College Credits For Trolling the Web? 1164
A user writes "Some undergraduate and masters level courses at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary require trolling as part of their requirements.
In William Dembski's classes on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics, 20% of the final grades come from having made 10 posts defending Intelligent Design Creationism on 'hostile' websites.
There seems to be no requirement that the posts contain original writing; apparently cut-and-paste jobs are sufficient. Is this the first case of trolling the net being part of course requirements?"
One wonders (Score:5, Funny)
It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:3, Informative)
If you take the act of posting on a message board, especially one as hostile to religion as Slashdot, and consider it less an act of trolling but one of encouraging discussion, then encouraging thoughtful posts creates an opportunity for the student to have his beliefs challenged and subsequently shaped. Only through adversity do people really learn who they are.
Besides, we're talking about Science here, not "Biblical Creationism" as such. The idea that the Earth was created in 6 literal days replete with "
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Funny)
I hope you get a good grade.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Besides, we're talking about Science here
No we're not. We're talking about pure fundementalist Christianity trying to
pose as something that it's not in order to gain "legitimacy" and to allow it
better able to be disruptive and invasive.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue with intelligent design is it isn't science! There is nothing falsifiable about intelligent design, it makes no predictions, it's not useful to anyone outside of spreading dogma, and has no potential to be useful for any other purpose.
There is no research done on intelligent design, you can't design an experiment to prove or disprove it, in a biology classroom you can't teach anything about it outside of saying "there are some holes in evolutionary theory that we can't explain yet, so some people think a magic man in the sky waved his hand to create these things."
The only leg Intelligent Design has to stand on is that proponents pretend there are only two possible explanations for the origin of life, Evolution and Intelligent Design. They claim that if Evolution is in any way false, then Intelligent Design must be true.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the article, you'll see that they don't require "discussion" of any kind:
"provide at least 10 posts defending ID that youâ(TM)ve made on âoehostileâ websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade)."
The only thing this kind of sociopathic requirement causes is hit-and-run troll posts.
Also:
"What ID brings to the table is a new reexamination of facts."
This is wrong. Scientists already reexamine facts constantly. ID does not add anything useful to the discussion, because it postulates a "theory" that can neither be proven nor disproven, and doesn't make any kinds of useful predictions. That's like saying "postulating sock gnomes requires you to reexamine the facts of where you left your socks yesterday." It doesn't.
And finally:
"The other problem with ID is also prevalent in fields such as homeopathy and supernatural research. The attempt to address the issues at hand with a completely open mind leads to bad conclusions."
That, again, is wrong. Scientists are required to have a completely open mind when it comes to everything, even homeopathy. This is precisely why we have useful studies in which scientists tested the claims made by homeopathy and other "alternative" medicine. It's also why we know which of these things work, and which don't.
The ones who don't have an open mind are the people who still believe homeopathy works. Their closed-mindedness makes them unable to accept the evidence.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to assume by your denial of sock gnomes that you are trolling. ;p
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:4, Funny)
Admittedly, I'm sock-gnome-agnostic. Show me the evidence!
You need proof? Where do you think all that belly-button lint comes from? It's what the gnomes turn the socks into!
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Funny)
Leave it in your pockets next time you do the laundry.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not about preaching, this is about setting up an Us vs. Them attitude in the students, to make it easier to accept the irrational. After all, the other side is evil, they wouldn't have been so mean to them if they weren't, they must be wrong...
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
That does seem to be what it is deliberately designed to do.
Going to a message board and having an actual discussion might, indeed, be an interesting thing to do.
But, no, they have to go somewhere 'hostile' and 'make posts'. Not have a discussion on neutral ground, which does, in fact, exist on the internet. they have to show up in a forum where they aren't welcome, and make posts that are going to get nasty responses.
There is no purpose to this except to get nasty responses, and there is no purpose to nasty responses except to make the students feel like they are persecuted, which is a ridiculously common theme in fundamentalist Christianity.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the persecution complex is pretty universal in Christianity, fundamentalist or not. I was brought up a Lutheran, and in the religion lessons in school it was apparently very important to know how cruelly the evil Romans persecuted the early Christians. And later on, the same thing repeats, except it's the evil Catholics persecuting us poor righteous Lutherans.
And come to think of it, it's not only Christianity. Remember that Danish cartoon thing? Lots of people were insanely butthurt by that, resulting in epic lulz.
Bottom line, a persecution complex just seems a very powerful tool to create a us vs. them mentality.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Informative)
More importantly, it creates a "controversy," and then they can teach the controversy [wikipedia.org].
Martyrdom Light (Score:5, Insightful)
...This is not about preaching, this is about setting up an Us vs. Them attitude in the students, to make it easier to accept the irrational. After all, the other side is evil, they wouldn't have been so mean to them if they weren't, they must be wrong...
Exactly!
And we see that illustrated beautifully in the grandparent's post - "If you take the act of posting on a message board, especially one as hostile to religion as Slashdot..."
Slashdot is not intolerant of religion, per se. However, it can be brutally intolerant of badly reasoned arguments, articles of faith presented as proof, and other forms of stupidity. Only the most disingenuous tool would suggest that such a metaphorical "bringing a knife to a gun fight" as cut-and-pasting some lame intelligent design screed into a forum populated by those well-equipped to refute it's every point, is anything other than some form of "Martyrdom Light". Having seen the same pathetic arguments put forth time and again, often verbatim (cut-and-paste counts, remember), the forum regulars can be expected to pounce hard and fast. That's pretty much the definition of trolling, and it has nothing to do with intelligent discourse.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:4, Funny)
> the other side is evil
Which kinda clashes with that Jesus guy's attitude, as i understand the Bible.
Well, then, obviously you're not understanding it right and are going to Hell forever unless you convert to the true Christian church, the church of St. Rambo of the Hardened Bunker. We regularly go out and throw rocks through the windows of heathens, and their willingness to use weapons against us (either directly or by summoning armed police officers) proves to us that they are the evil ones!
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a religious man, but I'm going to play devils advocate here.
Ahh.. the old "Prelude to a Troll". Let's see here...
To say that these religious systems don't make useful predictions is false.
No, it isn't. If it is true, you would have pointed to at least one such prediction. Instead, you rambled on about religious domination.
These systems must be useful, or they would have driven their adherents to extinction many generations ago.
See, just like this. You went from "useful predictions" to "useful", and then (later) on to just "full".
Please present the useful predictions that religion has made, or STFU.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Religions purpose in the past and now was/is to control the populace. We have less need for religion now since most of society has TV and religiously watches it for hours on end.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a religious man but I wouldn't defend religion by saying that religious systems make useful predictions. Nowadays you don't see many burning bushes or calls to build arks. If you do start hearing voices, it's more likely some form of mental illness than the Voice Of God. Similarly, I wouldn't say that Intelligent Design has a place anywhere near a science class unless the Philosophy or Religion classroom happens to be right down the hall.
Yes, religions that say "no one can ever have sex and if you do you must kill any resulting babies" are bound to die off, but that the surviving religions have the "correct social framework." I'm Jewish and adherents of the Jewish faith are far from dominant (conspiracy theories aside). Does that mean that we have the wrong social framework compared to Protestants/Catholics? What about Buddhists, Wiccans or even (*gasp*) Atheists?
The real reason that Christianity is the dominant religion today is that, millennia ago, a Roman emperor converted to Christianity. The might of the Roman empire was then put to task converting "heathens." Christianity itself was even altered at times to better position itself to convert non-Christian groups. For example, Germanic tribes values virginity so suddenly Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and husband Joseph was tossed to the curb. Christianity didn't become the dominant religion because it was the "right" religion, but because it had the backing of a powerful empire and was willing to change itself to grow. I guess, in a way, you can say that Christianity evolved to better survive.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:4, Informative)
I get so tired of the two myths that often come up among discussions about Christian history regarding the "virgin" Mary. Don't get me wrong, Christianity is rife with messed up history and people doing things in the name of Christ that are despicable and wrong but the whole conspiracy that the church "created the Virgin Mary to appease..." reeks of ignorance and WAAAY too much faith in the non-research, clearly-disproved "facts" of overambitious, poorly-skilled novel writers (seriously... does anyone think Dan Brown is a good writer?).
Dislike and take issue with it all you want but the Bible (the currently accepted cannon) has been consistent in its assertion that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. The "Gospel of Luke" and the "Gospel of Matthew" both clearly say it and have both been reliably [wikipedia.org] dated [wikipedia.org] to before 100 AD (check the sources on those articles in wikipedia). 100 AD is FAR before anyone was thinking about converting Germanic tribes or the tribes of South America (the other common myth of when the Virgin Mary was first created). Constantine was emperor of Rome from 324-337 and even skeptics of the pre-100 dating of Luke and Matthew don't date them after that.
Christianity has its flaws and its screwed up followers but to start spouting clearly refuted conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit it does a disservice to those who reasonably object to the accuracy of the Bible or the core beliefs of Christianity as a whole.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:4, Informative)
One problem, you're quoting the English translation of the original Hebrew. What the Hebrew actually says is "the young woman shall conceive". Now, yes this still could be talking about Jesus... except for the being named Immanuel part, but it could also be talking about a lot of other people. In addition, this "sign" makes no mention of being the "son of God" or Messiah or anything of the sort. So this verse is an exaggeration of a mistranslation to support claims of Mary's virgin birth.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14#Judaism_and_the_Hebrew_Bible [wikipedia.org]
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Funny)
Why are clams on top of a mountain? Why, could it be because a bird dropped it there a million years ago...
Depends. Are we talking African or European clams?
"cdesign proponentsists" (Score:3, Insightful)
What ID brings to the table is a new reexamination of facts.
What ID brings is a rebranding of creationism to make it APPEAR similar to science. It's creationism, with less honesty.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
> especially one as hostile to religion as Slashdot
We're not hostile to religion, we're hostile to bullshit.
> ID scientists
There's no such thing, since ID isn't science. Even your buddy Michael Behe admits that in order for ID to be science, Astrology, Alchemy, New Age, Wicca, etc must also be science.
It's funny how you ID'ers can't stop contradicting yourselves:
> ID brushes away the dogma of science and brings the scientific method back to it.
> The attempt to address the issues at hand with a completely open mind leads to bad conclusions.
People like you need to understand that there is no point refuting Evolution. Evolution is the glue that holds Biology together, and without it we wouldn't have: Paleontology, Micro-biology, Medicine, Genetics, among other fields.
Here's a simple thought experiment: If Evolution is false, what created swine flu? The only other possible explanation is that God is a dick, and I don't believe that.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:4, Informative)
A requirement to post with a quota of a certain number of posts, alone, does nothing to promote that. A requirement to post, gather responses, and present a report summarizing and critiquing the response (if the critique were held to rigorous standards) might.
No, we aren't talking about science (much less "Science"), we're talking about Intelligent Design, a pile of pseudoscience wrapped around creationism to give it a skin-deep appearance of science that was invented after the Supreme Court struck down requirements that creationists had won for the teaching of "creation science" (itself, an earlier effort to wrap a veneer of 'science' around creationism) alongside evolution in science classes as a violation of the Establishment clause. And since the same kind of rulings have begun being handed down against ID, one can expect creationists to come up with a new label for the pseudoscience they use to try to use public dollars to advance unscientific miseducation, unless maybe the realize that the whole relabelling approach isn't working and they shift courses entirely.
Uh, no, young earth creationism isn't a myth created by those who accept the theory of evolution as the best scientific model of the phenomena it explains.
ID has nothing in common with the modern scientific method. Repeatedly raising the same questions that there are well-supported answers to, with no evidence to challenge the existing explanations or even acknowledgement of them, isn't the scientific method.
No, it doesn't. What it brings is a lot of deliberately obtuse repeated questioning of things that have already been explored and answered; its adherents are required to (figuratively, at least) stick their fingers in the ears and close their eyes to avoid seeing and hearing the answers that have been around since before "creationism" renamed itself "creation science" to try to mislead and force its non-scientific dogma into science classrooms, and then, when that failed, renamed itself "intelligent design".
Why wouldn't they be expected to be if the dominant scientific models in the relevant fields (including, but not limited to, evolution) were correct?
What is this question even supposed to mean? If you mean, what are the mechanisms of the genetic mutations which produce the phenotypic variations on which natural selection operates, many of those mechanisms are well understood (some so well that they have been adapated for, controlled modifications, creating the whole field of genetic engineering.)
The processes which create the fossil record (which appears to be what you are likely referring to as the "geological and biologic record") are fair
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
>> What ID brings to the table is a new reexamination of facts.
Okay, I'll bite.
>> Why are clam fossils at the top of very young mountains?
Because the "age" of a mountain refers to when the plate material was pushed up, not when the plate material was created. A 10M year old mountain can be made out of 1B year old granite.
>> What is the evolutionary progression of DNA?
I think I speak for the entire board when I say, "huh?"
>> Why are there still discrepancies in the geologic and biologic record where we would expect certain types of data but find none?
Ask a non-specific question, get a non-specific answer. When the IDers complain about "missing data", they usually mean missing links in the fossil record. They often go through great contortions to assert that there is no "intermediate" for a given stage. For example, they'll say "there is no transitional fossil between bird and reptile." When confronted with Archaeopteryx, they'll point to certain features and claim that it's clearly a bird. Or they'll point to other features and claim that it's essentially a reptile.
If an ID'er decides that the form really is an intermediate, he'll simply move the goalposts again and say, "okay, where are the transitional fossils between X and Y, and between Y and Z.
This has zero to do with the scientific method.
>> ID brushes away the dogma of science and brings the scientific method back to it.
ID rejects the scientific method, by posting no testable hypotheses. They simply try to cast aspersions on evolution, in the hopes that if they poke enough holes, evolution will crumble, and "God did it" (an untestable and therefore a-scientific hypothesis) will be the only thing left standing.
To the extent that it forces evolutionary theorists to push forward, ID could be argued to serve a useful purpose. But most of the ID movement involves pushing scientific falsehoods in non-scientific forums, causing people to doubt the basics of science and the honesty of its practitioners without good cause.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:4, Insightful)
But, since that will never happen, you won't ever get a "fair hearing" (WTF, you think science is a court?) in your eyes.
If you had any brains and not just blind dogmatic stupidity, you would review the laws of thermodynamics and understand them before making your claim. "Devices" don't unseat stuff like that, "new theories" do.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any difference between the blind dogmatic stupidity of ID, and the blind dogmatic intelligence of darwinism?
Yes, one is blind and dogmatic, the other is supported by evidence.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Jews exist. And Mithraists do not (they were killed off by the Christians, as it happens). So what exactly is your point? That some groups of people have vanished over the course of the years, wbhile some others have not? And that proves that universe was created... how, exactly?
And what about DNA? Yes, it's complex. So what? Are you saying that something so complex could not happen through evolution? Why not? The odds against it are too great? Well, evolution has been at it on countless planets through billions of years. So even if the odds for complex life appearing on some particular are miniscule, the odds of life taking shape somewhere are pretty damn good. So the fact that complex life exists does NOT prove creator in any shape or form.
"A planet in our solar system supports life complex enough for people to actually debate on the internet whether this post was made by a random chemical reaction reacting obscurely to photons, or a conscious human being."
And there are several planets in our solar system that do not. And there are zillions of planets in the universe where is no life. So how exactly does the existence of life on this particular planet somehow "prove" the existence of a creator?
Like I said, if we look at the universe, we are talking about countless planets. Probability of life forming on some specific planet might be tiny, but when we talk about billions of planets of billions of years, there will be life on some of them.
"Perhaps none of these qualify as "proof", but they are evidence; which is all you asked for."
They are neither proof or evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately a lot of science is dogmatic as well
I could be short and say: No, science is never dogmatic, now f.ck off. I'll be nice though and point to the fact that because a "scientist" says something or holds an opinion it isn's science. Science is a relatively well defined discipline, and it is never dogmatic. Being dogmatic is in fact the exact opposite of science.
Your statement is ridiculous, now go learn what "science" is.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrast that with "Intelligent Design" which offers neither real evidence or theory, nor any opportunity for falsifiability [wikipedia.org]. So as ridiculous as your claimed invention might be, it's still more scientific than ID.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure you understand the fact that scientists have a different meaning for the word 'theory' than average people. In science, a theory is a system of interrelated laws. For example, the theory of evolution encompasses the laws of natural selection and transmission of traits through genetic means. The interaction of these two laws describes how species change and branch into new species.
Another example is the theory of quantum mechanics. It consists of the laws governing the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electricity and magnetism. The interaction of these laws explains and governs the motion of particles at the atomic and subatomic levels. One of the great open problems in physics today is integrating gravity into this framework, so all the fundamental laws can be encompassed by a single theory.
In everyday language, a theory is something that is less certain than a law - something unproven. In science, however, theories are greater than individual laws. Theories are frameworks that show how phenomena in the natural world arise from the interaction of distinct laws. It is this difference between everyday language and scientific language that is responsible for the confusion of many people regarding evolution. Yes, evolution is a theory. So are relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, no one ever charges relativity with being "just a theory", despite the fact that relativity (in many important respects) has less supporting evidence than evolution.
Wait, wait, wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Congratulations, you've earned credit.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, notice that defending their position does not include a knowledge of evolution theory. So it's really a pure trolling.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Both you and the submitter assume that because the course summary doesn't specify the standards by which the posts will be graded, that means there are no standards. Unless you've taken the course, neither of us is in a position to know if that's true - which suggests to me that you are assuming what you want to believe about those who disagree with you.
Considering that this assignment is 20% of the grade, and (in at least one of the courses) is one of only three assignments for the semester (including the final exam), the instructor could impose very rigerous standards when he grades the posts. Whatever standards may or may not exist, detailed assignment instructions would likely be given in the lecture rather than the course summary; so again I can only think of one reason people rush to assume there are none.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked there were no secular biology classes that require students to go find ID websites and defend evolution on them... Unless of course you mean making an ass of yourself spreading pseudoscientific bullshit as one of the tenets of the school's beliefs.
Here is another fun requirement for the class.
Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?
In fact...my outrage is that the school is actively encouraging these shit for brains to go forth and share their idiocy. Writing a paper about this crap is one thing, but actively going out and finding 'hostile' websites to post on is just being a douchebag. You might also carefully consider the fact they use the word 'hostile' to describe those who disagree with them. Now, if you are ok living under fundamentalist religion rule like the Taliban, by all means, just let them continue their push and growth. Palin 2012!
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
What the fuck is that shit? Saying that if you believe in evolution you are for eugenics, abortion and infanticide? Talk about demonizing people to defend your position. What scum write something like that?
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
What scum write something like that?
Religious people.
What do you expect? They can not come up with facts to defend their position, so they have to do what all major religions are about: make shit up.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
The theory of evolution says no such thing. That's a strawman invented by the creationists themselves.
Yes, there is a "social darwinism" piece of bullshit, but it has about as much to do with the real darwinism, as JavaScript has to do with Java. I.e., except for piggy-backing on its name, not much whatsoever.
And, anyway, the real darwinism doesn't actually say "only the strong survive", and it certainly doesn't say "if you are too weak to survive we shouldn't help you."
Social species and social adaptations are in fact cases where a species survives precisely _because_ individual members who are too weak to survive on their own, are helped by other members. Ants or bees are cases where no individual member could survive and reproduce on their own at all. The workers are asexuate, and the queen pretty much can't forrage and feed on its own. The species survives precisely _because_ there is a high degree of cooperation between the individual members.
Heck, even wolves or lions (predators seem to be a favourite of proponents of "might makes right") actually have a group hunting and group survival strategy built in. Wolves couldn't reliably bag the kind of bigger game they normally feed upon, if they didn't act as a group. So, yes, a weaker member which might not survive on his own, nevertheless can survive in a group that cooperates.
Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism are also cases where evolution favours cooperation and specialization. E.g., the male lion is too big and heavy to be a good hunter on his own, while the females aren't as adapted to fight other predators. (That mane is battle armour, for example. A predator going for the male lion's neck will most often just get a mouthful of hair.) A pride survives by the _combination_ of the two specializations. And sometimes they even find more innovative ways to use that dimorphism: e.g., against bigger game, the male lion lies in ambush while the females chase the prey towards him, effectively allowing him to use his greater mass and strength without the handicap of his poorer sprint performance.
Nature and evolution are full of stuff like that. Resemblance to the "if you are too weak to survive we shouldn't help you" canard: zero.
Second, darwinism doesn't judge "fit" as "strong" or anything else. The only criterion that matters is: fit to make more offspring. Period.
For different species that can mean radically different things. For example for rabbits, the criterion isn't strength, it's just being fast and affraid enough to run away fast enough, and making lots of baby rabbits faster than the foxes can eat them.
But even that doesn't even scratch the surface of how many things can mean "the fittest." E.g., being bitter and bright coloured works just fine for ladybugs. (See, aposematism) There is no strength or speed or anything else involved. You just have to be bitter so the first bird that tries to eat you spits you back, and recognizably coloured so it learns not to try again in the future.
For some species, they don't even go the whole way with that. They don't actually have any defense of their own against a predator, but just mimick the colours of a species that does. The "being fitter" there just means the most resemblance to the real aposematic species you're immitating. That's it. That's the whole survival of the fittest in that aspect.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Marketing Students should go on forums and attempt to defend ID. Bonus credit for converting people.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:4, Informative)
The first person mentioned, Margaret Sanger, founded the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood).
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Force feeding ID and Creationism seems a bit extremist to me. Christians like my brother and parents are deeply religious weekly churchgoers and believe in evolution, not ID. My brother is even a Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coultier/Sean Hannity loving hard right Republican (and married to a left leaning liberal wife, which is pretty amusing). I'd have to assume there are many other Christians that share that belief.
The issue at hand is the guy is forcing the students to troll, and to troll with philosophy that isn't shared by all Christians, possibly not even by the students themselves. Even if they do believe it, it is kinda like sending a guy in a blue uniform and police badge and a pistol into a gang house full of people with automatic weapons alone and asking them to surrender without a fight (except without the possibility of literally getting killed... I think).
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Informative)
"Even if they do believe it, it is kinda like sending a guy in a blue uniform and police badge and a pistol into a gang house full of people with automatic weapons alone and asking them to surrender without a fight (except without the possibility of literally getting killed... I think)."
Not so much... It's not that they expect anyone to be won over/surrender. The point of an exercise like this is for the "apologist" to experience repeated abuse and become disassociated to the point where they completely tune out any criticisms of their crazy belief system. That's how a lot of cult-like organizations work. It's quite effective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an outrage!
Actually, it sort of is an outrage. If that school is taking federal money or students are getting government backed student loans to go out and preach religious dogma as some kind of pop science, I do find that a bit outrageous and a little offensive.
If it's all private money and students are paying their own way, that's a little less offensive. Still, it borders on a fusion of religion and politics. They're not spreading their faith, they're spreading some militant concoction of
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
>it contradicts reality.
It also contradicts the omnipotence of God, should he exist.
I have begun asking these questions of certain Fundies: "Who are *you* to tell God what tools he can and cannot use? God created the Universe and everything in it; the quasars, black holes, galaxies, moons, planets, Earth and even the fossils in the ground. If one of God's tools is evolution, then aren't you committing the sin of hubris by saying it's impossible? You know better than God? Who are you to tell me to deny the plainly evident existence of God's tools like physics, emergent behavior, and evolution?"
It also contradicts Genesis itself. In Genesis, God wanted Adam to look around and appreciate His work. These guys say you shouldn't and that Science is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD and you will go to HELL and burn for ETERNITY for doing the same.
Groups like this do not offer enlightenment. They only offer a worldview that is blinkered and niggardly.
--
BMO
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
Judaism holds that the text of the Torah was written by God but that man has exclusive rights to interpreting the text. To give an example of this, there's an old Jewish story about a group of rabbis debating some point of Jewish law. They all referred to the same verse, but had two different interpretations of it. One rabbi, insisting that he was right and the others were wrong, keeps commanding various natural events to happen if he is right. Invariably the events occur, but the other rabbis are unimpressed. Finally, the dissenting rabbi calls for the heavens themselves to affirm that he's right. God declares the dissenting rabbi correct but the group tells God to stay out of this as the Torah is for man and not the heavens. ( See http://jhom.com/topics/lions/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm [jhom.com] for the full story.)
The lesson here is that, by Jewish custom, you can interpret "6 days" as being "6 periods of time totaling somewhere around 14 billion years" and no heavenly voice can boom at you pronouncing you wrong according to Scripture. Of course, I'm guessing that you are Christian and not Jewish, so Your Religious Mileage May Vary.
That shows a serious lack of initiative (Score:4, Funny)
In my independent study class, I search out intelligent design posts and make fun of them.
Sheesh, some people have to be told everything.
Re:That shows a serious lack of initiative (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That shows a serious lack of initiative (Score:5, Funny)
What do you expect from creationists? Rational thought based on your own judgment of presented evidence?
Re:That shows a serious lack of initiative (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That shows a serious lack of initiative (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps not, but you'd be fool (and a hypocrite) to not prepare for the possibility.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By that logic, I should prepare for zombie attacks too, because it's about as likely.
Full disclosure (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as the students fully disclose that they are doing this for a class requirement, this could be a good thing, for the students, for the school, and for anyone participating in the resulting discussion.
It can be a good thing for students, to expose them to real-world reactions - both civil and less than civil - to their posts. It can train them to make their posts in non-trollish manner. It may also expose them to ideas they would not have otherwise considered.
It can be good for the school and professor when the school gets feedback from others involved in the discussions and from websites.
It can be good for those participating and reading the discussions because THEY may be exposed to ideas they would not otherwise consider.
It's one thing to have an idea, study opposing ideas, then confirm your belief in your original idea. It's another to blindly accept an idea and refuse to think about or even expose yourself to other ideas. Such willful blindness is bad for individuals and, on a larger scale, bad for society.
Re:Full disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
I, personally, don't see why the students should have to disclose anything. Their opinions are valid (even if their evidence is... er... patchy), and I don't see how knowing who inspired their comments would do anything but open them up for cheap ad hominem shots.
If they're really so wrong, we should be able to demonstrate it without such disclosures.
Re:Full disclosure (Score:4, Insightful)
Somebody moderate the parent insightful... he's absolutely correct. It doesn't really matter if they're posting on the 'net because they have to for class requirements, and all it really does is open them up to attacks on the fact that they're still students, or attacks on their school.
It's up to the person themselves whether they're going to listen to opposing viewpoints. To a large extent that's dependant on their upbringing and their education. If the school isn't teaching them to listen to what their opponents are saying so that they can understand where they're coming from, then no amount of disclosure is going to improve things for anybody. The problem really comes when people decide that listening to what the opposition says is lending credence to their argument, when the reality is simple: I don't have to agree with what you're saying, but you have a right to say it, and I will show you the same courtesy that I'd expect when I'm expressing my opinions.
It doesn't really matter if you don't convince the ID people that they're wrong. Strictly speaking, we can't actually know whether they're wrong or not, that's why it's a non-theory. But it could still be correct. I don't have to believe it to recognize that as a possibility. But there's far too many people, on both sides of the argument, who refuse to accept even the remotest possiblity that the other side might be right, and that their beliefs might be wrong. When that happens, it stops being about expanding our knowledge, and starts being about dogma and fanatical devotion. And quite frankly, the atheists are just as guilty as the ID people.
Going off on a rant, but I think the problem lies in the education system. No, I don't think you should be teaching religion in schools. Actually, I don't think you should be teaching "knowledge" at all in schools, for the first bit. Teach basic maths and literacy, because you need them to function in contemporary society, but leave history, geography, and such out of it at first. Teach the kids how to think critically, and how to examine every viewpoint they're presented with so that they're capable of producing the truth on their own. Then, and only then, should you present them with the facts and historical details, as such materials are *always* written with a bias.
Re:Full disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
Their opinions are valid (even if their evidence is... er... patchy)
An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion.
They may have a right to their opinion, as idiotic as those may be, but that doesn't make them valid.
Re:Full disclosure (Score:4, Insightful)
Wishful thinking.
Those of us who have experienced a liberal education know that while professors may have their own preconceived notions, in general, they'll give favorable marks to a well argued contrary position. In fact, these professors are better often positioned to recognize (and reward) a well reasoned critique than even those who hold the contrary positions.
Contrast that to some of the final exam questions for this "teacher's" course:
Shorter: "Please pander to me by knocking down the straw man I've just set up."
This is not education. This is indoctrination. Critical thought, self examination, and probing questions are not welcome. The goal of the trolling requirement is akin to hammering an online poll so that it seems like your view point is more prevalent than it really is.
For the record, I am not of the opinion that a scientific mindset is incompatible with a belief in god.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>It can be a good thing for students, to expose them to real-world reactions - both civil and less than civil - to their posts. It can train them to make their posts in non-trollish manner. It may also expose them to ideas they would not have otherwise considered.
If they get civil responses, I'd be shocked.
Even when I posted a way of reformulating ID so that it is a scientificly formulated and testable hypothesis, people still flamed the shit out of me, even though at some point in the near future we
Re:Full disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to be less about ID and more about not getting civil responses. The professors don't give two shits about convincing anybody in the forums of anything.
Getting the students to do this, takes a retarded worldview and forces them to plop it down where it really wasn't invited with the inevitable hostile responses.
Which in turn, indoctrinates or say... brainwashes the students into viewing the outside, thinking world as a hostile place to their kind.
And, thus insures the students stick to their kind and stop looking at the outside world (especially the Internet) as a place to get good information.
This is simply brainwashing. A clever way to do it granted, but that doesn't change the affect on the student. They still come out suspicious and feeling attacked by the internet and non-whack people, the effect desired by the school administrators.
I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally a respectable title (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trolling, I'm _evangilizing_ . Time to wreck my karma with a mess of '-1 Evangilist' mods.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Seminaries are different (Score:3, Interesting)
Many if not most seminaries won't grant you don't actually believe what they are teaching. After all, most seminary graduate go off to become preachers and other religious teachers.
Undergraduate school is ideally designed to teach you to think.
Many/most/maybe all seminaries are designed to filter in those who think like the school wants them to and give them the education necessary to propagate their beliefs to others.
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We could all benefit from arguing from the opponent's perspective once in a while anyway - it helps widen one's views.
DOES NOT!!!
Hey, you're right, I feel smarter already...
undergraduate and masters level courses ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nut jobs are nut jobs, troll should be no surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, if you go to a nut job school, trying to learn how to be a real nut job, the fact that they have to turn you into a troll first should come as no surprise.
Superstitious idiots are going to be around as long as there are cockroaches. Those of us with brains will just have to learn how to live with it.
RAID doesn't even work all that well.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
RAID doesn't even work all that well.
Works for me ;) Every time a disk fails I replace it and all is good. Haven't needed to load my backup tapes yet.
Superstitious idiots are going to be around as long as there are cockroaches.
Um, no. Cockroaches will become extinct at some point (possibly evolving into a new more intelligent species) and superstitious idiots will still be around. Hopefully our new cockroach-based friends are more interesting to talk to.
Science lessons must tackle Easter Bunny (Score:5, Funny)
The Easter Bunny should be discussed in school science lessons rather than dismissed, says the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
"If pupils have strongly-held family beliefs about the Easter Bunny, such ideas should be explored," said Prof William Dembski (D.D, Ph. D. [P.T. Barnum University mail-order]). "Easterbunnyism, Santaclausism or the contemporary militant Tooth Fairy jihadist movement are best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. This is more valuable than simply banging on about 'reality.' Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in Wall Street or in government."
Simon Underdown of Oxford Brookes University disagreed. "With so much to be crammed into science lessons, it is not a worthwhile use of time to include lessons on Easterbunnyism. We have monthly standardised testing to coach pupils on."
Professor Richard Dawkins [today.com] is working on a childrenâ(TM)s text on useful ways to quickly construct street-corner gallows and burning stakes for rehabilitation of the religious.
Copy-and-paste is okay... scary. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seminarys are strange animals (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I'm an ordained minister with a Masters of Divinity (Seminary) and a Ph.D. in New Testament (Public University).
You need to remember that seminarys are strange animals academically. The degree of academic freedom runs the gamete from little (fundamentalist schools) to a great deal (liberal seminaries). However, in almost all there is at least a set of shared convictions that are held by all, or almost all, students and faculty. Even at the most liberal, it's sort of assumed that you at least believe in God, or why are you there? Seminaries are professional schools for training pastors, not academic institutions.
SBTS is part of the "new" SBC, and so is basically fundamentalist in outlook, and virtually all students and faculty will be fundamentalist in outlook. If they weren't, they would have gone somewhere else. It's not unreasonable to assume that most students are going to hold to an ID or Creationist point of view.
Moreover, this course is almost certainly an elective, so no student is required to take it. Even then, speaking as someone who is basically Anabaptist theologically who went to a school where none of the professors were Anabaptist, all my professors were quite flexible. They had no problem with me writing from what one called my "peculiar viewpoint" so long as I did so respectfully and rigorously. I imagine a student that really had a problem for this requirement would be able to get out of it.
Last, Bill Dembski is a smart guy (I've met him), although I don't always agree with him. I rather doubt he would give full credit for "CREATI0N1SM R0X, SUX0RZ!"
Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing to do with theology. The examples quoted make it clear that this is a political issue. One of the most depressing things for people like me, who went to a small university in the English fens before deciding that engineering was more interesting and of more benefit to the human race, is that US fundamentalists completely confuse politics and religion. The madness is spreading to the Anglican Church in the UK, where Nigerian politics is now more important than good relations with the Episcopalians.
US fundamentalism takes the form of assigning religious worth to capitalism - if God loves you, you will be materially rich - and also aligns itself with backward notions about Creationism and ID which are more about trying to prove liberals "wrong" than spreading light. The simple fact is that it requires really determined blinkers to believe either that Bible literalism has very deep roots (certainly St. Augustine would have wondered what these people were on about) or that the enormous body of information about geology and biology built up in the last 200 years admits of a fundamentalist interpretation.
To be blunt, if these seminaries were doing their jobs they would be teaching pastoral care, teaching how the New Testament (rather than some cherry picked collection of political positions) can be made relevant today, and preparing their students to heal wounds in society and reduce polarisation between social groups. Instead, they appear to be giving course credits for less violent versions of the activities that give the Taliban a bad name.
You say that seminaries are schools for training pastors, and I agree they should be. But we should then not defend "seminaries" that are training schools for bigoted ideologues who will seek to stir up division in society and spread ignorance. If this man Dembski cannot see why he is wrong on this, he needs to be hit on the head with the Sermon on the Mount till he gets a clue.
Re:Um... (Score:4, Informative)
Diagnosing my ability (or lack thereof) in New Testament Greek from misspelling an English word is a bit silly, but whatever... for what it's worth, I got nailed by the spell checker. *sigh*
Realistically, neither your nor I get to tell fundamentalists what an appropriate way of training pastors is. I left the Southern Baptist Convention in disgust many years ago for much the reasons you cite and now call myself a "Virginia Baptist" when I have to identify what flavor of Baptist I am. However, the ATS (Association of Theological Schools), which accredits seminaries of ALL kinds, including Jewish, Muslim, and I even think there's a Baha'i seminary now, is of necessity an inclusive body. They can't judge the theological merits of a particular denomination when accrediting a seminary--only the degree to which the training offered is effective towards training someone within those imperatives. That you think the defense of Intelligent Design is foolish is frankly utterly irrelevant, because they don't, and it's their opinion that counts.
Whoa, that site reads like a Scientology manual (Score:5, Insightful)
I was ready to give it the benefit of the doubt - after all, religion without ministry is just jerking off your soul - until I read this gem:
Jeepers, you might as well just write "I spent a full 24 hours giving myself paper cuts with the book while chanting the Lord's Prayer, so I felt I'd leveled up and skipped actually writing the 'reflection.'"
And they keep saying the word "critical review". I do not think that means what they think it means. I think they'd find any actual "critical" writing to be... Suppressive [xenu-directory.net].
Soon to be known... (Score:3, Funny)
Better than it used to be (Score:4, Funny)
Back in the day, you could get a knighthood for attempting to sack Jerusalem in the name of Christianity -- presumably including killing people. If we're down to online trolling, that's a good thing.
We're as primitive as we've ever been (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the day, you could get a knighthood for attempting to sack Jerusalem in the name of Christianity -- presumably including killing people. If we're down to online trolling, that's a good thing.
Alas, we're not just down to trolling (and that's been going on, in one form or another, since the Inquisition, probably earlier). Killing people over petty religious differences about what the fairy in the sky wants us to do, or how we're supposed to abase ourselves before him, or mistreat our wives and daught
What's the change? (Score:3, Interesting)
Happy shiny people come by my house to troll in person from time to time. I find that WAY more annoying than trolling on websites such as this where we all can have a good laugh at them. When they ring my doorbell (despite a no soliciting sign in the neighborhood), I now have to deal with my dogs and stopping what I'm doing. Trolling on one of these boards doesn't interrupt my morning breakfast or a good wank etc. So to me, if this replaces the door to door brainwashing service it's a good thing (TM).
Sheldon
Re:What's the change? (Score:4, Funny)
Trolling on one of these boards doesn't interrupt my morning breakfast or a good wank etc.
Next time you should just keep on doing what you're doing and invite them in. I guess the breakfast might not scare them off, but I bet the wanking would.
Apologetics (Score:5, Interesting)
someone post this to /b/ (Score:4, Interesting)
...and that'll blow the uni off the net for a while, i think :)
Flameproof suit on! (Score:3, Insightful)
I may be the first (and only) poster to defend the professor in the article, but here goes.
It is a course at a Baptist Seminary in Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics. From Wikipedia:
These people are studying to be ministers in a religion. One of their roles is to defend their faith and its tenets. Given the position of the Internet in the world today, how could anyone say they are qualified to do that without having done work on the internet? And, since the focus is on defense of those tenets, the best place to practice that is on hostile websites. So I believe the assignment is appropriate to the course aims.
Note that I am not a Baptist (RC here), I think ID (except as a philosophical experiment) is creationism in disguise, and trolls irritate me too. But lets face it - who here hasn't trolled in order to tweak someone or start a flamewar? Hell, the folks on Slashdot practically invented some forms of trolling (Goatse, anyone?).
So, instead of excoriating the professor, we should invite his students onto here and "help" them with their studies.
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to point out that "RichardDawkins.net" is definitely presenting one side of this story, and anyone who takes a brief look at the site can tell which side that is. This is a philosophy course they're referencing and if you look at the tests you'll notice that the questions are just like any philosophy course. They ask you to explain/argue both sides of an issue (one of the test questions even says argue against ID).
Speaking as a student, this is actually a brilliant form of instruction. What better way to make you understand and can use the material you've been taught then to have you defend it against people who will purposely be attacking it vehemently. This course is titled Intelligent Design so I would expect students to learn enough about it to defend it on some level. Why take the course if you're not going to learn the reasoning behind the subject matter.
Also, to everyone who has said that students shouldn't be given an assignment that makes them present/defend a viewpoint outside of their own. Try taking an english class sometime with a christian viewpoint. The stuff they require you to read and write about definitely does NOT fall within my viewpoint most of the time.
Richard Dawkins must have lots of credits... (Score:4, Informative)
His attacks on Intelligent design serve as a front for him to attack religion as a whole. He spreads the myth that religion and evolution can't be compatible (why exactly could it not be argued that god designed life with the capability to mutate?) to attack religion whilst using "I'm just debating the science" defence when called on it.
His hard line approach makes Atheists as a whole look like intolerant arses and I don't want to be associated with it. Even science, even though it is evidence based, does rely on a certain amount of faith (that earlier theories are correct, that scientists in fields you're not familiar with are correct). Yes science changes over time but so does religion. There are plenty of laws based on questionable religious principles but there are equally plenty of laws based on questionable science.
But if I get modded -1 Redundant... (Score:3, Funny)
... I suppose it's a D- and a career at Burger King...
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
You know, when you make assumptions like that without actually checking the facts, you're not helping.
From their site: [swbts.edu]
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, GA 30033, Telephone: 404-679-4500) to award bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees.
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools [wikipedia.org] is a regional accreditation agency recognized by the DOE.
We might not like the fact that they are accredited (and they're aren't lying either, I looked it up), but that doesn't make it not true.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do not mistake the unaccredited bible school "Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary" for a "College" please.
Look, they were right next to each other. Anyone could make that mistake.
Re:Intelligent Design Creationism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, no.
Creationism = "god did it."
Intelligent Design = "Something Big (possibly called God) did it."
I have a really, really tough time understanding how these are rather distinct. Even those who first promoted intelligent design see them as the same thing, only removing God from Intelligent design, since that was the major reason why creationism couldn't be taught in schools.
Anyways, Neither creationism or ID have anything to do with young earthers (or at least are only tangentially related). Young Earthers took all the dates/ages in the bible, added them up, and came to 6,000 years, so therefore, the earth must only be 6,000 years old.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither creationism or ID have anything to do with young earthers
Creationists divide in Young Earth and Old Earth camps, depending on how literal they are about genesis.
An ID'er *could also* believe in evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
I've tried to spend some time examing the scientific evidence for the age of the universe and the evidence for evolution. I've come to the conclusion that the Universe most likely is Billions of years old, because there are just too many things that can't reasonably be explained simply by the idea that God created the Universe 6 or 10 thousand years ago (if he did, why bother making the universe have bizarre things that otherwise would indicate a very old universe).
However, looking at the amazing complexities of life, I still feel that given the long odds, the 'completely random permutation moderated by natural selection' isn't wholly sufficient to explain all life either. So, I fall into the camp of those who believe in God, believe that he had a plan when creating the Universe to cause life to arise on Earth (and possibly elsewhere; the Bible neither excludes the possibility, nor indicates it positively, and science has yet to find evidence of life elsewhere, but allows and renders it likely).
I believe he used a mechanism of evolution in 'creating' life on earth, but I think it's also possible that he fine-tuned the Universe to overcome the 'long odds' that would otherwise be against the random generation of life and rise of very complex organisms. That's not to say he was constantly intervening in evolution. If God is all knowing and all powerful, then it's perfectly plausible that he fine tuned everything from the start of the big bang such that from that point on, everything would happen that was necessary for life to arise somewhere in the Universe.
Am I an IDer? Am I a creationist? Am I an evolutionist? I'd say I'm not really a creationist, and most of the creationists would say I'm not, I suspect. Am I an IDer? My views, I think, would loosely fall into the ID camp because it is much less stringent about the 'how' and 'when' of the way that Intelligent Design was worked out (although, probably most IDers believe in a much more 'active' intervention in the design of life than I do). I do basically believe that evolution is correct, though I view it as less random than pure evolutionary theory suggests.
I think your statement that ID == Creationism (in disguise) is ignorant of the facts of the differing views of people.
However, all that said, I don't think ID should be taught in *science* class. It's not a matter of science, and I have no problem admitting that. I think it would be appropriate for it to be part of a philosophy and religion class, because that's more of what it is. I think it's appropriate for schools, both public and private, to have classes that educate students about the most commonly believed religions and philosophies (such classes, particularly in public schools, should be held from, as much as possible, a neutral perpective - anthropology rather than catechism - learning *what* people believe, rather than trying to convince students to believe one thing or another). People shouldn't graduate from high school without knowing anything at all about Judeaism, Chrisitianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Universalism, Atheistic Humanism, Existentialism, etc).
Re:An ID'er *could also* believe in evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say that you are a thinking person who uses faith to fill in the knowledge gaps in the scientific view of the world.
There is a lot of knowledge about specific ways of evolving (eg, point mutations, trans-locations, recombination, etc.) that explain how genetic diversity can be created, and there is widespread evidence of how the process of natural selection sorts through this genetic diversity. At the same time, no scientist worth their salt would claim that the full picture of step-by-step evolution from simple organic molecules into Cindy Lauper is fully understood. The fossil record incomplete and will always be incomplete.
So, we hit a question of faith and logic. In light of the scientific evidence, it is a reasonable extrapolation to believe in the mechanism of evolution and to believe that this is the way by which life changes.
Currently, though, science has nothing very satisfying to say about why, in a random world, some things happen and some things don't. Yes, we can describe very well the probabilities of this and that, etc., and if I flip a fair coin 100 times, you expect that I will get about 50 heads and about 50 tails. At the same time, we can't say why I get a sequence of four heads followed by 3 tails and two heads. Yes, we can make statements about subtle air currents, minor differences in flipping forces, etc. but as the systems get more complex and the sizes get smaller and smaller, we eventually hit molecular events which behave truly randomly.
Now, for a truly random system (like is the case for many the molecular interactions that make up life), you can choose to believe that God or some such force is driving the specifics of these random events, which is fine, especially if you recognize that this is a religious belief and not a scientific one.
It sounds like you realize this distinction.
The trouble with ID, is that when confronted with any hole in the evolutionary theory, they immediately jump to the conclusion of a God, which is absurd and is much different from using faith to explain things that are (currently?) outside of the scientific understanding of the universe.
Wolf in sheeps' clothing (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "Intelligent Design Creationism" seems to me a little unhelpful.
Intelligent design and (young earth) creationism are in general rather distinct, although the rather large differences are sometimes blurred both by proponents trying to gather support and by opponents who want to simply ridicule both groups instead of trying to reason with them.
No. Creationists who disguise themselves as scientists call themselves "intelligent design proponents", IDers are just dishonest creationists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22 [wikipedia.org]
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhm, no.
ID is a form of creationism. It's pure and simple.
Young Earth Creationism is just another form.
It's called a synecdoche (Score:3, Informative)
Synecdoche [wikipedia.org]: a term denoting a specific class of thing is used to refer to a larger, more general class
Re:They don't require trolling (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. That the author of this article suggests that trolling is required makes the article poster a troll. How ironic.
The directive is to make ID arguments in, quote, hostile websites. They are to look for forums where they know ID is not going to be kindly received and they must defend it in the face of the likely shitstorm of responses. What do we call someone who posts something in a bbs/forum/website that is certain to generate controversy? Oh yea, we call it "trolling". The author of this article was 100% spot-on.
Re:They don't require trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
The directive is to make ID arguments in, quote, hostile websites.
Why don't they do something easier, like question President Obama's economic policies or the wisdom of a Governmental takeover of the health care system on a site like Daily Kos? At least then you'd be arguing a position in a hostile environment that may have merit -- there isn't much merit to ID and arguing it is the rough equivalent of the 9/11 truthers or the whackjobs that think Obama isn't a native born American citizen.
Re:Troll, n. - Someone who disagrees with me (Score:5, Informative)