this is a science-oriented site

The subtitle of this blog is “Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media.

I think the religious people would not feel encouraged to present their theories here and defend it against science if the word “religion” was not contained in the description of this blog. I’m sure other websites with only scientific content have less problems with. Consider “the earth is flat” to be part of the religious discussion of this blog instead of shunning it for being unscientific and not belonging here.

For example, consider what should be done if someone a reader were to post comments dealing with any of the following:

Epicycles - Ptolemy’s theory that the path of motion of stars was generally circular except it contained small loops that explained their retrograde motion.

Phlogiston, first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that posited the existence of, in addition to the classical four elements of the Greeks, an additional fire-like element called “phlogiston” that was contained within combustible bodies, and released during combustion.

“Luminiferous aether” (or “ether”), once signified the substance which was thought in ancient times to fill the upper regions of space, beyond the clouds.

A claim that the Earth is flat.

If ever someone would try to convince me to accept the truth any of these positions, I would assume that that person was joking. I have no interest in debating any of these as legitimate ways to understand the world. Each of these approaches has been thoroughly disproved. No serious scientist believes in any of these. Though most of the writers at this site are not scientists, this is a science-oriented site.

For the past few months at DI, we have been faced with people (some of them sincere and respectful) who want to assert arguments that are equally devoid of evidentiary support. Consider the many young earth arguments we’ve been seeing at this site (claims that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old despite no evidence in support of this proposition and an unending stream of evidence disproving it). Based on respectable science, young earth arguments are not any more worthy of our time than are flat earth arguments.

Here in the year 2008, the arguments mentioned in this post (attacking evolution by natural selection) are equally lacking in evidence. These arguments have all been answered many times by highly educated experts who base their findings on facts and experiments which are then published in peer reviewed publications

I see these religious-based attacks on evolution as meritless, because they are not based on facts. Also, it is difficult to ignore that the alternative being offered by those who attack evolution: a vengeful Earth-obsessed supernatural being came down, wagged His finger, and then everything appeared. This is an approach that doesn’t allow any scientific testing. It precludes any further discussion other than chaotic discussions based entirely upon hopes, dreams and fantasies.

I don’t want to cut off all debate regarding evolution and religion; there will be posts that specifically invite discussion of creationism. I’m inclined to raise the bar for those want express uninformed opinions, especially those who should know better, those who aren’t willing to keep an open mind to inconvenient evidence and those who are attempting to use every post as an opportunity to express the same uninformed and discredited opinions.

I’m leaning toward a policy that raises the bar rather than shuts the door, and I’m still considering the details. My instinct is that the writers have full right to make assumptions based on well-established science without feeling it necessary to backtrack to examine the many arguments commonly pushed by creationists. Unless such arguments are specifically raised by the author of a post, I am inclined to disallow the creationist arguments raised in this post as “off topic.” To allow such comments detracts from the post and essentially makes every science-related post about religion.

It is, indeed, important to me that creationists do have full opportunity to raise each of these issues to their hearts’ content at their own sites. I am also well aware that most other science-oriented sites pride themselves on focusing on the science rather than on peripheral completely-discredited arguments. Consider, for instance, that the Wikipedia article on “evolution” is almost completely about evolution, with a only peripheral mention of creationism.

I appreciate everyone who has weighed in on this extremely important topic concerning the best way to have a meaningful conversation.

I have assumed that it is up to us “Authors” to provide an appropriate post if we wish to continue discussing subjects that commentators have led off topic. I’ve done this a couple of times with Karl.

Continuing on a new post may not lead to complete intellectual fruition, but at least the discussion will be on topic.

A new Page called “Resovled” or “Principles” with a list of guiding principles and resolutions is a good idea.

Perhaps yet another Page (”Favorites”) with links to some of our favorite posts, back to which we keep referring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truman_Show#Plot

In terms of the comment policy, I think you have done well, and especially like that you allow us to have input. If I remember correctly one of the creationists had become repetitive to the point of being bratty and boring. I don’t think that you should ever have to dissect each comment to determine if it is preaching. Your time is too valuable. I think he was given ample warnings, and should have been banned some months ago, for the greater good.

(anti-spam word: dan)

I don’t think it unreasonable to institute a set of rules or FAQ-style set of guidelines. They could be called the “Assumptions of the Blog” and would be exempt from debate. Such as,

- DI accepts the possibility that there is a god as well as the possibility that there isn’t.

- DI recognizes that all religions are man-made.

- DI knows that books can’t prove themselves true.

…and so on.

I’m sure the writers here could help come up with a definitive set of guidelines that all those who post here must accept as a baseline for discussion or risk being edited or deleted. Those who don’t like the strictures you set can go elsewhere.

What do you think?