Uncommon Descent (Dembski's blog) vs. Dissent

[lpetrich]

From Memory Hole: Preserving a post from Uncommon Descent (http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/03/memory_hole_preserving_a_post.php) at Thoughts from Kansas by Joshua Rosenau.

They banned DaveScot, one of their contributors, for posting a rebuttal to Denyse O'Leary's linking of evolution and racism in her recent blog entries there. In it, he mentioned various racists who do not come very close to connecting evolution with their racial beliefs. UD's management soon replaced his post with a "Note to UD Contributors":
The moderation policy does not apply to you; you are held to a higher standard. I expect your posts to have at least some tangential relationship to Darwinism, ID, or the metaphysical or moral implications of each. The purpose of this site is not to provide a place for you to jump up and rant on one of your pet peeves. DaveScot will no longer be posting at UD.
This is despite their recently-stated comment policy "that UD, unlike the Darwinists, doesn’t ban or censor ideas… Our role is not to censor ideas but to provide a forum where hard questions can be discussed calmly, fully, and fairly, and we trust that when that happens truth will prevail."

Which was supposed to be a change from their reputation for being very censorious, banning and deleting like crazy.

[ck1]

From Memory Hole: Preserving a post from Uncommon Descent (http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/03/memory_hole_preserving_a_post.php) at Thoughts from Kansas by Joshua Rosenau.

They banned DaveScot, one of their contributors, for posting a rebuttal to Denyse O'Leary's linking of evolution and racism in her recent blog entries there. In it, he mentioned various racists who do not come very close to connecting evolution with their racial beliefs. UD's management soon replaced his post with a "Note to UD Contributors":

This is despite their recently-stated comment policy "that UD, unlike the Darwinists, doesn’t ban or censor ideas… Our role is not to censor ideas but to provide a forum where hard questions can be discussed calmly, fully, and fairly, and we trust that when that happens truth will prevail."

Which was supposed to be a change from their reputation for being very censorious, banning and deleting like crazy.

A very entertaining week on UD.

O'Leary posted 2-3 threads linking Darwin's "Descent" to racism and eugenics, and this precipitated DaveScot's response thread about the tradition of racism in certain segments of Christianity.

Nice to see DS get some payback. I just hope the remaining posters continue to provide the same level of amusement.

[damitall]

They're all piling in on atheists now, saying that I (for example) cannot possibly have a "well-lived life" because I cannot possibly have any morals, nor any sense of meaning or purpose.

The corollary seems to be that, in their view, the human race was created to glorify and adulate the skyfairy that created it.

What kind of omnipotent being is it that is so insecure as to require constant validation from its creation?

The problem with seeking a purpose for your life is that you might find one - but you might not like it.

And then you find your neighbour, not giving a toss about purpose or meaning, obviously having a fine old time and feeling content and fulfilled without benefit of religious faith.

How annoying would THAT be?

[Febble]

This is beautiful.

[RBH]

I also have DaveScot's complete post archived, and I think it's also reproduced somewhere on Antievolution.org (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi), though a quick look doesn't turn it up. If anyone wants my archived copy PM me your email addy and I'll ship it out some day. :)

[Ray Moscow]

Slight aside: Speaking of Demski, I've been reading this book, Doubting Darwin?: Creationist Designs on Evolution (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doubting-Darwin-Creationist-Evolution-Philosophy/dp/1405154918) by Sahotra Sarkar. It's a bit dry in places but really tears Demski's arguments to shreds.

To summarise: Demski is drooling idiot who should hand back his degrees.

[ck1]

I also have DaveScot's complete post archived, and I think it's also reproduced somewhere on Antievolution.org (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi), though a quick look doesn't turn it up. If anyone wants my archived copy PM me your email addy and I'll ship it out some day. :)

The Thoughts from Kansas link in my post #2 above reproduces the whole post. As does Richard Hughes on ATBC (http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5735;st=7020#entry1394 10).

[Lisa0315]

hmm...

[RBH]

Slight aside: Speaking of Demski, I've been reading this book, Doubting Darwin?: Creationist Designs on Evolution (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Doubting-Darwin-Creationist-Evolution-Philosophy/dp/1405154918) by Sahotra Sarkar. It's a bit dry in places but really tears Demski's arguments to shreds.

To summarise: Demski is drooling idiot who should hand back his degrees.That's one of my faves of the various books dissecting Dembski, though Mark Perakh's Unintelligent Design (http://www.amazon.com/Unintelligent-Design-Mark-Perakh/dp/1591020840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237579106&sr=1-1) has some very good analyses, too. Perakh also hits a number of other idiocies, like the Bible Code that Dembski came close to buying into (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:IeRyEfz0acAJ:www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9808/reviews/dembski.html+Dembski+%22Bible+Code%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) at least once upon a time.