arach writes:
i will continue to make the same point i make everytime this sort of issue comes up. YES the fundamentalists really, honestly debate the basic interpretation of truth and factuality. they see things differently than the rest of us in a very fundamental way... and that is the debate. if we start suspending and banning members for disagreeing with facts and data and evidence, the debate goes with them. because among the scientific community, there simply is no debate at all about the matters creationists bring up.
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.
AdminOmni writes:
AdminJar writes:
I strongly oppose restricting Faiths posting privileges.
I strongly agree with jar.
Faith accurately argues the creationist point of view--the rhetorical means she employs are no worse (or better) than those employed by evolutionists.
Her recent parody--comparing the denial of Gandhi's existence to the denial of Christ's existence--expresses well the opinion of the Biblical literalists and creationists. It wasn't silly: it was sharply communicative.
Is it better to have a series of creationist creampuffs who attempt to argue with "science" (on its own terms, in its own arena) and who then have their heads handed to them? It's kinda fun, granted, and undoubtedly effective agitprop, but it does not constitute a frank exchange of real world viewpoints.
Science must learn to speak to folks who stand on their own grounds of belief and say, "Your evidence does not sway me." Banning or silencing them will not move the discussion forward in a "constructive" manner, and you will not find a more articulate spokesperson for those folks than Faith.
In short, if you don't want to hear the real, deep dissent, Percy, just take down the board. Banning or limiting Faith's participation would do more damage to EvC's credibility than hers.
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.
™ Version 4.2
