Creationist Admins

Hi,I've been reading at the board only for a month, with just a few recent posts. So take this suggestion with a grain of salt...It's not unusual for "creationists" here to complain about the moderation. From what I've read, they feel that there's a different standard for "evolutionists" and themselves.

• Without question, creationists have a much higher propensity for posting assertion after assertion, with no evidence. I am glad there is moderation available, trying to help them debate in a scientific manner.
  
• On the other hand, both creationists and evolutionists are prone to frustration and mud-slinging.

Coming from a country derived from "no taxation without representation," I really believe that this system is flawed when creationists can participate, but they have no feeling of safety or representation. They don't have the sense that anybody is looking out for them. I would feel the same. No matter how hard the evolutionist moderators try to be fair, it is impossible for them to really anticipate how creationist posters feel, or what things are big issues for them. That's why we try to have equal representation, to take representation from many areas, etc. (and no jokes about the last election here please! )So, finally, here's the suggestion:

• Establish at least ONE PERMANENT creationist admin. Here's how:
  
  1. Create a thread, and ask for nominations for creationist admins. THE THREAD SHOULD BE CREATIONIST-ONLY
  2. Use the nominations to vote (admin-only vote) on who you think is the best candidate
  3. Grant admin function to that person for some extended period (6 months?)
  4. After the person's 'term' is up, either 'renew' their status or follow the same process again to search for another creationist admin.
  
  
  
  

If this looks like affirmitive action, ... I think so too. But I really believe it would make this forum a better place. Let me know what you think.Thanks!
Ben

This topic looks like a good place to post my "manifesto" on what I view this forum to be, and how it should be operated. This, however, will take some time to put together.Some short answers right now:In the earlier days, we did have two (real) creationist admins. For whatever reason, they chose to not be active as admins, and thus were discontinued as admins. One of those (TrueCreation) has since largely converted to the evo side, and in general has been pretty inactive here. The other (Tranquility Base) has long ago entirely dropped from sight.This site is not a democracy. Percy, who owns it and pays all the bills, is a benevolent dictator, and the other admins strive to support his aims.The core of this forum is that it is a forum of scientific discussion. Hard core creationism is inherently unscientific (of course, a debate topic in itself). Stated perhaps differently, this place is intended as a place for scientific debate between science and non-science. As such, I'm rather amazed that it works at all.IMO, the main problem with a (real) creationist admin, is that I see hard core creationists to be inherently irrational. Having admin status includes considerable power, much of which, by forum policy, is never used. Irrational behaviour could result in truly massive distruction.By the time a "real" creationist is judged to have achieved a safe level of rationality, s/he is no longer a "real" creationist.OK, maybe I ended up covering a fair bit (most?) of the "manifesto". We shall see what others have to say.Adminnemooseus

It wasn't all that long ago we offered Mike the Wiz admin status (he was a creationist at the time). I disagreed with him on a lot of thing, a whole lot. However, he did his best to discuss in an honest way.He refused the dubious offer.Now he's corrupted and couldn't be considered a "real" creationist any more. As AM notes, once someone can conduct themselves in a manner that would make them moderator material they start to slide. I don't know how we can catch any more than the couple we have.As I noted else where Dawg is a moderator. However, he is short of time but manages a bit of non moderator participation but no moderating. He too seems to have waffled a little on his level of literalism. I think he is, perhaps, not a YEC anymore.

Not true. I seem to recall that he is still one of the rare believers of the "hydroplate theory."

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

The two modes go 3300+ messages - Get POTM for that one.Buzsaw gave me the POTM. Since his comments are relivent to this topic, I will quote his message:

quote:

---

Minnemooseous:
Suggestions and Questions Forum
Topic: Creationist Admins
Message 2

​

By the time a "real" creationist is judged to have achieved a safe level of rationality, s/he is no longer a "real" creationist.

​

Moose tells it like it is and seems to administrate justly regardless of one's ideology.

​

I cite his above quote for pom because it fingers the problem true creationists face in debating the minority viewpoint which factors in the supernatural. As chief admin, he seems to understand this handicap of true creationists.

​

{Made the "2" a link - AM}

​

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-13-2004 10:22 PM

---

I'll here add one comment, that I've said before somewhere, but didn't put into message 2:It is understandably difficult for a creationist to operate as a moderator. S/he is a minority member in a hostle environment. [non-admin mode]The problem (and very core problem of creationism vs. evolution) is that science by definition does not allow one to "factor in the supernatural" into a scientific dabate. But that has been hit upon many times in many topics - Indeed is probably the basis of the "Is It Science?" forum.[/non-admin mode]I guess it's moments like this that Buzsaw seems like admin material. But, again, there's the comment above the above quote box.Perhaps Buz would like to pursue the discussion further, in a "Great Debate" topic? I could use a variation of what I've said so far in this topic, as the launching point. Or pehaps Buz would like to run a "Great Debate" proposal through the "Proposed New Topics" forum?Cheers,
(the sometimes cranky, but not this time) Adminnemooseus

First of all, I would like to say 'thank you' to Percy for hosting this forum. I do appreciate what he puts into it. I'm really learning a lot here and enjoying it.The purpose of the suggestion is simply to try and suggest a way to better accomplish the goal of this board. The admin doesn't have to be a 'hard core' creationist--just somebody who the creationists respect as able to see their side well, and willing to 'go against the evos.' The sense that I get from non-evo people (whether they're creationist or people like JAD) is that they feel there's nobody they can appeal to that isn't 'on the side of evolution.'As for 'hard-core' creationists being irrational... that's an interesting suggestion, and maybe worth opening a thread. I think that everybody would agree that ALL people act irrationally at many levels... anyway. Side thought--I agree with your main idea, that often hard-core creationists are 'out there'Too bad 'mike the wiz' turned down the offer, as he would have been a good choice IMO. What about Brad McFall? Don't laugh!Anyway, I didn't want to make this a 'nomination thread,' just to put the idea out there that, in my opinion, the board would really be better off with a creationist admin. Maybe the suggestions for how to argue would get through from somebody that they felt was on 'their side.' As of now, I really don't get much from reading creationist posts, and that is a bad thing for this board. And efforts to try and rectify the problem (i.e. boot camp, evo admins giving suggestions) seem to have not changed a thing.Thanks!
Ben

Ned (my older brother's name, by the way. not too many Ned's out there),As I said in the other post, too bad about Mike the wiz. He seems reasonable, and able to communicate well with creationists and evos.I know there are rational creationists out there... I even know some of them myself. I just hope there's something we can do to improve the posting quality AND responsiveness to suggestions about argumentation style ...Thanks for your thoughts.Ben

Well, I think there might be some problems when he explained to a poster how to improve their posts. No one would understand what he was getting at.Worse, what if they did? Then we could all end up writing like that.

quote:

---

The admin doesn't have to be a 'hard core' creationist--just somebody who the creationists respect as able to see their side well, and willing to 'go against the evos.'

---

We do have the very inactive (busy in the real world) AdminTL (aka AdminTruthlover). He had left creationism behind him long before arriving at . But I do think he was much liked and respected by all sides here.You can get the short list of his most recent messages here. To get a (maybe) longer list you need to go to the search page, and enter AdminTL into the "Search by User Name" field (no way for me to supply link to results page). You may be able to get more messages listed by doing individual forum searches. You also may find it interesting to do a truthlover search (make sure you start name with lower case "t").As far as "seeing their side" - I can see that they're at a severe disatvantage in their debate arsenal. Mainstream science is mainstream because that's where the ammunition is.Re: "going against the evos" - I am pretty confident that I've had more evo side debaters pissed off at me, than any other admin. I think I have the attitude that since creationism is inherently scientificly irrational, they must to some degree be excused for presenting irrational messages - OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. All that said, I still would like to do a "Great Debate" discussion with Buzsaw, on this general topic. I do think he is the best candidate for the position of "real creationist admin".Adminnemooseus

Adding my two cents (Canadian) worth:There is a constant balancing act in moderating. I like to think that I, more or less consistently, tilt against the science side a bit. I expect more of them is why.I'm always interested in feedback, of course. It would need to be pretty specific and suggest an alternative action.I've certainly had recent feedback from Ken but that hasn't been very helpful.

double post - see post #13 in this threadThis message has been edited by kendemyer, 11-14-2004 09:10 PM

The issue was not mental health. It was the ability to think in a rational fashion. Based on the sampling we have here there is some reason to think that this is in short supply on one side of the discussion.Your post, in fact, seems to demonstrate a basic problem in reading clearly.

TO: AdminmooseusYou wrote:

quote:

---

IMO, the main problem with a (real) creationist admin, is that I see hard core creationists to be inherently irrational.

---

This is a forum which should have its sympathies lie with empiricism and science and not with any ad hoc personal and subjective observations. If you have any data from the social science of psychology showing that hard core creationists are inherently irrational then please cite it.I cited data from the social sciences showing that hardcore proponents of atheism may have a factor that is conduscive to poor mental health (I am no determinist though as I stated). I also cited the Mayo clinic meta study regarding religious believers which shows that religious practice and beliefs are positively correlated to mental health. I also looked at the charitable behavior of the religious versus their less religious and non-religious conterparts via some studies. All of this information is located at: http://EvC Forum: Psychology looks at atheism and theism. Also, atheism is tenuous/non-existent/rare .. -->EvC Forum: Psychology looks at atheism and theism. Also, atheism is tenuous/non-existent/rare ..Now I am secure enough where I do not mind your above assertion. And this is a debate forum where people should be allowed to speak freely within reasonable limits of course. At the same time, however, I believe and rightfully so that there is a responsibility to not ignore data and to support ones assertions.This message has been edited by kendemyer, 11-14-2004 09:33 PM

TO: NosynedAre you saying that mental health has no association with the ability to think rationally? If so, why is that?

Hi Moose. I've never done a great debate before and am not sure I'd have enough input concerning this to discuss a lot about it, but if you really want to do it anyhow and lead out with some agenda, I'd be willing to respond. I appreciate your confidence in consideration of me for moderator, but about all the time I have to give to evc is to participate in two or three threads and not a lot of time to read other stuff. As much as I'd like to help out, I really don't think I would have the time to give it so as to do it efficiently. I wouldn't want to sign up and end up doing a half assed job of it, given most mods here do their job quite efficiently. Jar seems to be doing quite a good job. He and others who do it right appear to be putting a substantial amount of time into it whereas I wouldn't be able to do that with my business and all to attend to.