. I think you will find it was written by Scott Adams. Douglas Adams is the hilarious dead guy that wrote the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series (words cannot do this man justice).
 

I would have to say that this book is good. It caused a lot of reactions to the readers be it good or not. For me, a bad book is something that after you read it that's it. But if it made you angry or happy then it's a good book. Imagine, the book got into your mind. Some of us here who've read it even showed aggression (hmm meaning the book even got as deep as your amygdala...)