Discovery Institute’s Blog Will Allow Comments

There’s something new to be seen if you visit the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

They’ve given their blog a face-lift. It’s rather attractive — especially compared to their previous lavender-and-salmon layout. Was the old background color salmon? Or was it taupe? Maybe mauve? The Discoveroid fellows would know.

But mere appearance is not why we’re bothering to post about this. Their blog article announcing the new look, Explore the New Features at Evolution News & Views, also informs us, with bold font in the original:

[C]omments 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.

That’s interesting. Why did they change their policy? For all their endless propaganda about academic freedom and fairness and teaching “both sides,” they’ve never let the science side post at their site. The only thing we can figure out is that they’re hoping for comments that will fit their “Darwinist” stereotype — rude, profane, blasphemous, illogical, etc. Keep that in mind if you decide to play their game.

It has always been your Curmudgeon’s policy to avoid debates with creationists (which we’ve explained here: Debating Creationists is Dumber Than Creationism), so we won’t be taking advantage of the Discoveroids’ new policy.

This could be the biggest news in the world of creationism since Abbie Smith flipped a bird at Casey Luskin — see Hey Casey!

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “Discovery Institute’s Blog Will Allow Comments

  1. Gabriel Hanna

    I only ever had one post deleted from Klinghoffer’s blog at beliefnet–I don’t know if he had to answer to anyone about what he deleted by he did it himself. We’ll see how it turns out.

  2. It will be interesting to see which postings they open up for comment. I’m also suspicious that they will enter comments themselves to create an appearance of support from scientists…any comment from someone who says they work at a university and can’t reveal their identity would be highly suspect, for example.

    These guys are so dishonest, that it’s difficult not to be very skeptical of their motives.

  3. Ed says:

    I’m also suspicious that they will enter comments themselves to create an appearance of support from scientists …

    You’d be suspicious of a comment like this?

    Dear Casey: You are brilliant! I am a research scientist with five advanced degrees in Darwinism, and although I’m afraid to speak out publicly I agree with you completely. Keep up the good work!
    /signed/ Dr.Jekyll N. Hyde, PhD.

  4. I got banned at Dembski’s blog for pointing out, with an example, that natural selection is not a random process. The only reply I got was “we don’t tolerate troublemakers around here. You are gone.”

    By uncivil remarks the Disco Tute means any comment they don’t agree with. Their definition of “ad hominem” attack is when you point out they are flat wrong. However, it will be fun to watch the wankfest in the echo chamber.

  5. Doc Bill says:

    I got banned at Dembski’s blog for pointing out, with an example, that natural selection is not a random process.

    I can’t criticize a blogger for banning people, because I do a lot of it too. But I think my reasons are better than those of creationist bloggers who ban because they don’t want their nonsense exposed as being nonsensical. However, I’ve seen creationists get banned from here and other places and then brag about it, claiming the “Darwinists” couldn’t handle the truth. It’s just another facet of The Controversy.

  6. All comments are held for moderation.

    That already makes it highly unattractive to me. I have generally avoided Uncommon Descent for that reason first of all, and then the obvious fact that their “troublemakers” all who disagree with them.

    Justice delayed is justice denied. Same for comments? Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but clearly UD has made use of their “held for moderation” of anyone who had science on their side, while allowing supportive gibberish to get through immediately.

    Only if they hold for moderation only a a few minutes, normally fewer than 10, would I consider commenting there more than exceedingly rarely–if at all.

  7. SC: “The only thing we can figure out is that they’re hoping for comments that will fit their ‘Darwinist’ stereotype — rude, profane, blasphemous, illogical, etc. Keep that in mind if you decide to play their game.”

    Heck, even the polite ones who take their bait with “ID is too creationism” or “you’re sneaking in God (or Genesis),” or simply lets them keep the focus on “weaknesses” of “Darwinism” will be a gold mine for them. OTOH, if everyone remains polite, refuses to take the bait, and asks lots of questions about their “theory,” particularly the “what happened when” questions that they hate to answer, I can almost guarantee that comments will again be disabled.

  8. SC: “However, I’ve seen creationists get banned from here and other places and then brag about it, claiming the “Darwinists” couldn’t handle the truth.”

    Let’s see who is really unable to handle the truth. I have invited several of them to Talk.Origins where they can “debate” all they want, yet not one has shown up.

  9. foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

    foul language = any statement of support for science
    ad hominem attack = anyone who requests evidence of assertions
    uncivil = any question of the assertions of DI supporters
    threats = any post not by a creobot

  10. OgreMkV says: “ad hominem attack = anyone who requests evidence of assertions”

    Oh, so that’s what it means. I thought it was like saying someone’s scientific theory is an excuse for licentiousness, and is responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Columbine shootings, and Charles Manson.

  11. And these are the folks screaming “academic freedom”?

    Whatev.

  12. Benjamin Franklin

    I would just like, at this time, to personally thank our gracious curmudgeonly host for not banning me.

    That said, I highly doubt if any of the “selected” articles will be written by Casey Lustkin.

    Dammit! Foul, uncivil, and threatening yet again! I am accursed.

  13. Beware, Benjamin Franklin. Flattery won’t save you. But it might go a long way if you try to comment on the Discoveroids’ blog.

  14. Benjamin Franklin

    Flattery won’t save you. But it might go a long way if you try to comment on the Discoveroids’ blog.

    I sincerely doubt that any attempt I made on that blog towards flattery would scarcely conceal my flatulence.

  15. They won’t let him comment because of his Big Pimpin’ get up.