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

[Phi for All]

OK, now John316 is just pasting unattributed and off-topic junk links, after being asked to stick to irreducible complexity, which he failed to support. This is another tactic I hate, particularly as a moderator, because it gets them banned eventually for breaking the rules, but they always claim they're being banned for either their beliefs or their amazing debate skills.

[MonDie]

On the pandorabots.com homepage I spoke with Mitsuku, who was at least good at defining words. Alas, she's a creationist. :/

Looking into AIML interpreters for Linux.

[Arete]

OK, now John316 is just pasting unattributed and off-topic junk links, after being asked to stick to irreducible complexity, which he failed to support.

 

I think the particularly ridiculous thing about that thread was that he was arguing for the irreducibility of the cell, without knowing the difference between a eukaryotic and a prokaryotic cell. When implored to, perhaps, learns some of the bare bones basics of the biology he was supposedly overthrowing, he instead sought out some copypasta baloney to spew forth - with absolutely no understanding of the content apart from it has some big biology words in it and seems congruent with his preconceptions. Dishonest on logical, intellectual and plain regular dishonesty grounds.

 

Very frustrating, as we could play whack-a-mole with all the false examples of "irreducible" systems which seem to appear like hydra, but we miss the crux of the problem with the argument - it's fundamental premise is logically fallacious. As is the equation of abiogenesis with evolution, etc. In order to avoid going down such rabbit holes, I'd be happy for the standard "arguments" to be closed with a stock response.

[studiot]

Spoken like a true biologist +1

 

Since you can't close a thread without sending a negative message, you will send such a message whenever you close it.

 

So it is IMHO better to close it at the outset than 200+ posts later, after you hair implants have turned white and fallen out.

[swansont]

A couple more thoughts, in light of the locked ID thread. Which proceeded pretty much exactly as one might have expected it to:

 

We can't have just one creationism thread. It will get hopelessly jumbled, and there's no way to remove someone from the discussion for dishonest tactics short of banning them. We normally use thread closure, as in the ID thread. So wither we ban quickly, or we give way to much latitude and end up with the typical screed, full of intellectual dishonesty. I think that's a lose-lose proposition.

 

There was a report of the last post in that thread, where the closure was announced, objecting to the brevity of the announcement. It included the same refrain we have heard in this discussion: think of the lurkers! Won't someone please think of the lurkers? A few things about that — I don't think anyone lurking is the fragile flower being portrayed. If you're going to lurk on a science discussion site you probably have some critical thinking skills, rather than being a blank slate. Also, wanting a more thorough dissection of the failing of the argument style is admirable, but I think that's being generous with somebody else's time. That's only really a problem if the participants have not explained themselves thoroughly. So maybe, if you participate, you could carry some of that burden.

[Bells]

As one of the so called lurkers, there are positives and negatives to allowing creationist discussions.

 

On the one hand, you have the opportunity to educate those who are fence sitters or are unsure of what to believe in or who to trust, or who feel confused because they do not understand evolution in any sense or form.

 

On the other hand, you will have the die hard creationists who seek to not only ignore science and evolution, but who deliberately set out to twist and turn it into something it is not and who wish to have some influence in political discourse, especially in the area of education.

 

While it is noble to try to educate those who are unsure or confused and who are the lurkers, such individuals may feel swayed against evolution or science if those who respond to a creationist are losing their proverbial minds because they are frustrated and angry at the tactics creationists often employ. It's literally a case of you will win some and you will lose some.

 

No, you will not be able to keep it contained to one thread. It will spread.

 

What you can do, if you set up or allow creationist threads or discussions on this site is to have one that deals with each section of creationist ideology. From a thread on intelligent design, where discussions about intelligent design can be had. And one about the young Earth creationists, who believe that Adam and Eve lived with the dinosaurs. You can also consider an Evolution Denial thread, where much fun can be had with smacking one's head with a brick after a while:). That way it is not jumbled up or confusing, people who wish to educate can still do so and a better form of control can be had over creationists who wish to participate in these discussions.

 

Harder standards of the rules could apply to these discussions, such as trying to control the "you're an idiot" type of responses these discussions often invite. You can also set it up so that participants understand that it is not for preaching, but for discussing intelligent design, creationism, etc and that the emphasis of the discussions will be scientific..

 

Either way, it isn't going to be easy and it is possible that you will attract some new members who will make you want to set your eyeballs on fire because of the abject denial of evolution and who will sit there and just quote the Bible.