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

[Acme]

...Since no one here is required to participate in a creationist debate short of having open the thread to see what it is about then quickly closing the thread, I am unsure why said person would object to others participating in the debate if they choose to do so.

 

...

I object for the reasons I have laid out. To restate and summarize, allowing creationists to soapbox on this site is tantamount to endorsing intellectual terrorism. Now if the decision is cast that that's an enjoyable thing, then so be it.

As a side note, while Ophiolite was reporting the thread in question to support it, I was reporting it to quash it.

[iNow]

I object for the reasons I have laid out. To restate and summarize, allowing creationists to soapbox on this site is tantamount to endorsing intellectual terrorism.

While an interesting metaphor, I have to disagree. Creationists are not being allowed to soapbox. They're being allowed to state their claims and have them face intelligent scrutiny and criticism. To call what happens here at SFN "tantamount to endorsing intellectual terrorism" is IMO an unfounded, heavily emotional, unwarranted hyperbole.

 

Zapatos is exactly correct. The proper (and secular) response is to simply ignore it, not to censor it. AFAIC, censorship is closer to intellectual terrorism than anything happening or being discussed here.

[Moontanman]

I object for the reasons I have laid out. To restate and summarize, allowing creationists to soapbox on this site is tantamount to endorsing intellectual terrorism. Now if the decision is cast that that's an enjoyable thing, then so be it.

As a side note, while Ophiolite was reporting the thread in question to support it, I was reporting it to quash it.

 

Soap boxing is already against the rules so why would that be a problem?

 

I am of a mind that prohibiting creationism posts across the board makes us look bad, it actually plays into the hand of creationists who, IMHO, often come here hoping to be censored so they can go back to their peers and report, it's almost a badge of honor for these people. I think we should make them follow the rules like anyone else and let them post their "questions" if for no other reason so that non participants can see that creationism has no basis in reality.

 

Thinking that a visitor would search for creationist threads of the past assumes they are looking for such threads, I would guess that many people visit us and go no further than current threads but seeing a thread on a particular subject that interests them could lead to new members and fresh idea and questions...

[Acme]

While an interesting metaphor, I have to disagree. ...

... I think we should make them follow the rules like anyone else and let them post their "questions" if for no other reason so that non participants can see that creationism has no basis in reality. ...

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Let the chips fall where they may.

[Moontanman]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

 

If we all agreed about everything it would be a bland world for sure...

[arc]

I get a little nostalgic from the most oppositional of responses in this thread. They sound eerily similar to my dad's sentiments growing up. He always had a derisive comment about those damned [fill in denomination here] when any an opportunity presented itself. We were a religion free household. We only had National Geographics magazines on the coffee table. While the NG television specials, along with PBS's nova, and any other scientific related subjects, were always watched with enthusiasm.

 

This mixture of religious intolerance and science media manifested into me being a little science/nazi bully in school. Picking on religious kids when they might exercise their free speech. When you have such a superior weapon and put it in the hands of a bigoted 11 year old, it's not a pretty sight.

 

Would SFN resemble this years from now, growing our own little next generation of intolerant bullies.

 

SFN must lead by example, a stern yet tolerant enough venue to allow individuals on the religious side to put their best argument forward. We have nothing to lose and they get to see a real intellectual process of investigation and dismissal of their claims. Everyone wins. I have little interest in getting involved in these threads though, sort of a bad, been there - done that in Jr. High School feelings of guilt thing. Although, I did once comment here on one individual's opinion that a religious person could not do good science, of which of course I objected to.

 

BTW, I have become, despite my dad's best efforts, a very accepting person towards religious people. I find in almost all of them the kind of people that make the nicest neighbors and citizens. I even will give them the time when they come to my door. Although they usually leave on their own accord when they find out that all I want to talk about is geology.

[studiot]

1) Practicalities

 

One of the main points made in the original post is the excessive amount of time and effort it take moderating these threads.

I see lots of answers here saying that these threads are well controlled so should be allowed to continue.

All that these posts are really saying is how hard our mods are working, freely giving their time to do this.

But those mods are being squeezed until the pips squeak.

We should listen to those squeaks.

 

2) Wishful Thinking

 

A second commonly expressed hope is that responses here would be able to steer the misguided away from their cherished thoughts.

IMHO this is largely wishful thinking; the misguided eventually leave disgruntled, once the mods time has been wasted policing and finally closing their thread, oft going off to report censorship to their contempories.

 

3)Censorship

 

Banning a subject from the outset and allowing threads to run until they become overheated and then closing them (probably with acrimony) on the opinion of a person or small group of people (nearly) always leads directly to a charge of censorship. This charge may be unfounded and the decision perfectly in accordance with the rules, but the impression taken away is not about the subject matter but about the action.

 

This is why I suggested a mechanically imposed automatic post limit in these threads.

 

No Mod work would be necessary

The Poster would have the opportunity to put their point.

Responders would have a similar opportunity

Tit for tat responding would be curtailed.

[swansont]

Soap boxing is already against the rules so why would that be a problem?

 

Creationism threads will invariably involve moderators at several points in the thread. It gets to be a bit of a burden on top of everything else.

 

I am of a mind that prohibiting creationism posts across the board makes us look bad, it actually plays into the hand of creationists who, IMHO, often come here hoping to be censored so they can go back to their peers and report, it's almost a badge of honor for these people. I think we should make them follow the rules like anyone else and let them post their "questions" if for no other reason so that non participants can see that creationism has no basis in reality.

 

Thinking that a visitor would search for creationist threads of the past assumes they are looking for such threads, I would guess that many people visit us and go no further than current threads but seeing a thread on a particular subject that interests them could lead to new members and fresh idea and questions...

The badge of honor aspect is very similar to crackpots in speculations, who often seem to feel the same way — that they have been shut down because of their ideas, when it's obvious from the moderation that they were tossed because they didn't follow the same rules.

 

And perhaps the solution here is that creationism threads do not go into either religion or biology, but into speculations. We can add an item or two to the guidelines specifically to address some of the egregious posting tactics we won't allow, and the division between mod participation and enforcement isn't as strict.

[studiot]

The non creationists are fighting back.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

[DevilSolution]

I take it the Q/A is out the window? To be honest i actually don't bother debating creationism with fundamentalists because anyone who takes their religious literature "Literally" instead of "Metaphorically" obviously lack the ability of free thinking. They are or have been indoctrinated and the world is their shade of black and white.

 

So my Q/A was probably very primitive in regards to the intellectual debate creationists currently have concocted, i just covered what i thought other people may have been bored answering time and time again.

 

As far as freedom of speech goes, as i originally stated people should be allowed to ask or say what they believe but only to the extent that they are not covering a topic that has been emphatically answered. That doesn't mean there aren't new debates to be had, just that the older ones have already been put to bed.

 

The same thing applies to physics really, you'll see numerous questions on the big bang, time, e=mc^2 etc ....However generally speaking questions based on the big bang or time have no answer in terms of empirical evidence or data ( such as the big crunch being indeterminate ). Again people may get bored of covering the same material and decide not to reply (thank god swanson an a few others dont or i'd be none the wiser than when i joined).

 

I suppose what is central here is whether a person is debating creationism honestly, if so they must admit to dinosaurs and explain why god forgot to tell any prophets about them....what i mean is, is the person debating creationism a true believer of their religion or someone who take the parts they like. If its the first case they have no argument at all, if its the second then they are not debating creationism of their scriptures but "creation" which is a totally different topic.

 

 

BTW was the Q/A idea not used because of its content or because everyone agree's that freedom of speech regardless of content should apply?

[Phi for All]

BTW, I have become, despite my dad's best efforts, a very accepting person towards religious people. I find in almost all of them the kind of people that make the nicest neighbors and citizens.

But this isn't about expressing religious beliefs or accepting religious people. This is about creationism, and the misrepresentation of science. It's about correcting the misinformation so as many people as possible can have the knowledge that allows them to fix their ignorance, if they so choose. If there was a religion that claimed we understand gravity very poorly and it's really the Earth inhaling, and only their god can save us when the inevitable exhale happens, I would expect the scientific response to focus on where the religion runs afoul of reality, not on the god or it's believers.

 

Because of this, I still like the idea of compiling a single thread where the arguments are all in one place. Easier to moderate, and hopefully we can avoid redundant arguments this way.

 

I like the suggestion about treating creationism as a speculation, because again, our interest in discussing it isn't religious. In this discussion, nobody should be trying to tell creationists their God isn't real (and that's the part of the Q&A I didn't like much, DevilSolution, it comes off as preaching). We should be trying to show why the Lucy's knee argument is misleading, or why the fossil record is so misunderstood by many fundamentalists.

 

We should be focusing on those areas where the creationist arguments can be rationally shown to be false, and we should stay away from invective. Just remember you're really discussing this so someone in the future who is on the fence about accepting a reasoned explanation can get some facts, and not someone trying to recruit them.

 

[MonDie]

I say we develop a bot that gives automated responses to any creationist threads flagged as such.

[Phi for All]

I say we develop a bot that gives automated responses to any creationist threads flagged as such.

 

Please don't mistake any efforts to streamline staff processes as a reluctance to engage in the effective discussion of science. If we can save time by being thoughtful beforehand, that's one thing, but the goal here is to take the time to address sincere emotionally-derived arguments with sincere critical thinking and civility.

 

We have some members who are VERY good at expressing critical thinking in a way that doesn't seem to criticize. It's an art, and I think this is the approach that's needed. I for one have to work very hard not to use language that, while accurate, often comes off as inflammatory (mentioning intellectual ignorance in a specific area gets emotionally interpreted as, "Wow, you are incredibly STUPID!"). Accuracy is normally important, but when talking to some groups, it can be counterproductive, and their are always less divisive words that can be chosen (probably - I really do need to take more time to mellow out some of my replies).

 

If we put all the creationist arguments under the spotlight in a single thread, one at a time, not moving on until each is answered and the replies acknowledged (at least that; I'd really prefer a concession, from either side, when an argument truly supports a position), I think we'll have an ongoing talk that has the best chance of laying out the scientific information anyone should have before deciding to trust an explanation. Creationists are usually pretty well indoctrinated by the time they start posting on the web, so we're simply wanting to show them the cool facts. They can then decide how those stack up against the hot sermons they've heard.

[studiot]

 

I for one have to work very hard not to use language that, while accurate, often comes off as inflammatory

 

Do you offer full time courses?

 

[Phi for All]

 

Do you offer full time courses?

 

 

Alas, I'm the poor student in those courses. Usually to be found over in the corner, wearing a designer hat from Dunce.

[kisai]

Tricky subject.

 

On the one hand, a genuine questioning of scientific theory should not be thwarted. I would welcome original material that calls us to re-examine some tenets.

 

However, rarely, if ever, does a Creationist argument come from a sincere questioning. Mostly it consists of rehashes of discredited misunderstandings of thermodynamics or lies about Lucy's knee.

 

I do not see why Creationism should be given special treatment from any other crackpottery. If a member started posting about how everything was made according to The Lord of the Rings and used tenuous arguments like the existence of Homo floresiensis obviously points towards Hobbits and the Shire, it should be given the same respect and attention.

Edited November 27, 2015 by kisai

[Ophiolite]

I do not see why Creationism should be given special treatment from any other crackpottery. If a member started posting about how everything was made according to The Lord of the Rings and used tenuous arguments like the existence of Homo floresiensis obviously points towards Hobbits and the Shire, it should be given the same respect and attention.

These are not similar situations.

 

Very few people on the planet would seriously entertain the idea that The Lord of the Rings was factual. Many visitors to this forum are tempted to believe the creationists arguments are valid.

 

Anyone believing in the reality of Middle Earth would not be attempting to corrupt the teaching of evolution in our classrooms; creationists are doing that and more.

 

I repeat, any failure, on even a single occasion, to challenge the arguments of the creationists increases the risks that an undecided will decide against science and for creation. Allowing creationist arguments to be rehearsed, then refuted, is a duty. If you find it boring, frustrating, or time consuming - tough shit. Don't deny the opportunity for others to fulfill that duty.

[Daedalus]

And perhaps the solution here is that creationism threads do not go into either religion or biology, but into speculations. We can add an item or two to the guidelines specifically to address some of the egregious posting tactics we won't allow, and the division between mod participation and enforcement isn't as strict.

For the sake of moderation, perhaps we should create a creationism sub-forum in the religion forum or give it its own forum. I can see why the speculation forum would be beneficial with the specified rules and having the trash can, but that would clutter up the speculation forum, which I feel is more suited to speculative ideas and non-mainstream theories. By creating a creationism forum, we can provide specific rules for creating a thread and discussing creationism, which will allow for easier moderation while reducing clutter in other forums.

 

I realize that creating a forum just for creationism seems like overkill, but it would allow us to demonstrate that we care enough about people's ignorance to dedicate a forum on the topic while providing a buffer for members who do not wish to sift past such threads in the religion or speculations forum. Ultimately, it would give members who wish to engage in such discussions a place to do so, limit unwanted exposer to the topic, and give our moderators a central location to monitor.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Daedalus

[MonDie]

 

Please don't mistake any efforts to streamline staff processes as a reluctance to engage in the effective discussion of science. If we can save time by being thoughtful beforehand, that's one thing, but the goal here is to take the time to address sincere emotionally-derived arguments with sincere critical thinking and civility.

 

We have some members who are VERY good at expressing critical thinking in a way that doesn't seem to criticize. It's an art, and I think this is the approach that's needed. I for one have to work very hard not to use language that, while accurate, often comes off as inflammatory (mentioning intellectual ignorance in a specific area gets emotionally interpreted as, "Wow, you are incredibly STUPID!"). Accuracy is normally important, but when talking to some groups, it can be counterproductive, and their are always less divisive words that can be chosen (probably - I really do need to take more time to mellow out some of my replies).

 

I have no clue how feasible a bot would be, but I think the responses of a bot would be perceived as less personal, allowing posters to focus on the arguments rather than perceived attacks. Of course the bot would only be an aid. It could serve more to provide relevant resources than to do the actual arguing.

Edited November 28, 2015 by MonDie

[swansont]

For the sake of moderation, perhaps we should create a creationism sub-forum in the religion forum or give it its own forum. I can see why the speculation forum would be beneficial with the specified rules and having the trash can, but that would clutter up the speculation forum, which I feel is more suited to speculative ideas and non-mainstream theories. By creating a creationism forum, we can provide specific rules for creating a thread and discussing creationism, which will allow for easier moderation while reducing clutter in other forums.

 

I realize that creating a forum just for creationism seems like overkill, but it would allow us to demonstrate that we care enough about people's ignorance to dedicate a forum on the topic while providing a buffer for members who do not wish to sift past such threads in the religion or speculations forum. Ultimately, it would give members who wish to engage in such discussions a place to do so, limit unwanted exposer to the topic, and give our moderators a central location to monitor.

 

Creating a special sub-forum makes it look like we want to host such discussion. I don't think that's the right message.

 

Creationism is a speculative idea and non-mainstream theory, scientifically speaking

[Phi for All]

 

Creating a special sub-forum makes it look like we want to host such discussion. I don't think that's the right message.

 

Creationism is a speculative idea and non-mainstream theory, scientifically speaking

 

I agree. If we do this, I'd like to start with a single thread. If a need for more arises, we can address that, but I don't think there's enough meat on the bone of creation science to warrant more. They have a limited number of claims for which science is the appropriate tool.

 

I don't know if this will work, but it seems like a compromise that opens learning opportunities. And I like that it will be treated as any other speculation, requiring more than waving hands and arguments from incredulity.

[Moontanman]

We currently have a thread that is really about creationism but the OP keeps ignoring answers and continues trying to overwhelm with walls of text. Some strict rules will have to be inforced, I for one will not participate in a gish gallop discussion...

[Phi for All]

We currently have a thread that is really about creationism but the OP keeps ignoring answers and continues trying to overwhelm with walls of text. Some strict rules will have to be inforced, I for one will not participate in a gish gallop discussion...

 

I'd actually hoped we could use that one to start the thread, answer all the questions about irreducible complexity, and then move on to the next claim. Unfortunately, that poster is just copy-pasting from creationist sites, so we're not really getting a discussion.

 

Too bad. We could still use it, but I don't think we'll invite John316 to discuss the next claim. Hopefully we'll get someone who can talk to us.

[studiot]

 

I'd actually hoped we could use that one to start the thread, answer all the questions about irreducible complexity, and then move on to the next claim. Unfortunately, that poster is just copy-pasting from creationist sites, so we're not really getting a discussion.

 

Too bad. We could still use it, but I don't think we'll invite John316 to discuss the next claim. Hopefully we'll get someone who can talk to us.

 

What % come here to engage in proper discussion and what % come here to preach like this one or the one you closed earlier today.

 

I.E. are there actually any who really want these answers or are we just suffering a procession of closed minds?

[Phi for All]

 

What % come here to engage in proper discussion and what % come here to preach like this one or the one you closed earlier today.

 

I.E. are there actually any who really want these answers or are we just suffering a procession of closed minds?

 

I always assume the creationist poster isn't going to listen if they've come with the typical, oft-refuted claims. It's more about the person who comes afterward, or the person who follows the discussion out of sincere curiosity without posting. We do get some who seem sincere, and they start out asking questions.

 

Hopefully our desire to set the record straight with correct science will be highlighted by the creationist's willfully closed minds. And frankly, as long as the science is presented honestly, I don't care what people believe about the rest.