As I've said before, the decline in creationist participation is due to larger forces outside EvC's control. Part of it is the move to social sites like Facebook and Twitter. Part of it is the move to mobile platforms like phones and tablets where discussion boards are more difficult to use. And part of it is a loss of interest on the part of creationists for direct confrontation with science.
Another factor could be the increasing divisiveness that leads people to visit sites that suit their beliefs better -- confirmation bias writ large -- as seen in the political spectrums as well.
It's almost like virtual communities that ignore each other: why bother with "nuts" that don't believe what you believe (a typical cognitive dissonance reaction).
A possible analogy might be hot-house plants that cannot survive outdoors, but rather need a special environment in which to thrive. ...
An excellent description of a cognitive dissonance reaction to contrary information and trying to reduce dissonance by confirmation bias and adding confirming information while ignoring counter information.
So then the bottom line is that on their own forums creationists are afforded extra and special priveleges and considerations that protect them from any opposing view. They have become completely dependent on that special treatment and protection and are unable to fend for themselves anymore or even to function in the real world. Like their political counterparts who complain bitterly about anti-Christian religious discrimination just because they are no allowed to impose their religion and beliefs on everybody else, the creationists here complain about moderator bias because they're not getting the same hot-house preferential treatment that they get on their own sites.
Where the real world is not allowed to enter, and is usually banned upon the first "sacrilegious" comments. Like roundup sprayed on all invasive plants from the real world.
I'm an ID proponent, and it is my position that intelligent design has played a role in the history of life on earth. Do I deny common descent? No.
I'm a deist, the original intelligent design belief (as opposed to the neo-paleyism of modern ID proponentists). It is my position that the universe was created in such a way that planets, life and evolution occurred, including all the laws\etc that govern\control them. Do I deny science in any way? No, as it just explains what is and how it works, not why it is. It details the creation.
I have experienced some moderation early in my posting here, but generally not that much (probably about average level and usually now when in debate with a certain atheist here ... ).
My observation would be that the more one argues an opinion against evidence the more one is likely to be moderated -- regardless of what that opinion is about -- and the more one reacts with an emotional outburst the more one is likely to be moderated.
It isn't the creationism that is is moderated, per se, rather it's the continued and repeated unsupported assertions and emotional replies.
But is this really "curious"? I really don't think so, since it seems to me that the moderators here are pretty fair and balanced.
I believe that your posts do attempt to support your position with evidence (whether they do or not is subjective imho) and this puts you at odds with the more creationist types that rely on opinion and belief.
Bolder-dash has also done some effort at supporting his positions, but he also falls into emotional responses, and I think that is where most moderation is encountered.
Of course part of the problem is encountering cognitive dissonance when your beliefs are challenged by contrary empirical evidence, and it is a normal human reaction to be angry when this happens - it's almost inevitable if you think about it. see Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs
Yes, I've noticed that a lot of creationists get really emotional about this. I guess it's hard not to if you lack self-control. ...
We are talking about core beliefs from childhood, products of parents, teachers, religious leaders, people regarded with the trust of children carried into adulthood being challenged -- it isn't so much the belief itself but what the challenge to it means for all this upbringing. It's like insulting your mother.
... but at the same I think it needs to be realized that a lot of the creationists that come here didn't really benefit from a stellar education. ...
Indeed this is the core problem -- that they have been mis-educated in many cases by people in positions of trust and respect, that carry the burden of entrenched cultural beliefs to the next generation even when there is contradictory evidence (ie young earth beliefs, etc).
It is difficult to unlearn things and then start over. It would be like intentionally forgetting a language to learn a new one.
... Another issue is the somewhat condescending manner of some of the individuals from the evolution side. ...
Not only is it condescending and tacitly insulting and virtually guaranteed to create an emotional reaction even it that is resisted in posting a reply, but it is shown to be actually counterproductive in cognitive dissonance studies: it actually seems to give the person more reason to stay by his conviction and to recircle with his fellow believers for additional confirmation inputs.
For instance, RAZD and Percy believe in a completely unguided process to evolution, and yet at the same time they believe in a deity that has some interaction with humans at some level-an interaction ... who knew that it would lead to consciousness, but since it did, NOW I will have some spiritual tie to it. Its a position that should at least be challenged, ...
If that were really the positions I\we take, rather than your strawman misperception of them, then you might have a complaint.
First off, I appreciate the intelligence of your posts. But the thing is, you don't really ever direct challenges to the underlying principles of Darwinian evolution, at least not in a comprehensive manner. ...
Of course that is one of the reasons he has not encountered moderation, he basically accepts the evidence of evolution, with a modified deistic\IDist beginning (closer to your portrayal of my position). I've said before that ID is not necessarily in conflict with any science, including evolution. It is the emotional responses over strongly conflicting views that brings out moderation.
I'll go with Coyote here on you starting a new thread on challenges to the underlying principles of evolution (we don't need to restrict it to "Darwinian evolution" do we?). Maybe a Great Debate topic with Coyote to keep other posters from posting insulting comments ...
I don't think accepting evidence for evolution is the key. I think Genomicus avoids moderator intervention because he makes efforts to present evidence based arguments for his own propositions.
Agreed, and when Bolder-dash did similar in regards foraminifera on another thread it was not moderated but debated. Bolder-dash has presented some good arguments in earlier threads, imho.
At any rate, I really don't think Bolder-dash is interested in science based discussion. His primary goal these days is to complain about the forum rules. I don't think he is banned from the science forums, he simply doesn't have any purpose there other than complaining that a topic is being discussed at all.
Personally, I think he is dealing with boundaries of his cognitive dissonance bubble, and that this has superseded\impeded his more scientific approach. You can only push your bubble so far before having to deal with the boundaries.
Re: Still, there is the problem of dogpiles and jerk evolutionists
Hi PaulK
See my reply to Moose re cultural clashes and cognitive dissonance.
In short, the greater part of the problem is that creationists do not want a fair forum, or even one with an acceptable level of bias in their favour.
It seems to me that they - and other creationists - want a discourse environment similar to what they are used to in their culture, where there is less\little emphasis on empirical evidence and more emphasis on making what seem to be reasonable arguments, the "let us reason together" approach to reaching a decision.
Going to a great debate doesn't resolve this culture clash.
RAZD, my assertion was that the Great Debate forum alleviated the problems of dogpiling and "jerk evolutionists". I did not claim that it solved or helped with any other problem.
And I agreed. It is actually more likely to just put off the inevitable (I've been in a few).
However I must disagree with you on the idea that creationist arguments proceed by reasoning. More typically they jump to conclusions based on a superficial - and often selective - view of the evidence, or argue from their own authority (which they expect to be accepted). Examples are not hard to find. What reasoning there is is best labelled a crude rationalisation.
I would suggest that the major difference is that creationists take the apologetic mindset which starts with conclusions and has little regard for evidence, reasoning or understanding - and they often cannot understand why anyone would not be as heavily biased in favour of their beliefs as they are.
Correct, they start with the conclusion and then try to reason how the evidence fits, that is their cultural modus operandi and firmly entrenched in their cultural worldview.
This is what causes the dissonance with evidence based first sciences whenever there is a conflict in beliefs (where there are no conflicts in beliefs the evidence is ignored as important because they know from their worldview ... like the earth is roundish).
Re: The creationist goes off-topic and the evos gladly follow
Minnemooseus
So, should the evolutionists that follow going off-topic also be treated equally?
They should be more aware of how to handle the issue (like start a side topic in coffee house and direct comment there, if admin wants to move from there to another forum that can be done)
It is just as annoying to thread followers and tends to make the off-topic discussions more persistent to the point of disrupting the threads.
You whole claim of who has cognitive dissonance has no evidence, but that doesn't stop you from repeating the claim ad infinitum.
Everyone has cognitive dissonance, in different degrees and on different topics. It is due as much to your cultural upbringing, education, opinions than anything else (example difference between liberal and conservative outlooks and gun control).
It is a much studied phenomena in psychology, and thus there actually is an evidentiary basis for it.
That third paragraph ties into confirmation bias
And here the invasion of Iraq comes to mind as an example of this effect in a non-creation\evolution issue.
I've been discussing this on Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs, where the focus is more on dissonance between cultural groups than on individuals. Of course the individuals are involved coming from inside the cultural groups, but it appears that the group is a more important driver in understanding the tenacity of beliefs.
For me, one of the issues I find most dissonant is why showing a creationist a long list of information and evidence for the age of the earth (ie Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1) doesn't result in an epiphany of understanding that the earth is indeed old.
What I come to understand from looking at cognitive dissonance between cultural groups is that reinforcement from within a persons cultural group is a buffer\barrier against being forced to change the belief due to the confirmation bias they can fall back on.
Summary: Several reasons for the shortage on this site
There are several reasons that I personally list for the apparent "shortage"
there are just not that many creationists that leave their "confirmation bias" bubble to visit sites like this, but stay in their comfort zones on creationist boards,
many christians just are not so fundamentalist as creationists and do not have problems with age and evolution, and thus do not get into dissonance debate situations (and thus do not appear to be "creationists" here),
some people believe in a different manner of creation than what is interpreted by fundamentalists as being portrayed in the bible,
there just are not that many dedicated Young Earth Creationists - several years ago I figured that there were about an equal number of committed YEC as there are atheists in the US population, using polling data, but there are a lot of middle grounders,
* the Dover trial took the wind out of the sails of much of the ID\Creationist movement and they are regrouping or morphing into a more ID less creationist form ...
I may add more by edit as I think of them.
And I would note that we probably have as many or more "reformed" creationists on this site than we currently have creationists, people who have been through the epiphany and disillusionment, and this may intimidate some new believers.
But the biggest issue is that we are dealing - imhysao - with a major cultural cognitive dissonance issue from the sidelines, waiting for them to come to us.
According to Cognitive Dissonance Theory, this is unlikely to happen, people do not like to leave comfort zones.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
