There’s a lot of discussion of censorship swirling around the ID/evolution/online world right now, which I find very odd. Apparently the magazine Nautilus has closed a comment thread (without apparently deleting any comments) on the basis that “This is a science magazine, and our comments section isn’t the place to debate whether evolution is true”.
Accusations of “censorship” by “evolutionists” have been flying around for a while now, at least since the Expelled movie and it resurfaced regarding the withdrawal of the Biological Information: New Perspectives book from the Springer catalogue. And now, recently, Jerry Coyne has been named “Censor of the Year” by the Discovery Institute.
My own instincts tend against censorship, and although I do not think that all censorship is bad, I would certainly rather err on the side of too little than too much. Here, as I hope everyone knows, only a very narrow class of material is ever deleted, and only a very narrow class of offenses bring down a ban.
But what is censorship, and who, if anyone, is censoring whom in the ID/evolution debate?
Merriam Webster defines the verb to censor as
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages
So by this definition, any editing process that involves filtering out “objectionable” contributions or content amounts to “censorship”. But that merely passes the definitional buck on to the world “objectionable”.
For censor as a noun, it gives as its first definition:
1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as
- a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
- b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
So now we have the additional concept of material “considered sensitive or harmful”. And if we check the definition of censorship, Merriam Webster gives as its first:
we find that being “exercised repressively” is also key to English usage. So let me define, for the purpose of this post, to censor as:
- [to examine in order] to suppress or delete anything the censor considers objectionable, sensitive, harmful, especially when exercised repressively.
So to what extent, if any, are ID challenges to evolution actually subject to repressive censorship by pro-evolutionary institutions? And to what extent, if any, are evolutionary challenges to subject to repressive censorship by ID institutions?
And while I realise this is a sensitive subject, let’s try to discuss it with as little rancour as possible!
To discuss one subject typically implies that one does not discuss quite a different subject, or at least doesn’t discuss the different subject much. When redefined broadly enough, “censorship” might be considered to be indispensable to having a meaningful discussion.
Why not copious rancor in this thread? Are you censoring me?
Is education censorious? Why not consider alchemy along with chemistry, creationism along with evolution? I suppose all education and conversation could be decided by the loudest and most voices, but that’s not really freedom (or proper education), now is it?
Science journals don’t bother arguing whether evolution is true, because the arguments have already been made, and, by the most common definitions of “true,” these have persuaded by far the most relevant scientists that it is true. Scientists need to discuss other things, unless something new is found to explain what evolution (by non-magic means) does.
All science discussions could be opened to the naysayers, who pretty much repeat long-answered nonsense. This would shut down or derail most legitimate science discussion wherever and whenever public controversy exists on a given subject. Arguably, this would not be censorship, it just would effectively destroy free speech for those uninterested in recycled pseudoscientific ridiculousness. That is why “freedom to assemble” is important, as well its equivalents on the web, where people with a disinterest in nonsense (or for the DI, opposition to good biologic science) can actually discuss matters unencumbered by constant attempts to derail discussions.
I suppose we could discuss this over at evolutionnews, or on the DI forum. Oh no, neither one allows discussion from “outsiders,” and the DI forum won’t even allow us to read their discussion. But I’m sure they’re very much opposed to any “censorship” of ID discussion derailments.
Glen Davidson
If I decline to publish your writing I am editing. I enforce a law denying your right to publish, I am censoring.
That was simple.
Publishers, whether book publishers or magazine publishers, do not censor. Governments censor.
I could see an argument being made that schools censor or that public libraries censor. they are, generally speaking, government agencies.
The next question would be, are they doing so legally. It would seem, after three Supreme Court decisions and numerous local decisions, that they are doing so legally.
To an extent, yes.
Or rather, if you were to be overly rancorous, by my standards, I might move (but not delete) your posts. Unless we use Petrushka’s definition, which I like.
In which case, the question becomes: is mainstream science unjustly suppressing ID views? Is there bias?
A thought experiment:
If Michael Behe or William Dembsky showed up at this site or at “Why Evolution is True” or Pharyngula or at Sandwalk, would they be edited or censored?
I have no doubt some of their arguments would be vigorously opposed, and I could see some heated commentary emerging, but I doubt if their posts would be deleted,.
I really only know of one site that has banned people for the content of their argument rather than for rudeness or other misbehavior.
I think the free exchange of ideas is the way to reinforce democracy and a buttress against subversion of the democratic process. The internet is a new tool to spread both information and disinformation but in the end, utility wins out. Shared experience is a great way to test ideas and sift out the false and useless.
Had I any power or influence, I would try to ensure that everyone had access to information and was free from pressure from others to conform to any particular dogma (unlike the Roman censors, whose duties appeared to include ensuring conformity to particular “morals”).
There is a distinction to be made between private and public life. If someone decides to publish a view then that should be open to challenge. Claims that can’t be supported by evidence should be withdrawn. I’ve made the point before that all claims, religious as well as scientific, should be supported with evidence. Most western societies legislate to insist that advertising claims are correct and supported by evidence. Why should religious claims be exempt? Religious sites that censor discussion on their claims should be open to challenge; maybe even legal challenge.
Taking the example of “Intelligent Design” we can ask each other how useful has this idea proved to be. It must be hard these days being an ID proponent. Nothing useful has ever emerged from the ID cabal and attempting to disguise this obvious fact must be quite depressing for ID leaders. Allow discussion and the threadbare state of ID is soon apparent; stifle discussion and grandiose monologue about ID “progress” ring hollow in the echo chamber.
No, not at all.
Yes, some bias is unavoidable. But the ID folk are just wrong in their complaints on how they are treated.
That’s hard to say.
However, I appear to have been banned from commenting at “Why Evolution is True”, though I have no idea why.
If they posted material likely to cause personal harm to members of this site(e.g. stuff that nobody would want to download inadvertently, or confidential info), then their posts might be edited, but I can’t imagine either of them would! If they broke the discussion rules, they might find their posts moved, but not deleted or edited.
But that’s simply because that’s how I wanted to run this site – with as little censorship as is possible on a blog. There are some views I won’t host, but those haven’t turned up so far, and I won’t say what they are. However, if I delete any material for reasons of its content, then I will make it clear that I have done so and why.
They are not views I associate with either Behe or Dembski 🙂
I, too, like petrushka’s formulation. No one is preventing any intelligent design creationist from publishing any testable hypothesis of IDC nor from sharing any results of scientific research supporting such an hypothesis. The only thing stopping IDCists is that there is no such hypothesis or research.
What I find more interesting (and by “interesting” here I mean “appallingly hypocritical”) is the great umbrage taken by the denizens of UD at the editing choices of Nautilus. By way of comparison, consider an excerpt from Lizzie’s post that started this thread:
No one with administrator privileges at UD would ever write anything like that. They are demonstrably authoritarian in nature. They aren’t against censorship (or other restrictions on freedom of expression), they’re against people other than themselves restricting expression.
Until Barry adopts a moderation policy that treats IDC proponents and opponents equally and that demonstrates that he truly values the free exchange of ideas, the whining of the UD regulars deserves no respect.
GlenDavidson
petrushka
Lizzie (quasi-pantheist)
Alan Fox
Neil Rickert
Patrick
*ALL* of these ‘persons’ are ATHEISTS.
Yes or No?
This is about censorship or propaganda by atheists at TSZ like Lizzie, who usually don’t admit it.
Gregory, how is name calling an argument?
ETA:
And how is name-calling in ALL CAPS not juvenile?
Atheists argue like atheists. That shouldn’t be hard to grasp for petrushka-atheist.
What on earth are you talking about, Gregory? What has the religious beliefs or otherwise of this group of people got to do with censorship?
Are you that sociologically naïve, Lizzie? Apparently you are.
Now get your atheist-mod troupe to send my comments to Guano, so that you aren’t embarrassed.
No, it would seem to be tautological.
Yes, I am. Now can you explain what you mean please.
Well, this post certainly seems close to violating the rules. But as I like to err on the conservative side, I’ll leave it. Please read them.
Yes, I think so. With the New Perspectives book, there were some papers that I thought merited publication, but many that did not. It’s a shame, in a way, that the the book was peer-reviewed as a whole, but that was probably what the symposium leaders wanted – all papers or none. I don’t know.
But what is clear is that peer-review process was followed and that the book as a whole did not meet the standards of a scientific journal. And I haven’t seen any of the Expelled cases I’ve found convincing as cases of unfair bias.
What I have seen, ironically, is open bias on the part of some religious universities (BIOLA for instance), which require adherence to a strict creed, and also some creationist “science” journals. It would be interesting to see whether BIO-complexity would accept an ID-critical paper. I would hope so.
But the most spectacular casualty of overt academic bias, I’d say, that I’ve seen, was Dembski’s treatment by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who, as I understand it, required him to retract his suggestion that Noah’s flood may not have been global.
In contrast, Michael Behe remains a tenured professor at LeHigh, and while his colleagues have distanced themselves from his views, as I understand it, he has not been required to retract them.
I have been censored/banned on many evolutionist forums and Christian/creationist ones in the last years. Recently I was, in effect, stopped or censored on a creationist forum thing. I’m banned from Coyne’s thing and others. never about my malioce but always about my conclusions. Mostly identity issues.
Yet I say the sam,e thing everywhere. For what I say on this forum I get banned elsewhere.
Words have power to bring good or evil to mankind.
We all have our list of wordy people who did good or evil by thier persuasiveness of their words. Just a few people can change the world. the bible was written by a few and still rules the world somewhat.
If its a conclusion that evolution is true then censoring criticism is right for a publication dedicated to the truth.
Its a conclusion by this science mag that evolution is true and its a science mag and so thats the end of it. They said so.
YET if science is about investigation and there is always a hint that some conclusion in science could be corrected then this science mag is obvious to what scientific investigation is about.
Evolution is not true, not seen as true by so many, and seen as untrue by degree-ed scientists and so censoring criticism is presuming to a authority on these matters rare in human history on conflict in ideas/conclusions.
These guys are feeling, maybe, the late debate disaster for evolution and they are bringing down the gavel on truth.
What a bunch of lameo losers if I may say so.
Its not going to work.
They are censoring truth and the seeking of truth and confirming our accusations of the intents of their hearts.
If they can’t defend evolution in a science mag from criticism but must censor then there is a bigger problem with the conclusions merits.
They are saying they are a bystander to the origin struggles. So be it.
Sceptical Zone will have to continue the front line skirmishing.
We’re so good we allow you to post twice.
You posted that twice. I have trashed one copy.
I have no direct knowledge of that science magazine. However, the evolution vs. creation argument can be disruptive, and that might be why they closed comments.
The way that you debate is not at all disruptive. Banning you seems a bit excessive.
When a powerful organization such as a government controls the flow speech and ideas as a way to maintain its power, that’s censorship. When a parent blocks porn sites on their childs computer that’s not censorship. One could define censorship to include the latter but that would dilute the meaning of the word to the point of uselessness.
Organizations based on a field of learning have an interest in maintaining the quality of that field. So when lawyers or doctors or engineers or scientists decide that something is lacking in rigor and unworthy of being included in their field that shouldn’t be called censorship even though we recognize there can be drawbacks to that kind of rigidity.
Coyne has never suggested the DI website should be forcibly shutdown or their books banned. I don’t even think he said that ID shouldn’t be taught at a public university. Hes only said it couldn’t be taught as ‘science’.
That’s really the issue.
Philosophy is taught in high school, even in the south. And there’s no impediment to teaching Paley in history of science. Behe and Dembsky are not doing science, nor have they constructed a coherent alternative to evolution.
Yes—and Gregory
assertsargues like Gregory.What’s your point (if any), Gregory?
From TSZ’s site rules:
No further comment needed, methinks…
Meltdowns are best left on view.
Insightful Gregory! Please start your own thread on this so I can give it the attention it deserves.
Political noise. Why should a science magazine ignore its core readership so creationists can fill the comment section with rubbish?
Gregory,
Soemthing you’d like to get off your chest, Gregory?
The article at Nautilus raises doubts about evolution:
When the topic is doubts in evolution, why did they stop comments on evolution ?
Firstly, the “doubt” being debated wasn’t whether “evolution is true”.
Secondly, the whole thread was “stopped” not just “comments on evolution”.
Thirdly, it wasn’t stopped because people were making “comments on evolution” but because it had descended into a quasi-religious argument about whether evolution is true.
There may be a debate to have about that (indeed we have it regularly here) but until ID makes a scientific case (and it has not) then it’s perfectly sensible for a moderator on a science blog to call a halt to a discussion that has derailed into one about religion when the OP is a rather interesting scientific discussion about the possible evolution of a simpler system from a more complex one.
As people have said, if “censorship” means keeping discussions on track, or filtering for quality, or even for civility, then it happens all the time, and loses its pejorative sense.
Where censorship becomes morally questionable IMO, is when it is done by governments – when it becomes impossible to publish your views at all, not merely impossible to publish them in some publication or forum devoted to some other topic, or to contributions that are filtered by some form of quality control.
Nobody is preventing ID ideas being published and propagated. ID even has its own scientific journal, BIOcomplexity. Which, ironically, it struggles to fill.
And while ID ideas may be unwelcome in some areas of the internet, there are plenty of areas where they are (here, for one), and, equally, plenty of areas where you can be banned for posting views that are contrary to ID.
Why the fuck do you keep bringing up this atheism thing? Does it really bother you that much?
It doesn’t. It raises issues with how to infer phylogenies when the DNA data is muddled.
I do think that many ID proponents fail to understand how flawed their argument for design is.
There isn’t a cabal out to defend the “no-designer” case, either in biology or cosmology. There is simply an absence of a scientific pro-designer-case.
Lizzie,
It would be foolish to believe – if that is what you believe – that accepting a ‘Designer’ is possible by an atheist (quasi-pantheist) such as yourself. You do recognise that, don’t you? IDT (according to IDists) discriminates against atheists.
Of course you should know, but probably don’t, that there are many ‘design theorists’ who want nothing to do with Intelligent Design theory (IDT) because they want their ‘science/technology’ to be separate from their worldview.
Nevertheless, the so-called ‘design argument’ is still upheld by many Abrahamic theists, even though you discount this. Yet because Lizzie, the founder of this blog, is not among us, what we are faced with, including the all-atheist moderation committee, is a variety of ‘censorship’ (cum preference) against theism at TSZ. This shouldn’t be hard to acknowledge because it is true.
Not in the human-social sciences. In those fields, the pro-designer/creator/builder case is taken for granted, it is normal and required. The problem is when atheists start telling people their lives are meaningless, that existence is empty of purpose, etc. based on ‘outside’ worldview rationalisations. You just don’t do a good job of showing that at TSZ (except for those few posts which are documented atheist frenzy).
Unfortunately, it seems that Lizzie’s perception of ‘mind/brain’ is empty of spirit, empty of heart, empty of verticality. But that’s currently on Lizzie, and not everyone else. She’s got brains on her brain, but not heart on her heart. And so TSZ emphasizes anger and hate (against IDists), but not love or charity. That’s Lizzie’s legacy so far in this ‘conversation.’
The view from the projection booth.
Gregory,
Poke atheists with a stick, then cry ‘atheist frenzy’ when they respond with other than exemplary urbanity.
Ouch, it hurts, atheists petrushka and Allan Miller.
Reality remains what it is.
Notice that no one here is disputing that.
Gregory,
Do you regard ‘atheist’ as an insult?
I disputed that, but you are ROM.
I’ve never heard a professed atheist claiming that life is meaningless; and I regard my own as meaningful as any, and as having been moderately valuable to a number of people – even to society at large.
What could a god add to that?
Perhaps we should adopt a policy of ‘pairing-off’. If there are only n theistic commenters active, comments from supernumerary atheists disappear into oblivion. For fear of accusations of bias and censorship.
No, I regard it as a sad, alienated fact (which, willfully and with grace, can be changed).
This should be called “The Atheist Zone” rather than “The Skeptical Zone.” But of course with Lizzie, it could be called the pan(en)theist, quasi-Darwinist, eclectic Zone.
All of the so-called ‘skeptics’ here, including all the moderators, are atheists.
Steve Schaffner can of course hold his tongue, as usual.
Gregory,
Sad? You may be sad that there exist those who don’t buy your particular metaphysical premises, but that’s the world for you; a rich tapestry.
There is, you have undoubtedly noticed, a greater tendency towards atheism among the scientifically-minded than in the public at large. Likewise, among the religiously-inclined, there is a lesser tendency towards scientific literacy. Theses could be written about the direction of causality in these relations. But the result of that bias (bias need not be a Bad Word) is apparent in the composition of various online communities. What to do, what to dooo …. ? I know – bitter potshots!
Last time I checked, this forum was open to everyone, theist and atheist alike. You, WJM, and Sal Cordova are three theists who comment here regularly. If theists prefer to stick around at UD, it’s their preference.
Gregory
The structure of your arguement seems to take the form:
Atheists are incapable of understanding X
A, B, and C are atheists
Therefore A, B, And C are incapable of understanding X
You seem to be starting with a premise that violates the rules of the site. Namely that we are not arguing in good faith.
Blas is here and not censored.
I saw no reason to dispute my name being on that list (of course, I cannot speak for others). Why should I, when I’ve made my position very clear?
Since you’ve brought it up again, I do have a couple of questions:
1) Why the quote marks around the word “person” in your original comment?
2) So what? More specifically, the fact that I do not believe in a god or gods makes me an atheist by definition. While I might share that position with other participants here, I suspect we would all strongly disagree with one another on a wide variety of other topics. What conclusions do you think you can draw based solely on someone’s lack of belief?
It seems to me that the essence of censorship is not permitting one point of view within a sphere of discussion while permitting others. I think defining or understanding the sphere of discussion is important here. A journal, pro-science website, whatever won’t publish silly arguments against evolution because the factual basis of evolution isn’t in the sphere – it’s already been long established as far as the journal’s concerned. And for that reason, they also don’t print arguments for evolution. Discussions on particular issues within the field, like certain evolutionary mechanisms, are in a different sphere. As long as all the discussion within that sphere is allowed, then I wouldn’t see censorship there.
Also, it seems to me that gavelling both sides of a discussion is just ending the debate, not censoring it. Unless the timing of how it ends means that one side has been heard when the other hasn’t.
That’s your cultural context, but it is not exhaustive. The Russians, Indians and Chinese, just as 3 examples, statistically contradict your anti-theism. The problem here is, as Talcott Parsons foretold, USAmericans think they are ‘higher’ and ‘superior’ based on an ‘evolutionary’ scale.
To Allen, yes, the world is a ‘rich tapestry’. Karen Armstrong is one example of this. Your ‘atheism’ is not ‘logical’ to her, nor is it to most people in the global village. But it’s actually not surprising in your local USAmerican setting that you feel the way you do.