I wrestle with these kinds of issues all the time. Effective answers are hard to come by.
My original vision for EvC was much more along the lines of what Jar describes. Unfortunately, not many creationists who come here these days can muster valid scientific arguments. Cracking down on such members tends to turn EvC into an evolutionists-only site.
EvC is experiencing a rather extreme paucity of knowledgeable creationists at present. Long time members might remember TrueCreation, Tranquility Base and Peter Borger, who were all here in the early days of 2001-2003. Not a single creationist of their calibre has visited here in a considerable period. It's incredible to realize now that as horrible as we found the science of these creationists then, today's are much, much worse.
I believe this is due to the Dover case that concluded near the end of 2005. Fundamentalists now face the reality that both creationism and ID have lost in court, and this has apparently taken considerable wind out of their sails. We used to have detailed discussions about the ideas of Stephen Austin, Andrew Snelling, William Dembski and so on as presented in their technical papers or books. Now the creationists who come are can barely mumble.
The last strategy employed by ID before Dover was "Teach the Controversy." This is now dead since Dover found that the controversy was social/religious, not scientific, and so the current strategy is "Teach all the evidence," but that's no fun for creationists because there really isn't any evidence. People can really get excited about the idea of discussions with people they believe they can prove wrong, but the creationist braintrust is providing very little ammo these days.
And so the creationists entering the creation/evolution fray these days tend to be unarmed. They can muster barbed wit or acerbic commentary, but actual scientific arguments aren't in their arsenal. I think raising the bar will just leave us with many fewer creationists.
| -- | Percy |
| | EvC Forum Director |
™ Version 4.2
