Creationism Discussions - Should We Allow Them... Again?

[Phi for All]

Over the years, we've had many stances on discussing creationism. Our latest: we've successfully rebutted all those tired old arguments ("If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?"), and seen so little success, so now we just link those folks to TalkOrigins.org, where all the scientific information to correct their honest misunderstandings lies waiting in a single place.

 

However, it's been pointed out recently by a Member Reported Post that we have an obligation to continue to discuss these topics rationally, calmly, and with rigor. If we don't, people who need this knowledge may not get it from places like TO. We have them here, asking questions. Whether they're sincere in their quest for knowledge or not, we should discuss this with them. If not for the OP's benefit, then for all the other people who see it.

 

And especially for the creationists, because if you hear reason and critical thinking long enough, it makes the irrational look silly eventually. Probably.

 

Most creationists have probably been told that TalkOrigins.org is the Word of Satan. We may be doing no favors to anyone but ourselves in diverting these tired old arguments to another site. And the Report from a Member mentions that we're actually helping the next generation cultivate ignorance if we don't talk to them.

 

BUT! The misinformation that oozes from these folks seems almost criminal in its treatment of science. Arguments are made, refuted, and then brought up again after a month. Are they doing this because they didn't understand our answer, or because they didn't like our answer? We all dislike intellectual dishonesty, but is that always the case with creationists?

 

Sorry to be so lengthy, but I want the newer members to know where this is coming from.

 

Should we allow discussions about creationism? Can everyone deal with irrational fundamentalism while remaining civil and rigorous? Staff is worried it's going to take a lot of policing, so if you think we should keep creationism discussions here, please offer up some ideas on how we can minimize the problems, which are usually one side making unsupported or incorrect claims, and the other side tap-dancing around the line where civility ends.

[iNow]

Should we allow discussions about creationism?

IMO, yes. IMO, we should also allow climate change discussions, relativity discussions, tectonic plate discussions, vaccination discussions, and much much more. IMO, it's better to highlight their flaws repeatedly, even sometimes point and laugh, than it is to prevent the discussion from occurring. YMMV, though.

[imatfaal]

IMO, yes. IMO, we should also allow climate change discussions, relativity discussions, tectonic plate discussions, vaccination discussions, and much much more. IMO, it's better to highlight their flaws repeatedly, even sometimes point and laugh, than it is to prevent the discussion from occurring. YMMV, though.

 

Agree almost entirely - the one reason a quick clean closure is sometimes preferred is that our regulars can get so jaded with the same questions being asked again and again that their responses can become overly dismissive, uninformative, and downright rude. This is admittedly rare and from a long term viewpoint not a problem (ie I see all the amazing answers that are given in addition to the brief dismissals) - but from a one-off visitor's perspective it can appear that we are not interested in having our theories challenged.

[Acme]

Over the years, we've had many stances on discussing creationism. Our latest: we've successfully rebutted all those tired old arguments ("If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?"), and seen so little success, so now we just link those folks to TalkOrigins.org, where all the scientific information to correct their honest misunderstandings lies waiting in a single place.

 

...

BUT! The misinformation that oozes from these folks seems almost criminal in its treatment of science. Arguments are made, refuted, and then brought up again after a month. Are they doing this because they didn't understand our answer, or because they didn't like our answer? We all dislike intellectual dishonesty, but is that always the case with creationists?

...

I say keep it out. [if you don't like referring to other sites, then refer to closed and/or debunking threads here.] Creationism is more than intellectual dishonesty, it's intellectual terrorism. Edited November 23, 2015 by Acme

[Arete]

I think it might be worth nipping some of the more intellectually dishonest tactics like wall of text copypasta in the bud - maybe even adding an addendum to the forum rules about it. Generally people who copy and paste huge posts of creationist material aren't interested in discussion, it's more of a soapboxing tactic and I personally think it's rude and not in the spirit of a discussion.

 

Also, having a reference of refutation of some of the more tired arguments (e.g. irreducible complexity) and suggesting that if someone wants to make that argument, they need to bring something new to the table, or it's closed.

 

It's a bit of careful line to tread to prevent outright preaching whilst simultaneously not alienating people who want to learn and discuss.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Arete

[DevilSolution]

It's a strange idea that you totally dismiss a branch of theological debate solely on the basis that the topic reaches the same conclusion.

For religious scientists i believe there's a fair debate to be had and for those who are of scientific nature they will follow reason and logic, however for the fundamentalists i'd agrue they are probably not scientists and are here more to debate or enforce there own beliefs as a platform.

 

I'd suggest creating a sticky thread where Q/A style format is used to dismiss or explain the general forms of arguments used in these debates and when any new creationist thread is opened with any of the Q/A arguments, then a moderator refers the thread to that sticky and closes it.

 

IMO there is still plenty of room for debate with "creation" itself, especially from an agnostic perspective where theistic belief of creation isn't the topic of the debate. For example there is scientific and mathematical debates regarding how the universe can exist in or from a mathematical basis or creation itself relates us as humans and our human condition (irrespective of the "creator").

 

Also freedom of speech should be adhered to within the rules of the forum, if a new user open a topic that older users are tired of seeing and replying to, then simply dont reply?

[swansont]

It's a strange idea that you totally dismiss a branch of theological debate solely on the basis that the topic reaches the same conclusion.

 

The discussion of creationism in question is not a theological debate, it's purportedly a discussion of science. Often of the fallacy-laden form of "evolution is wrong, so creationism must be right"

[dimreepr]

Over the years, we've had many stances on discussing creationism. Our latest: we've successfully rebutted all those tired old arguments ("If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?"), and seen so little success, so now we just link those folks to TalkOrigins.org, where all the scientific information to correct their honest misunderstandings lies waiting in a single place.

 

However, it's been pointed out recently by a Member Reported Post that we have an obligation to continue to discuss these topics rationally, calmly, and with rigor. If we don't, people who need this knowledge may not get it from places like TO. We have them here, asking questions. Whether they're sincere in their quest for knowledge or not, we should discuss this with them. If not for the OP's benefit, then for all the other people who see it.

 

And especially for the creationists, because if you hear reason and critical thinking long enough, it makes the irrational look silly eventually. Probably.

 

Most creationists have probably been told that TalkOrigins.org is the Word of Satan. We may be doing no favors to anyone but ourselves in diverting these tired old arguments to another site. And the Report from a Member mentions that we're actually helping the next generation cultivate ignorance if we don't talk to them.

 

BUT! The misinformation that oozes from these folks seems almost criminal in its treatment of science. Arguments are made, refuted, and then brought up again after a month. Are they doing this because they didn't understand our answer, or because they didn't like our answer? We all dislike intellectual dishonesty, but is that always the case with creationists?

 

Sorry to be so lengthy, but I want the newer members to know where this is coming from.

 

Should we allow discussions about creationism? Can everyone deal with irrational fundamentalism while remaining civil and rigorous? Staff is worried it's going to take a lot of policing, so if you think we should keep creationism discussions here, please offer up some ideas on how we can minimize the problems, which are usually one side making unsupported or incorrect claims, and the other side tap-dancing around the line where civility ends.

 

 

I think we should allow such arguments, not only because they can be fun but now and then a new perspective/understanding can create a completely new understanding/argument that fundamentally changes everyone’s understanding.

[studiot]

I don't know if it's possible wthin the site's programming but if we simply limited the number of posts in some way?

 

I have noticed that religious and some other contentious subjects rapidly grow to 50 to 200 posts, sucking all the resources, members time as well as policing time, away from real scientific subjects.

 

In many technical disciplines you have a certain number of goes at the exams that's it.

 

If we said say 5 posts per member in the religion and politics sections and if you can't make your point in those, tough?

 

I speak as one has has not made many more than 5 posts in total since I've been here in those non scientific sections.

Edited November 23, 2015 by studiot

[MigL]

This is a discussion forum.

Not 'allowing' certain subjects to be discussed, smacks of censorship and pre-judgement.

 

If you don't like the subject being discussed, don't engage.

I sometimes laugh out loud when I see a thread go on and on for several pages, when a well-intentioned member tries to 'educate' a poster that makes an ignorant ( or wildly speculative, or even crazy ) assertion.

( I may have even been that 'ignorant poster' a few times )

The OP will quickly fade from the front page and, unless searched for, will become virtually invisible.

[dimreepr]

I don't know if it's possible wthin the site's programming but if we simply limited the number of posts in some way?

 

I have noticed that religous and some other contentious subjects rapidly grow to 50 to 200 posts, sucking all the resources, members time as well as policing time, away from real scientific subjects.

 

In many technical disciplines you have a certain number of goes at the exams that's it.

 

If we said say 5 posts per member in the religion and politics sections and if you can't make your point in those, tough?

 

I speak as one has has not made many more than 5 posts in total since I've been here in those non scientific sections.

 

 

But wouldn’t that suck more resources of the staff rather than a program/algorithm? As in you have 5 chances to make your point? How would the programming discern a prophetic point from an average/typical one?

[Phi for All]

I don't know if it's possible wthin the site's programming but if we simply limited the number of posts in some way?

 

I have noticed that religous and some other contentious subjects rapidly grow to 50 to 200 posts, sucking all the resources, members time as well as policing time, away from real scientific subjects.

 

In many technical disciplines you have a certain number of goes at the exams that's it.

 

If we said say 5 posts per member in the religion and politics sections and if you can't make your point in those, tough?

 

I speak as one has has not made many more than 5 posts in total since I've been here in those non scientific sections.

 

This seems like a lot more work, but I agree that many of the posts are worthless in terms of discussion. Perhaps if we did as Arete suggested, and restrict certain arguments we KNOW are either false or long-refuted, it might make discussions more interesting and shorter.

[studiot]

 

 

This seems like a lot more work

 

Should be much less if the site can restrict this automatically.

[CharonY]

I would suggest pooling these discussions into a single (or a few limited) threads. That way discussions can be more had without spreading out the same lines over and over again.

[Moontanman]

I think such discussions should be allowed, I discuss subjects related to creationism nearly everyday on youtube, not a moderated discussion for sure and I do it mostly for the people who read the discussions not the person who is making the assertions.

 

I think a moderator should step in if and when a poster tries to Gish Gallop us by making numerous claims in one post, I am willing to discuss creationism as long as I don't have to spend hours just to answer one post that contains multiple assertions.

[Sensei]

Should we allow discussions about creationism?

 

Yes, because this way we can explain these people the truth, that they might not be even aware of.

Exclusion of these people, censorship of their threads, will just lead to inability of these people to learn something new.

For instance, how to measure time using radioactive Carbon-14.

This requires explaining them how to measure half-life/mean-life, and what is difference between stable isotope, and unstable isotope.

Reactions happening in upper level of atmosphere, primary cosmic rays, production of secondary rays etc. etc.

Where they can learn it, if not on science forum?

[StringJunky]

There's only one religion, science, and the only true way to investigate the world is with the scientific method. Amen!

Edited November 23, 2015 by StringJunky

[DevilSolution]

I still think a sticky thread that uses a Q/A format, covering each issue in enough detail should be made.

 

It should then be discretionary (to the mod) whether a new thread regarding creationism has or questions new material, otherwise the thread can be locked with reference to the specific Q/A of the sticky.

 

That would be my solution, either that or choose to not engage in the thread. That way the fundamentalists are free to engage with each other.

There's only one religion, science, and the only true way to investigate the world is with the scientific method. Amen!

 

Nature is God and science is my bible

 

[Phi for All]

This is a discussion forum.

Not 'allowing' certain subjects to be discussed, smacks of censorship and pre-judgement.

 

If you don't like the subject being discussed, don't engage.

I sometimes laugh out loud when I see a thread go on and on for several pages, when a well-intentioned member tries to 'educate' a poster that makes an ignorant ( or wildly speculative, or even crazy ) assertion.

( I may have even been that 'ignorant poster' a few times )

The OP will quickly fade from the front page and, unless searched for, will become virtually invisible.

 

So, avoid suppression as well as subjects you don't like? It's OK to talk about creationism because it won't make us look bad for very long?

 

 

Should be much less if the site can restrict this automatically.

 

I've never heard of the Admins being able to put a cap on posts in a thread. Mods can't do it, but I'll check.

 

I would suggest pooling these discussions into a single (or a few limited) threads. That way discussions can be more had without spreading out the same lines over and over again.

 

Hmmm. Nobody new coming in to talk about the Great Designer is going to put their post in an established thread, so we'll have to do that for them. But this would help a lot to show how an argument has already been made and refuted ("Did you have anything new to add, maybe something you thought of yourself?").

 

Maybe we can have an official Creationism thread....

 

I think a moderator should step in if and when a poster tries to Gish Gallop us by making numerous claims in one post, I am willing to discuss creationism as long as I don't have to spend hours just to answer one post that contains multiple assertions.

 

This also is a great idea. Are there any other known devious tactics we can restrict to help make the discussions less frustrating?

 

For instance, how to measure time using radioactive Carbon-14.

 

But Carbon-14 dating isn't trustworthy...

 

http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

https://carm.org/carbon-dating

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html

http://www.icr.org/article/myths-regarding-radiocarbon-dating/

I still think a sticky thread that uses a Q/A format, covering each issue in enough detail should be made.

 

It should then be discretionary (to the mod) whether a new thread regarding creationism has or questions new material, otherwise the thread can be locked with reference to the specific Q/A of the sticky.

 

That's essentially what we do now, plus we link offsite to TalkOrigins.org. There's NEVER any new material when it comes to ID and creationism, just new ways science is misinterpreted, or logic is twisted into an unrecognizable mess.

[StringJunky]

I see this site as 'in the trenches' and, so, we have no choice, if we are to disseminate the Scientific Word; how can we hope to enlighten if we turn away and ridicule those we desire to re-educate?

 

We do need some clear lines of arbitration; what we will not put up with.

Edited November 23, 2015 by StringJunky

[studiot]

 

I've never heard of the Admins being able to put a cap on posts in a thread. Mods can't do it, but I'll check.

 

Obviously I'm not being clear.

 

I'm proposing an automatic programmed into the site cutoff with no need for mod intervention.

 

That's why I indicated I don't know if it's practicable here.

 

 

I see this site as 'in the trenches' and, so, we have no choice, if we are to disseminate the Scientific Word; how can we hope to enlighten if we turn away and ridicule those we desire to re-educate?

 

 

And if they prefer to spend 150+ posts re-educating you?

 

 

As I see it it is a question of degree or %.

 

The total input to non scientific threads should be limited to a small percentage of the total in some way.

 

This is, after all, primarily a scientific site.

 

Everyone should be able to put their opinions on say suppression of women in certain societies.

 

But once or twice is enough.

 

But not to the detriment of the main purpose of this site.

[swansont]

I still think a sticky thread that uses a Q/A format, covering each issue in enough detail should be made.

 

Someone is going to have to intelligently design such a thread, because it isn't going to appear on its own.

[iNow]

I'm proposing an automatic programmed into the site cutoff with no need for mod intervention.

The unintended consequences of your proposed "cure" strike me as far less desirable than the "disease" you're seeking to ameliorate.

[John Cuthber]

I like this idea.

 

I'd suggest creating a sticky thread where Q/A style format is used to dismiss or explain the general forms of arguments used in these debates and when any new creationist thread is opened with any of the Q/A arguments, then a moderator refers the thread to that sticky and closes it.

 

OK, I accept that if we send them off somewhere else they will get the same rebuttal but doing so somehow seems to me like we are refusing to discuss it.

There are no areas of science which we should not be willing to discuss.

 

On the other hand, creating the list of Q and A would be tiresome.

Perhaps we could borrow the stuff from talkorigins (we'd need to ask them, of course).

[Acme]

First, this place isn't a democracy and free speech is a red herring. While this thread was prompted by a report on the irreducible complexity schwang of creationism, my kudos to T. Swanson for his quick and decisive action on the young Earth schwang thread. To whit:

 

post #3

Moderator Note

 

First of all, posting just to advertise a site is against the rules. Do it again and you risk being banned as a spammer.

 

Second of all, we're not going down that road. There's enough information out there debunking the claptrap of young earth creationism. There's no need to rehash it here.

Most responding here have agreed creationism is claptrap. (Not to mention US courts finding it so.) I'm in total agreement with Swanson that there is no need to rehash it. Nip it in the bud wherever and whenever it sprouts.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Acme