Given their past history in moderation practice, though, I'd recommend that you compose any comments destined for EN&V in a text editor so that you can hang on to your work, without assuming that they will post and archive it on their site. To help gauge just how far they've come from their earlier appreciation of dissent, I would further recommend that you paste a copy of any such comment into the thread I've created at "After the Bar Closes" for the purpose of providing an open forum and archive. Then, we will be able to compare what makes it through moderation to some approximation of what they actually receive in the inbox.Of course, you might want to discuss it with the scientists and scholars themselves. To that end, comments will be allowed on selected articles. All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
The Discovery Institute Tries Something Different: Feedback
The "intelligent design" creationists over at the Discovery Institute have long maintained a hypocritical stance. For public consumption, they say that they favor "teaching the controversy". However, almost any time they control the forum, they pretty ruthlessly make it impossible for one to hear anything but their own spin on a topic. Now, they are asking for comments.
Back when the DI published their textbook supplement, "Explore Evolution", Paul Nelson made a comment here about setting up a means to allow "debate" of the materials. Within a couple of hours of that, I had set up a thread at "After the Bar Closes" to permit just that. The DI does have a page labeled "Further Debate" on their "Explore Evolution" site, but all that provides is a set of links of responses from the DI to criticism of their book.
Discovery Institute Senior Fellow William Dembski's weblog, "Uncommon Descent", has comments enabled, but the moderation there is generally so ham-fisted that only a few voices of dissent have lasted more than a week or two. The various inconsistencies of moderation and proclivity to stifle dissent have their own thread at "After the Bar Closes"., and discussion of content at UD has occupied three long-running threads ([1], [2], and [3]).
In the past, the DI's "Evolution News and Views" (EN&V) blog has dispensed entirely with the concept of comments. However, a post there indicates that the DI is posed to break with their tendentious tradition, to at least some degree:
35 Comments
Marion Delgado · 20 January 2011
On a scale from Uncommon Descent to 10, how open are they so far?
Wesley R. Elsberry · 20 January 2011
Someone will need to find an article where they have actually enabled comments first.
Mike Elzinga · 20 January 2011
With ID/creationists, negative feedback causes howling.
But then all their “science” is different.
RJ · 20 January 2011
Sensing more heat than light will be generated by all this. Don't expect that to change.
fnxtr · 20 January 2011
harold · 20 January 2011
1) I strongly predict that this is going to be exactly as "open" as typical creationist venues. Although "comments will be held for moderation" is a common policy at some legitimate, open sites that screen for violence and the like, I suspect that we can predict what "moderation" means in this context.
2) I recommend that anyone who does comment make an effort to use neutral language and tear ID/creationism to shreds on the basis of facts and reasoned arguments. This is not some wretched call for obsequiousness in the form of one-sided "civility" or "bipartisanship". Basically, I'd love to see them fail the easiest possible test. Let them get some neutrally worded, unequivocally civil comments, that cannot be objected to on any rational grounds, and make them delete those comments solely for containing reasoned arguments that they cannot counter. Let their petulant intolerance be displayed to the maximum.
Ron Okimoto · 20 January 2011
These are the guys that are running the bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base. There is about as much chance for honest discussion there as there is for ID to become legitimate science. These guys will likely invent negative probilities to go along with their new laws of thermodynamics to make it look like they might be on to something. When you have to depend on your supporters bending over and taking a switch scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed they know that they don't have to even try to be believable to keep those rubes satisfied.
DavidK · 20 January 2011
Whatever miniscule bit of "openness" the dishonesty provides, it's merely window dressing, but it allows them to counteract the arguments that they are a closed group unable to accept open criticism as they play their "teach the controversy" strategy. I suspect it will be 1) highly censored, 2) it might not last very long and 3) they may even have creationist ghost writers acting the part of scientists.
Jimpithecus · 20 January 2011
A year or so back, I found a piece by Cornelius Hunter to be incorrect in places. Since there was no way to comment on it and since nobody at the DI publishes their email addresses (a practice I find totally unprofessional), I had to write the PR guy, lawyer Casey Luskin, who then relayed the message to Dr. Hunter, who then wrote me a very arrogant and condescending message. After debating whether or not to answer it and fearing I would write something that I would later regret, I just walked away.
John Kwok · 20 January 2011
Thanks for the update Wesley. Am highly dubious that their "feedback" will be anything of the kind that we normally tolerate here from creo trolls. I think that's a very safe bet IMHO.
Joe Felsenstein · 20 January 2011
Mike Elzinga · 20 January 2011
SteveF · 21 January 2011
OT, but I was wondering what Joe makes of this new paper in PLoS. Related to some of your research and is very interesting:
Morran, L.T. et al (2010) Purging Deleterious Mutations under Self Fertilization: Paradoxical Recovery in Fitness with Increasing Mutation Rate in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14473. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014473
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014473
jimpithecus · 21 January 2011
jimpithecus · 21 January 2011
The last time I visited his blog, he didn't. I will have to go back.
issy54 · 21 January 2011
Why not create a Creationist website that presents their "facts" in a clear, easy to follow manner that does not censor debate and allows that debate to be easily tracked to each "fact".
No part of the website should present a non-creationist viewpoint except within the context of debate. Except for that context, (debate), the website should be indistinguishable from other Creationists websites.
Hopefully such a site would attract Creationists who have never seen their talking points debated in a fair manner.
eric · 21 January 2011
Mike from Ottawa · 21 January 2011
Mary H · 21 January 2011
DavidK · 21 January 2011
snaxalotl · 21 January 2011
"... hose who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior ..."
the problem here relates to the definition of "obnoxious" ... in the mind of anyone with a personality disorder, or any related deep conflict with reality, anybody who opposes or criticizes you in any way appears to be obviously behaving in an obnoxious manner
issy54 · 21 January 2011
bob maurus · 22 January 2011
Eric said, "Below is a web site that presents all their facts. And no part of it presents a non-creationist viewpoint.
It doesn’t allow debate, but we are halfway there.
Link."
Is it just me, or does the link deliver all attempts to a blank page?
Ron Okimoto · 22 January 2011
DavidK · 22 January 2011
Sorry, but I don't see anything on the dishonesty institute's site that allows feedback to anything they say. Has anyone been successful in that venture?
A couple of new things on their site, they now list Howard Ahmanson, Board of Directors - Discovery Institute as one of their primary contributors, and the mighty Casey Luskin is "demoted" to staff (wasn't he a senior fellow in the org?).
RBH · 22 January 2011
propagandiststaff.W. H. Heydt · 22 January 2011
mrg · 22 January 2011
Karen S. · 23 January 2011
Stanton · 23 January 2011
Karen S. · 23 January 2011
Brian · 23 January 2011
It's pretty obvious what is going on with various ID sites and ID sponsored dialog. With rare exceptions, like Hunter's blog where he routinely gets trounced, they do not allow dissent. And I don't know whether they are projecting themselves and their stifling of dissent onto others when they talk about ID being "expelled", or, does it drive them nuts that an open exchange of ideas strengthens science. Not only does science not need their protectionist tactics, but it does better for not having them.
Or maybe it's both, and then some.
heddle · 24 January 2011
On a scale from Jerry Coyne's blog to 10, how open are they so far?
Venture Free · 25 January 2011
Getting banned from creationist sites always brings to mind, of all things, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. During the investigation into the apparent suicide of Roger Podacter, after Einhorn makes it clear that she wants him gone, he answers by saying "E, forget it. She's right. Besides, I wouldn't want someone tracing my steps and pointing out all the mistakes I made."
Unfortunately, pointing out mistakes is exactly the behavior that most creationists consider to be "obnoxious".
Miss Web Designer · 15 March 2011
If only I had researched the online college route and got my degree as a web designer