General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

The short answer is yes! Of course! Indubitably! Absolutely!That was the whole point of creation science, to remove references to God and Bible from the story of creation in order to pass muster in public school science classrooms. I've been part of this debate for well over 20 years, and creation science advocates used to abound, but a sea change occurred after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creation science was just Genesis dressed up in scientific sounding terms. It took a long time for intelligent design to push aside creation science as the alternative to evolution, but once it did then sites like this saw many fewer creation science advocates and far more ID advocates. This board witnessed this change in emphasis in 2003. The whole purpose of ID was to succeed where creationism did not by advancing a position at even further remove from God and Bible.With the demise of ID in Dover we're now experiencing a dearth of ID advocates, but creation science advocates have not returned. Instead all we're getting is loons and preachers. I feel this indicates that creationism is temporarily in disarray. The primary strategy advocated for now by the major creationist organizations is "teach all the evidence," but it's left the creationist soldiers who come here with no ammunition, so they fire what they got, God and Bible and nonsense.But the important point is that, yes, there was definitely a time when creationists thought it very important that creationism be seen as a legitimate science. The failures of creation science and ID to accomplish this seems to have discouraged them from even trying, and countering such attempts was my entire reason for creating this website, to explore creationism's claim to be every bit as much science as evolution. If we've won and only preachers and loons are left, then there's no reason for the site.But we haven't won, of course. The creationists are, as I said, only *temporarily* in disarray. Who knows what'll come next, but there'll be something. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I haven't had a chance to "talk" with Moose, but with the 300 post limit on threads it can frustrating to see a thread being used as a chatroom, especially since the conclusion of any thread is always followed by new thread proposals which moderators must review, and Moose is one of the consciencious reviewers. At the next moderator meeting I'll raise the issue of whether a warning should first be issued for chatroom behavior.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The practical pragmatic reason is that threads are limited to 300 messages.While there's nothing inherently wrong with chat-style exchanges, this board is oriented more toward and attempts to encourage thoughtful and carefully considered discussion. We do have a chat room.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Yes, sure, absolutely, that's precisely what I was saying, that lengthy bullshit is preferred over succinctness. Just in case anyone else is confused, the concern is about a chatroom-style series of exchanges at a message board that quickly eat up the 300-message thread limit and that tend to run counter to the well-considered and deliberate approach to discussion that we like to encourage here.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Email to Admin. They don't and no one has ever said they did. Concern is "chat-style series of exchanges."Brief yet clear, I hope?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Please allow me to remind members that exchanges in this thread, the moderator procedures thread, should be civil at all times.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I don't think Buz will be able to see your point of view because the kind of errors apparent to you and Jar may not be apparent to him.For those debating IAJ, the problem is how to maintain any kind of reasonable posture in the face of rampant illogic and irrationality. I don't know that it's possible. People like IAJ can throw out non sequiturs at a far greater rate than they can be addressed.There's a saying that goes something like, "Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference." In these kinds of discussions even those who share your viewpoint will have trouble figuring out just what the heck is going on, because unless they were there at the very start and followed every illogical step, and because people like IAJ have an ability to draw people into discussions about the ridiculous or impossible, it's hard to tell where the nonsense is originating from. For those who don't agree with you it's even harder to tell savant from idiot.Buzsaw oscillates back and forth in his approach to moderating, and I see he's currently in a "balance things out" phase. I prefer a "just apply the Forum Guidelines" approach myself, but moderators are permitted a great deal of latitude. One of my hopes for moderators like Buz and NJ has been that they would help coax members like IAJ toward comprehensibility, and sometimes they do actually do that, and I'm sure it's greatly appreciated by all of us. And when they don't at times when others think they should, they may be perceiving a valid point hidden in the nonsense that the rest of just can't see because the nonsense overwhelms any sense.IAJ hasn't been around in a couple weeks, so I don't know that it was necessary for Buzsaw to moderate an idle thread, but until IAJ returns the problems he causes are likely moot. The larger issue of how to moderate members who produce mostly nonsense remains largely unresolved.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Finally, someone with perspicacity, and probably a gentleman and a scholar to boot! You've made my day!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director