\u201cThe main thing to remember is that moderators are editors and it\u2019s their job to make people\u2019s words disappear before anyone else sees them.\u201d<\/p>\n
There is then a list of three categories into which commenters are placed, the first two of which are as follows: <\/p><\/div>\n
\u201c1) Trusted \u2013 you have to earn a place on this list by consistently submitting constructive comments. Once on it your comments appear immediately after submission.
2) Potential Trouble \u2013 newly registered users go on this list at least for their first comment and if you are an ID-critic you\u2019ll probably stay on it. Anyone from the trusted list who has gone astray also ends up here. People on this list must have all their comments approved by an editor before they show up on the blog. \u201c<\/p><\/blockquote>\nDid anyone else notice that \u201cconstructive comments\u201d and \u201cID critic\u201d are in separate categories by definition? Critical analysis is potential trouble. Constructive comments means toeing the party line. Can anyone say \u201cthis isn\u2019t science\u201d?\nLinked from that page are two other pages. One<\/a> of them is a list of arguments that they do not allow one to make on their forum (this page is entitled \u201cPut A Sock In It\u201d<\/a>). The second page about moderation has an \u201cexplanation\u201d from Dembski as to why he ruthlessly <\/em>moderates comments. It is an e-mail<\/a> he received from someone he banned:<\/p>\n
William,<\/p>\n
Is there the slightest possibility you might open<\/em> your ID forum to dissenting views?<\/p>\n
You have some very dedicated apostles stroking your online ego, and insulating these young scientists from the Borg<\/em> is very Christian of you indeed; however, to many of us on the outside<\/em> your questionable editing practices suggest little more than self-aggrandizing censorship.<\/p>\n
You are a curiosity, your theory a religious oddity, and your designer<\/em> is wearing your hat.<\/p>\n
Respectfully,<\/p>\n
[snip]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
The person who wrote this e-mail was extremely insightful, and the banning of this individual shows what everyone knows or ought to know about Intelligent Design. It cannot stand criticism or critical analysis. This is antithetical to science, but typical of many religious believers\u2019 attitude in our time: \u201cThat\u2019s what I believe. Don\u2019t show me evidence. Don\u2019t ask me difficult questions I can\u2019t answer\u2026\u201d\nIf your faith can\u2019t stand up to critical scrutiny, it is self-delusion. If your science can\u2019t tolerate critical scrutiny, it isn\u2019t science. And if you do<\/em> expose your view to scientific evaluation and is shown to not fit the evidence, then it is destined for the scientific (s)crap heap. But many religious believers and pseudoscientists manage to gather communities around themselves into societies offering mutual self-congratulation. The Bible<\/a> warns about this: <\/p><\/div>\n
\u201cFor the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths\u201d (2 Timothy 4:3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/rdtwot.files.wordpress.com\/2008\/02\/jesus_burg.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-6662263526237882253?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"