Faith's Participation in EvC

This looks a lot like a response from someone who doesn't like what he's reading but has no answer for it at all.Faith has behaved exactly as AO as stated.

I think Faith should stay. My only concern is when in a science thread she is allowed by moderation to make up her own facts.The most recent example of this that I can think of is the Barrier to Macroevolution thread where she and mj were arguing on the basis of genetic "losses" with no foundation other than their "reasoning". No support was giving an an entire thread was wasted on the basis of an unsupported assumption. When called upon it, simple refusal to support said assumption was given again with the excuse that it had been "reasoned" out earlier and that she was unwilling to repeat the claimed support.This simply should not have been allowed. The rules state that you need to support your argument with evidence.I would hate to see Faith go but I do believe that more moderation should be applied when these ad-hoc claimed evidentiary arguments are made.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

So you say - but it was the obvious relish with which he/she took the opportunity to dig personally at Faith that I found repulsive - not the argument that he/she was making. I guess if you don't see it though...

Then it would have furthered the discussion and, perhaps, helped Faith to understand a bit if you commented that you agreed with the points that AO was making but offered a better way of presenting it to help him be less harsh.All I saw was that he described Faith's behaviours if you find that a personal dig I think that is telling us something about what the behaviours are like.

Faith may be in breach of the rule, but not in the way you might be thinking,Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

The "reasoned argument" was tossed out the window when this was ignored: I also don't feel that any "reason" was used at all and expressed that as much. Faith and MJ were both starting from a assumption that they were hoping was true and simply made some claims to seem like it was supported with "reason". They were called on this and merely took offense rather than address the rebuttals head on.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Are we talking suspension from the Science threads or from EvC. I don't go into the science threads myself much so cannot comment on Faith there. Most of Faiths posts seem to be in faith/worldview area of things and I don't think much of a case could be made for poor argument there.I note also that the "proof-posts" which Percy refers to as representing his current dissatisfaction ("Faith science...Logically Indefensible") happen to occur in the "Is it Science" forum. That of necessity means science philosophy is on the menu. And it is a person asserting things as if their philosophy is a fact and as if they understand what faith is which Faith is addressing by way of counter assertion. It could have been fleshed out more (i think of what the founding fathers of scientific method would make of someone saying an assumption of God having created means a person cannot do science) but I think there are bigger fish to fry around here if "great debate is (truly) the goal"Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Faith is unique in quantity, not quality. If you're going to judge by "quality of debate", a lot of us should probably be suspended.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I agree with you, arach, and I feel strongly about the matter. Since the discussion has gone public, I want to share the thoughts I previously expressed privately. Faith and I have a colorful, contentious history. My one suspension came after an explosion of vituperative frustration with her. I deserved the suspension, and I apologized.She can still make my blood boil.I'm not sure what "constructive debate" means in this context. I'm fairly confident it does not include throwing anyone out of the hall who, by and large, abides by the rules of general civility. I say "by and large" because I, too, sometimes fall short of that standard in my own moments of passionate conviction, and without a bit of sufferance, I could not remain. Perhaps a discussion of what would constitute constructive debate between scientists and creationists would be useful, but an indictment and bill of particulars focused on a single member almost certainly aren't.We are all flawed creatures, and if we start walking back through the EvC archives to sort our misdeeds into scientists' and creationists' columns, we will hike a very long way indeed before we can determine a loser. I, like many others, have responded to posts from Faith with scornful, parodic, and sarcastic frustration, but if the science-minded among us cannot manage better than that, there cannot be any debate between science and faith that merits the term constructive.We all own our responses. If a thread becomes choked with a dozen evolutionists pouncing on Faith's scientific sins and errors, that is because a dozen evolutionists enjoy the pouncing. Multiparty discussions--whether corporate, academic, or scientific--often flow smoothly around stubborn minority resistance; if the water continues to pound upon the rock, it is because the will do so exists.I once told Faith, by way of attempting to elicit a reply, that I needed to learn how to talk to her. That is an ongoing process, one we both took on with trepidation, but I believe we have each learned from the other. EvC would be a smaller mind without her.

And especially in the science forums. That seems to me a reasonable accommodation to the frustrations expressed. How this will work out in particulars I'm not sure, but I think this is a better solution than suspending me either totally or in part.

Why do you think I almost never talk to her?

This rule from the Forum Guidelines has proved confusing on a couple of occasions. The reason for the "and/or" between "evidence" and "reasoned argumentation" is because no one is expected to recapitulate the evidence relevant to his point in every post. During the course of a discussion some posts will contain evidence, some posts will contain reasoned argumentation, and some will contain both.But both evidence and reasoned argumentation are required in order to make a valid point, though in the case of obvious evidence one can forgo the reasoned argumentation. Your reasoning about pink dragons might be perfect, but without evidence of pink dragons it holds no significance.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

ned, i think this is fairly standard creationism.we can't ban people for being wrong, or perhaps willfully ignorant, can we? is this a debate forum, or "the scientist's burden" of educating the backward religious folk?

---

moderation is not a privilege; it's a punishment. they make people moderators so they are forced to understand the concerns of other moderators: running a well-behaved, civil, and constructuve debate board. the best way to make someone grow up is to make them responsible for something.frankly, i do not envy the mods here.

---

she is good at that, yes. yes, i whole heartedly agree. yes, i think everyone here has probably been suspended at one time or another. i still find it particularly amusing how i managed to get myself suspended once... while this sort of bills itself almost as an attack on a single member, there's a larger picture we have to remember here, one you touched on above. faith is an accurate representation of creationism as a whole. she is considerably more articulate than most, and much better at debate (even if she does slip into the occasional screaming match). the techniques of ignoring facts and their obvious implications, and relying on counter-scientific "miracle" explanations is simple what creationism is. what right do we have to call ourselves "evolution v. creation" is the punishment for continued creationism is being banned? that's highly, highly biased, the likes of which i have only seen on, well, creationist boards.(ironically, i think we've tried to define what would constitute a constructive debate before. and the debate was not, how to put this, constructive in the slightest. creationists and "evolutionists" simply do not see eye to eye. on anything.) yes. and removing frustrating members is not the way to learn how to communicate. can you imagine if we removed, say, brad mcfall because nobody can actively engage in a constructive conversation with him? is it his fault, or our fault for not understanding what he's talking about?Edited by arachnophilia, : mysteriously missing quote

---