Do any other TEs poke their heads in at Creationism ...

[shernren]

... once in a while to see what the creationists are up to?

Because I do nowadays.

It's pretty interesting that the spat we had over closing forums to participants of opposite convictions actually made me more interested, not less, in what goes on over at Creationist. Before this I was like oh, creationists talking to each other. Ho hum. Enough happening in OT to keep me busy.

But then the whole argument about TEs encroaching in their area broke out and when I looked at the things they were saying I could see that they felt isolated and bullied even in their own subforum - even though TE participation there was really quite minimal, and limited to threads that were anyway controversial and could have used input from both sides. I hadn't been in Creationist for a while, so my first peek in was interesting.

And now I suppose the status quo is that we're simply not allowed to post at all there, though we're still awaiting an official decision about it. Now I don't know about you, but that makes me all the more curious. If you want me to poke my nose into something, put up a big "NO ENTRY" sign over the desired orifice.

So yes. I eavesdrop on Creationist a lot more now. Recently I've been bringing up some quotes from there to OT.

It's also interesting to see how the general tenor of the conversation has not changed much there. Even though the TEs have been booted out, a lot of their conversations and posts still revolve around "those useless all-but-heretics, nothing we say ever makes them see the error of their ways" - the relative peace and quiet there hasn't done anything to boost the quality or content of their discussions. Mark in particular keeps crowing about how nobody can land a punch on him; I personally think it's as silly as someone showing up at the Wimbledon in boxing attire and wondering why everyone thinks Maria Sharapova is so good when she can't aim the ball well enough to hit him even once. And then in the same breath saying he's bored of the whole thing! Not all of their conversations descend to that level, of course. But it is still sad.

I do hope that the TE subforum will see some use for thrashing out ideas between TEs and for strong technical discussion, as well as getting to know each other better. I'd like to be able to gloat in having our subforum be far more interesting and informative than theirs.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I haven't been in Origins and a long time so I stuck my head in over there to try and fellowship. I didn't realize this forum had degenerated so badly that fences had to be put up.

 

[Mallon]

I haven't been in Origins and a long time so I stuck my head in over there to try and fellowship. I didn't realize this forum had degenerated so badly that fences had to be put up.

Yeah... they're quite sensitive about being corrected or contradicted over there. We had a vote here, though, and opted unanimously to keep this subforum open to non-TEs. You can't evangelize by putting up walls!

 

[Digit]

Yeah... they're quite sensitive about being corrected or contradicted over there. We had a vote here, though, and opted unanimously to keep this subforum open to non-TEs. You can't evangelize by putting up walls!

Wait what? Non-Creationists can't post in the Creationism forum? Can I post here?

Digit

 

[Dust and Ashes]

http://www.christianforums.com/t544...only-creationists-may-post-in-this-forum.html

 

[shernren]

Wait what? Non-Creationists can't post in the Creationism forum? Can I post here?

Digit

You are certainly welcome to post here. No boundaries, except of course that this is a subforum of the Christian-only section, but then again that's not really a concern for you. Other than that, there is no form of censorship that will not over time and repeated testing harden into a "just don't come here at all" wall.

 

[Digit]

Right, well thank you for that. Why however, is there a rule of no TE's posting in the Creationism forum? I'm confused, I rarely if ever visit this part of CF and today has been my one main foray into it (it was a slow work day, so no more) so I've obviously missed something...

Digit

 

[shernren]

It's mainly due to a bad history of how TEs interact with people in the Creationism subforum. Mind you, the following is my reconstruction of events; for more info you will have to ask those who remember why the Creationism subforum was created (hehe) in the first place, and be aware that others' viewpoints will be very much counter to mine.

What I understand was that Creationism was created as a safe haven for creationists by request after a particularly hurtful tussle in OT. The TE subforum was created more for the sake of balance than by request. As such, the prevalent culture in Creationism has been that it is more of a place for creationists to talk amongst themselves. There was a provision for TEs to participate in some limited capacity: they were allowed to make "fellowship posts". Whatever those are.

It turned out over time that each individual would interpret "fellowship posts" very differently. On one extreme, someone could say "As long as I don't call the other person a heretic, I'm still in fellowship with the person, and so it's a fellowship post no matter how much I say the other person is wrong." On one extreme, a creationist might say "It's not a fellowship post if it criticizes me in any way." None of these are actual positions, but they give you an idea of the kind of mess that could happen. Every once in a while a TE would follow the wrong link and end up in Creationism not realizing it. More often, though, creationists would post something in there, and then an evolutionist would feel that it was factually incorrect and post a notice of factual correction. "I'm not saying all creationism is wrong, I'm just saying that when forumer X said Y, it was wrong because of Z."

Is such a post a fellowship post? I don't know. Depends on the person on the receiving end of the "fellowship", I guess. In the end, the issue got so blown up (partly my doing, as you can guess ) that a temporary clampdown was tried on both subforums, and the creationists liked their subforum clamped down so much that they voted to make it permanent.

And that's how we got to where we are today.

 

[theIdi0t]

What I understand was that Creationism was created as a safe haven for creationists by request after a particularly hurtful tussle in OT.

Is there any links to this tussle? I'm curious to read where it all began.

 

[Mallon]

There was a provision for TEs to participate in some limited capacity: they were allowed to make "fellowship posts". Whatever those are.

Fellowship post = post containing lots of "I agree!"s and s.

 

[gluadys]

Is there any links to this tussle? I'm curious to read where it all began.

If the search engine on CF were better, perhaps it could be found. I know I was the culprit.

It was one of my first posts in OT nearly three years ago (and the list of my "own" posts only goes back to early 2007). I don't remember the title of the thread, so that is no help in finding it.

What I do remember is that there was a discussion about Noah's ark possibly in relation to how many species it could carry and how they could all be fed and cared for on the ark.

It was all very detailed and serious but struck me as absolutely ludicrous.

So I posted a single question.

Why not interpret the flood story for what it is? An ancient myth.

The immediate response from one of the other participants was that they didn't post in Origins Theology to be "blindsided" by non-Christian perspectives. They expected everyone in Origins Theology to take the "Christian" (i.e. creationist) point of view.

When it was pointed out that many Christians agree that the biblical story is a myth, the request was made for a sub-forum where creationists could expect all participants to accept the creationist, not the TE perspective.

As shernren noted, it was originally intended that fellowship posts be allowed in the two sub-fora, but that hasn't worked out well in the creationist sub-forum.

 

[theIdi0t]

So I posted a single question.

Ah, I was wondering who the culprit was!

Why not interpret the flood story for what it is? An ancient myth.

The immediate response from one of the other participants was that they didn't post in Origins Theology to be "blindsided" by non-Christian perspectives. They expected everyone in Origins Theology to take the "Christian" (i.e. creationist) point of view.

It seems like the TEs take quite a beating as well in these forums, and more so in the more vocal Christian squares. They are perceived as the Judases, who have sold out to science.

But yet we seem welcoming to the attacks, if the YEC strikes us on our right cheek, we turn to him the other also. We even open up our subforum here to such attacks.

I wonder why that is?

And yet, for the YECs, they need a spot of exclusion.

I wonder why we are more welcoming of them here, than they are of us. It doesn't seem that we treat their worldview any worse, than they treat ours?

 

[shernren]

It seems like the TEs take quite a beating as well in these forums, and more so in the more vocal Christian squares. They are perceived as the Judases, who have sold out to science.

But yet we seem welcoming to the attacks, if the YEC strikes us on our right cheek, we turn to him the other also. We even open up our subforum here to such attacks.

I wonder why that is?

And yet, for the YECs, they need a spot of exclusion.

I wonder why we are more welcoming of them here, than they are of us. It doesn't seem that we treat their worldview any worse, than they treat ours?

Don't be too harsh on the YECs. You have to remember that from their point of view, evolution is the work of the devil and the single cause why atheism and amorality are so prevalent in the world today. To them, evolution in the classroom directly leads to apostasy and wickedness in the universities. "Where will it stop?" To them, no matter our integrity or the strength of our beliefs, we are all to some extent doing the work of the devil for him.

If you put yourself in their shoes for half a minute you would understand why they want a safe haven, a cozy room where they can retreat to and not smell the brimstone for once.

As for being welcoming, I don't think anybody has posted any major attacks of TE here so far, so that it's not really a matter of openly welcoming attacks. For me personally it's more a matter of principle: from my experience in looking at the Creationist subforum, it's apparent (as I said earlier) that there is no form of censorship that will not harden into an outright ban over time and over such a contentious topic. Suppose we tried to implement a rule in which only "fellowship posts" from the other side would be allowed. Then what would a fellowship post really be? It is determined by intent, and it is not easy for me to discern what anybody's intent really is. Or we could implement a rule in which any post that is critical of TE (content contrary to TE, regardless of intent) would not be allowed. But if our views were wrong, the only way to know that would be to post something contrary to our views, which would then by ruling be forbidden.

In the end, I think the best way to make this sub-forum a productive place is by culture and the quality of posts we make here.

 

[Melethiel]

For the interested, I was able to dig this up.

 

[Markus6]

Yes I do poke my head in at creationism.

What really bugs me is how often they talk about us and either misrepresent our position on science or, more often, on theology. There are many times I would love to be able to post to assure them that we DON'T think Jesus is metaphorical etc.

Now they are free to do what they want in their subforum but as it annoys me (and i'm sure I'm not the only one) I think we should try to avoid talking about the creationists completely and use this forum just for discussion about TE. If we are going to say anything about creationists we should do it the main forum and so not behind their backs and where they can respond in any way they choose.

What say you?

 

[gluadys]

Now they are free to do what they want in their subforum but as it annoys me (and i'm sure I'm not the only one) I think we should try to avoid talking about the creationists completely and use this forum just for discussion about TE. If we are going to say anything about creationists we should do it the main forum and so not behind their backs and where they can respond in any way they choose.

What say you?

I agree. What I find most valuable about this sub-forum is that people can ask serious questions about science and the theology of TEs and get serious answers without a lot of drivel mixed in. e.g. Mick 116s thread on reproduction.