I get a little involved in this. I am both a Christian and a geologist. I can say with confidence that the only possible way to hold the Creation Science position(s) is through untrammelled self-deception. There is no alternative to denying massive geological evidence.
This applies to:
1) The age of the Earth -
2) the immutability of species
3) Noah's Ark/Noah's flood
4) Adam and Eve

And a whole bunch more. Unfortunately, Australia has a solid share of this belief and being wrong on evidence is no obstacle to continuing to hold it. It is a serious waste of time 'debating' creationists, because their own rhetorical trickery is enough to satisfy them that they are right.

From the point of view of 'allowing' debate, if people want to waste their oxygen on this why not let them? With the limits on number of posts, debates here peter out before exceeding disk space or bandwidth limits.

Graham,

No matter what you approve or don't approve, I think that you would
be well aware, that some posters will turn just about any thread
into one mentioning the evils of evolution theory, creationism being
their understanding of the world. Runner is a typical example.
We have more then our share of bible quotes, no matter what the
topic.

Others will turn just about any thread into one about animal
liberation etc. Gertrude specialises in that field.

IMHO, these people just can't help themselves, its how their
brains are wired and what gives them purpose in life.

Fair enough. Between all that there are some fantastic posters,
of great intelligence and its worth trawling through all the
nonsense to read those gems.

The problem with discussing 'evidence' for or against Creationism, is that most of us lack the scientific wherewithall to enter into some of the deeper arguments.

We will get our share of those who promote the Genesis record as literal, I'd be one of them, but my undersanding is pretty broad, and does not try to squeeze it into a very tight mould.

For me, the language of Genesis is more open to science than is usually admitted.

If we can accept this, then a lot of the conflict dissappears.

The most important words of Genesis are the first verse.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

The 2nd vese "Now the earth was without form and empty and darkness was over the deep"

I mean..good grief.. we have a few hundred years of very exhaustive science describing 1000s of processes and activities in physics and biology.. Why do we have to try to disprove the simple theological expression of all that?

I don't think a thread like you mentioned would advance our positions on this much. Just provide an opportunity for a lot of hot, and often passionate, but possibly misinformed air.

Thanks for the chance to comment.
As you know I did not get a thread started recently.
And you got it right I can do much better.
But it falls to you, not us to say what gets into print.
I think we humans have great difficulty talking about this without emotion getting involved.
We in our schooling learn about evolution, and on Sundays learn it is wrong.
Some will forever condemn us for it but increasing numbers believe the first not the second.
Last who's creationism do we propose to debate?
Far more than one religion and creation story exists.
I am for open debate but take no offense if you do not want to take the risk with that subject.
Oh I too understand some just have to have their belief to get by in life.

Very interesting question there Graham(not creationism, but whether or not to censor).

You're right of course, the topic will inevitably degenerate quite quickly, I think that's unavoidable, but where possible I'd always err on the side opposing censorship.

I guess my ideal solution would be for there to be a fourth section at the bottom of the page, below elections. This would be for discussions which have been vetted from a legal standpoint, but with any topic being allowed. Essentially, it would be a mud pit.

From my point of view, it would be an interesting social experiment - will more people be drawn to the baser topics knowing full well why they are in that section? Will they go there despite the fact they're only there due to the controversy and charged issues instead of real debate? Or will they go for the intelligent topics?

Will we see some kind of split? will some people refuse to descend to that level?

Though I guess that requires some site modification, so for the time being, my recommendation would be to allow it, but include a post from a moderator after the initial post, stating that the topic is existing essentially on a trial basis, as ultimately it's not far from simple advertising, albeit of a theological variety.

Graham, not being party to what does not get past the editorial gates I may be misreading this but my impression is that a discussion around the evidence or otherwise of creationism is no worse than much of the other stuff that goes on here.

It's worth remembering that its hard to tell up front what will come from a discussion. Individuals can have productive discussions in the midst of others defending their turf or sometimes get distracted or drowned out by the same.

I value the site in part because the editorial hand appears to be very light and not as far as I can tell based around the editors own likes and dislikes. You publish articles promoting positions which you disagree with, you allow posts to stand which are bluntly critical of yourself and your positions.

There is a balance there which you have to decide upon but unless you want to start much more regular editorial involvement regarding silly comments and personal attacks cutting a thread on creationism because "it would lower the tone of the forum" seems misplaced. Perhaps a read of the recent stream of posts involving SallyG, samsung and Antiseptic (who I consider to be the one under attack) might put the "tone" issue in a different light.

R0bert