I too would like to applaud KF. He knows I have problems with his English but he is honest, pleasant and thinks for himself.

When Barry took over and eased the level of constraint the quantity and quality of debate shot up. I was under the impression that now most people who were banned or in moderation (which is little different in practice) were in that state by accident rather than design (can the EF help here?) It would be a blow to the credibility of the ID community to continue to ban people for raising genuine arguments in a polite fashion.

PS: But also — without at all implying immoral equivalency; and recognising that there are those who are indeed simply disruptive and so earn their removal — I think we need to again carefully review how the banning and thread-banning process have been used here at UD; even in recent days. (This specifically includes the case of Rob, which was just brought to my attention by one of the legion of the banned, in my own blog.)

You’re a good man, kairosfocus.

PS: But also — without at all implying immoral equivalency; and recognising that there are those who are indeed simply disruptive and so earn their removal — I think we need to again carefully review how the banning and thread-banning process have been used here at UD; even in recent days. (This specifically includes the case of Rob, which was just brought to my attention by one of the legion of the banned, in my own blog.)

I’ll break my self-imposed silence and subject this reply to the vagaries of the moderation queue in the hopes that it will get through, because it is important to emphasize what kairosfocus is saying here.

The moderation policy and the results of applying it here need to be significantly more transparent. With respect to the situation with Rob, there seems to be a double standard where Dembski supporters are allowed to behave rather badly in some cases while anyone who even raises questions about the orthodoxy has their posts delayed, refused without notice, or even removed.

The larger problem is how this affects the perception of ID in the larger community. The Discovery Institute doesn’t even allow comments on their site. Uncommon Descent gives the impression that open discussion is strongly discouraged. For people complaining about their views being Expelled, this can easily be painted as hypocritical behavior.

Real trolls and spammers should, of course, be removed to facilitate discussion. People who ask difficult questions aren’t trolls, they are opportunities to educate the lurkers and, if their questions point to weaknesses in ID theory, to learn. Using the excuse that “We’ve already answered that question.” is weak. If it’s already been answered, pointing to that answer is a much stronger response than banning the questioner.

As one of the premier ID sites, UD should hold itself to a high standard of openness and demonstrate confidence in the ability of its regulars to address anti-ID arguments.

JJ

Let’s think.

Iowa . . . the state where Cuban Exile, Mr Gonzalez — of something like 70 peer reviewed papers and a serious textbook under his belt and a pioneer on extrasolar planets [Wikipedia could not bring itself to mention that inconvenient fact in its article on such planets . . . ] — was just expelled from the state university system.

Not for objecting to or challenging [macro-]evolution, but for pointing out (in a book and movie, not the classroom) that the cosmological circumstances required to set up a viable evolutionary scenario per current scientific thought, also make our planet quite privileged; i.e. suggestive of design?

Oh, THAT Iowa, and THAT set of “freedom-loving” academic peers!

Now, just what are they objecting to?

Let’s click and cut, then paste (cutting out the legislative line numbers):

_________________

>> current law does not expressly protect the right of instructors to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding chemical [which of course implies also cosmological evolution . .. ] and biological evolution . . . . existing law does not expressly protect students from discrimination due to their positions or views regarding biological or chemical evolution . . . .

2. A teacher who is employed by a school district may objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological evolution.

A teacher who is employed by a school district shall not be disciplined, denied tenure, terminated, or otherwise discriminated against for objectively presenting scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological evolution.

4. Elementary and secondary students enrolled in a school district shall be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials through standard testing procedures.
However, students shall not be penalized for subscribing to a
particular position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution.

5. The rights and privileges contained in this section shall apply when the subject of biological or chemical evolution is part of a school district’s curriculum. This section does not require or encourage any change in the core curriculum adopted by the state board of education . . . .

6. This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion . . . .

7 2. An instructor who is employed by a community college or state university may objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological evolution . . . .

Students enrolled in a community college or state university shall be evaluated based upon their understanding
of course materials through standard testing procedures. However, students shall not be penalized for subscribing to a particular position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution . . . >>
____________________

Par for the academic, politically correct, Lewontinian a priori evo mat fascism course I’d say:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [RL, NY Review of Books, 1997.]

So, with just a hint of sadnesss for the passing of the late, lamented academic freedom:

FOR SHAME!

GEM of TKI

_______________

PS: But also — without at all implying immoral equivalency; and recognising that there are those who are indeed simply disruptive and so earn their removal — I think we need to again carefully review how the banning and thread-banning process have been used here at UD; even in recent days. (This specifically includes the case of Rob, which was just brought to my attention by one of the legion of the banned, in my own blog.)

Rejection of academic freedom – strange postion for academics to take.

So, while it may be the case that some of the language in the bill comes from a prior model bill that the DI had suggested elsewhere, the implication that they are in any way connected to the bill in Iowa is simply false.

That’s a pretty blatant lie, isn’t it? Since when has the Discovery Insititue ever lobbied against, or involved itself in political action against the teaching of evolution?

I have made an inquiry as to whether or not the DI was involved in any way with the Iowa bill.