College Credits For Trolling the Web? 1164
A user writes "Some undergraduate and masters level courses at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary require trolling as part of their requirements.
In William Dembski's classes on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics, 20% of the final grades come from having made 10 posts defending Intelligent Design Creationism on 'hostile' websites.
There seems to be no requirement that the posts contain original writing; apparently cut-and-paste jobs are sufficient. Is this the first case of trolling the net being part of course requirements?"
Slashdot Seminar (Score:2, Informative)
Learn from the best.
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
You know, when you make assumptions like that without actually checking the facts, you're not helping.
From their site: [swbts.edu]
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, GA 30033, Telephone: 404-679-4500) to award bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees.
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools [wikipedia.org] is a regional accreditation agency recognized by the DOE.
We might not like the fact that they are accredited (and they're aren't lying either, I looked it up), but that doesn't make it not true.
Seminarys are strange animals (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I'm an ordained minister with a Masters of Divinity (Seminary) and a Ph.D. in New Testament (Public University).
You need to remember that seminarys are strange animals academically. The degree of academic freedom runs the gamete from little (fundamentalist schools) to a great deal (liberal seminaries). However, in almost all there is at least a set of shared convictions that are held by all, or almost all, students and faculty. Even at the most liberal, it's sort of assumed that you at least believe in God, or why are you there? Seminaries are professional schools for training pastors, not academic institutions.
SBTS is part of the "new" SBC, and so is basically fundamentalist in outlook, and virtually all students and faculty will be fundamentalist in outlook. If they weren't, they would have gone somewhere else. It's not unreasonable to assume that most students are going to hold to an ID or Creationist point of view.
Moreover, this course is almost certainly an elective, so no student is required to take it. Even then, speaking as someone who is basically Anabaptist theologically who went to a school where none of the professors were Anabaptist, all my professors were quite flexible. They had no problem with me writing from what one called my "peculiar viewpoint" so long as I did so respectfully and rigorously. I imagine a student that really had a problem for this requirement would be able to get out of it.
Last, Bill Dembski is a smart guy (I've met him), although I don't always agree with him. I rather doubt he would give full credit for "CREATI0N1SM R0X, SUX0RZ!"
It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:3, Informative)
If you take the act of posting on a message board, especially one as hostile to religion as Slashdot, and consider it less an act of trolling but one of encouraging discussion, then encouraging thoughtful posts creates an opportunity for the student to have his beliefs challenged and subsequently shaped. Only through adversity do people really learn who they are.
Besides, we're talking about Science here, not "Biblical Creationism" as such. The idea that the Earth was created in 6 literal days replete with "faith-challenging" dino fossils and other fairy tales is the story that Evolutionists spread as Intelligent Design dogma. It shows a very big gap in their knowledge of the ID field which is quite a bit less dogmatic about the 6 day theory and much more in tune with mainstream scientific method.
What ID brings to the table is a new reexamination of facts. Why are clam fossils at the top of very young mountains? What is the evolutionary progression of DNA? Why are there still discrepancies in the geologic and biologic record where we would expect certain types of data but find none? ID brushes away the dogma of science and brings the scientific method back to it.
But that's not to say that it isn't also flawed. Many of the scientists involved with ID hold very religious views which may cause them to insert God into areas they do not yet understand. The "God in the Gaps" folks. Luckily, most ID scientists are able to put their personal biases away for the sake of good science.
The other problem with ID is also prevalent in fields such as homeopathy and supernatural research. The attempt to address the issues at hand with a completely open mind leads to bad conclusions. Sometimes the established scientific theory is just fine and doesn't need reevaluation. So when ID scientists start questioning things that don't need questioning, they come off looking like crackpots. However, their search for science is no less deeply held and their methods are no less scientific than mainstream scientists.
It's called a synecdoche (Score:3, Informative)
Synecdoche [wikipedia.org]: a term denoting a specific class of thing is used to refer to a larger, more general class
Re:Troll, n. - Someone who disagrees with me (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They don't require trolling (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. That the author of this article suggests that trolling is required makes the article poster a troll. How ironic.
The directive is to make ID arguments in, quote, hostile websites. They are to look for forums where they know ID is not going to be kindly received and they must defend it in the face of the likely shitstorm of responses. What do we call someone who posts something in a bbs/forum/website that is certain to generate controversy? Oh yea, we call it "trolling". The author of this article was 100% spot-on.
Re:Intelligent Design Creationism? (Score:3, Informative)
Uhm, no.
ID is a form of creationism. It's pure and simple.
Young Earth Creationism is just another form.
Re:They don't require trolling (Score:2, Informative)
These people make an unpopular argument for an opinion they themselves support, with the intent to discuss the topic. A troll would choose an unpopular position that is typically not his own, with the intent to rile up people. It's not trolling if you're interested in a discussion, even if the actual result is name calling and flames. A good troll post is indistinguishable from an honest opinion. That doesn't turn every unpopular opinion into a trolling.
Re:Um... (Score:4, Informative)
Diagnosing my ability (or lack thereof) in New Testament Greek from misspelling an English word is a bit silly, but whatever... for what it's worth, I got nailed by the spell checker. *sigh*
Realistically, neither your nor I get to tell fundamentalists what an appropriate way of training pastors is. I left the Southern Baptist Convention in disgust many years ago for much the reasons you cite and now call myself a "Virginia Baptist" when I have to identify what flavor of Baptist I am. However, the ATS (Association of Theological Schools), which accredits seminaries of ALL kinds, including Jewish, Muslim, and I even think there's a Baha'i seminary now, is of necessity an inclusive body. They can't judge the theological merits of a particular denomination when accrediting a seminary--only the degree to which the training offered is effective towards training someone within those imperatives. That you think the defense of Intelligent Design is foolish is frankly utterly irrelevant, because they don't, and it's their opinion that counts.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately a lot of science is dogmatic as well
I could be short and say: No, science is never dogmatic, now f.ck off. I'll be nice though and point to the fact that because a "scientist" says something or holds an opinion it isn's science. Science is a relatively well defined discipline, and it is never dogmatic. Being dogmatic is in fact the exact opposite of science.
Your statement is ridiculous, now go learn what "science" is.
Re:They don't require trolling (Score:2, Informative)
That definition of trolling is a bit narrow. Yes, not holding the opinions you're stating can be a form of trolling, but I think the key part is "intent to rile up."
Even if you believe what you're saying, you ARE trolling if you seek out hostile audiences for your unpopular opinions with the sole purpose of riling them up. I think the question here is "are these people trying to rile others up?" Because I'm guessing, coming from some Baptist degree mill, that they think their tripe will actually change people's minds.
Still, I think they're trolls. Ignorantia juris non excusat applies in matters of the law, it stands to reason it should prevail on the internet as well.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:3, Informative)
If you have rational arguments for why their position is wrong, I encourage you to engage with them and make your case.
Engage them? Make your case? You ACTUALLY think these thugs stick around to read the responses from the 'hostile websites' they are enjoined to post on? That isn't part of the requirement. The case has been made, over and over again. They refuse to listen and bring up irrelevant and debunked claims over and over again. Might as well argue with a sea sponge.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Informative)
"Even if they do believe it, it is kinda like sending a guy in a blue uniform and police badge and a pistol into a gang house full of people with automatic weapons alone and asking them to surrender without a fight (except without the possibility of literally getting killed... I think)."
Not so much... It's not that they expect anyone to be won over/surrender. The point of an exercise like this is for the "apologist" to experience repeated abuse and become disassociated to the point where they completely tune out any criticisms of their crazy belief system. That's how a lot of cult-like organizations work. It's quite effective.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:4, Informative)
The first person mentioned, Margaret Sanger, founded the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood).
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:1, Informative)
There is evidence for a universe. There is no evidence how this universe came to be. "Darwinism" does not claim to explain the origin of the world. It's just a theory how species develop. As a proper scientific theory, it is testable, i.e. it makes predictions which can be verified or falsified. Intelligent design and creationism are not scientific theories because they're not testable. They are beliefs. They may or may not be true, but that's not what determines their status as science or belief.
Richard Dawkins must have lots of credits... (Score:4, Informative)
His attacks on Intelligent design serve as a front for him to attack religion as a whole. He spreads the myth that religion and evolution can't be compatible (why exactly could it not be argued that god designed life with the capability to mutate?) to attack religion whilst using "I'm just debating the science" defence when called on it.
His hard line approach makes Atheists as a whole look like intolerant arses and I don't want to be associated with it. Even science, even though it is evidence based, does rely on a certain amount of faith (that earlier theories are correct, that scientists in fields you're not familiar with are correct). Yes science changes over time but so does religion. There are plenty of laws based on questionable religious principles but there are equally plenty of laws based on questionable science.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Informative)
More importantly, it creates a "controversy," and then they can teach the controversy [wikipedia.org].
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure you understand the fact that scientists have a different meaning for the word 'theory' than average people. In science, a theory is a system of interrelated laws. For example, the theory of evolution encompasses the laws of natural selection and transmission of traits through genetic means. The interaction of these two laws describes how species change and branch into new species.
Another example is the theory of quantum mechanics. It consists of the laws governing the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electricity and magnetism. The interaction of these laws explains and governs the motion of particles at the atomic and subatomic levels. One of the great open problems in physics today is integrating gravity into this framework, so all the fundamental laws can be encompassed by a single theory.
In everyday language, a theory is something that is less certain than a law - something unproven. In science, however, theories are greater than individual laws. Theories are frameworks that show how phenomena in the natural world arise from the interaction of distinct laws. It is this difference between everyday language and scientific language that is responsible for the confusion of many people regarding evolution. Yes, evolution is a theory. So are relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, no one ever charges relativity with being "just a theory", despite the fact that relativity (in many important respects) has less supporting evidence than evolution.
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:4, Informative)
A requirement to post with a quota of a certain number of posts, alone, does nothing to promote that. A requirement to post, gather responses, and present a report summarizing and critiquing the response (if the critique were held to rigorous standards) might.
No, we aren't talking about science (much less "Science"), we're talking about Intelligent Design, a pile of pseudoscience wrapped around creationism to give it a skin-deep appearance of science that was invented after the Supreme Court struck down requirements that creationists had won for the teaching of "creation science" (itself, an earlier effort to wrap a veneer of 'science' around creationism) alongside evolution in science classes as a violation of the Establishment clause. And since the same kind of rulings have begun being handed down against ID, one can expect creationists to come up with a new label for the pseudoscience they use to try to use public dollars to advance unscientific miseducation, unless maybe the realize that the whole relabelling approach isn't working and they shift courses entirely.
Uh, no, young earth creationism isn't a myth created by those who accept the theory of evolution as the best scientific model of the phenomena it explains.
ID has nothing in common with the modern scientific method. Repeatedly raising the same questions that there are well-supported answers to, with no evidence to challenge the existing explanations or even acknowledgement of them, isn't the scientific method.
No, it doesn't. What it brings is a lot of deliberately obtuse repeated questioning of things that have already been explored and answered; its adherents are required to (figuratively, at least) stick their fingers in the ears and close their eyes to avoid seeing and hearing the answers that have been around since before "creationism" renamed itself "creation science" to try to mislead and force its non-scientific dogma into science classrooms, and then, when that failed, renamed itself "intelligent design".
Why wouldn't they be expected to be if the dominant scientific models in the relevant fields (including, but not limited to, evolution) were correct?
What is this question even supposed to mean? If you mean, what are the mechanisms of the genetic mutations which produce the phenotypic variations on which natural selection operates, many of those mechanisms are well understood (some so well that they have been adapated for, controlled modifications, creating the whole field of genetic engineering.)
The processes which create the fossil record (which appears to be what you are likely referring to as the "geological and biologic record") are fair
Tripe (Score:2, Informative)
This whole story is ridiculous tripe. Consider the source: the article comes from Richard Dawkins' web site; hardy an unbiased source on this particular topic. So what we have here is a story from one side of the argument complaining about a course at a university whose topic is APOLOGETICS. When studying apologetics, you learn how to defend a particular position (see definition two at dictionary.com here [reference.com]). What better exercise for learning a skill like that than to go out there and defend a particular position publicly? Certainly ID gets attacked enough by Darwinists (many of them ad hominem or straw man attacks--examples of which can be found in posts above this one) that people shouldn't get too upset when ID proponents start defending their position.
Why assume the students are going out there and randomly "making posts" but not contributing to the discussion? Maybe the professor grades the posts specifically on the quality of the discussion, with the 10 or more posts in a single back-and-forth discussion being worth more than trolling 10 different web sites. Who knows? We don't, and certainly Dawkins doesn't. Either way, it seems that this is a very appropriate exercise when learning something like apologetics. Certainly making blanket judgments and name calling doesn't move this issue forward at all. Nobody's going to be persuaded by a flippant dismissal of their position without giving any reasoning.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:4, Informative)
One problem, you're quoting the English translation of the original Hebrew. What the Hebrew actually says is "the young woman shall conceive". Now, yes this still could be talking about Jesus... except for the being named Immanuel part, but it could also be talking about a lot of other people. In addition, this "sign" makes no mention of being the "son of God" or Messiah or anything of the sort. So this verse is an exaggeration of a mistranslation to support claims of Mary's virgin birth.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14#Judaism_and_the_Hebrew_Bible [wikipedia.org]
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:1, Informative)
I'm not sure if you're trolling or just misinformed, but the "Great Isaiah Scroll" is one of the most stunning finds among the Dead Sea Scrolls, dates to 300-400 BCE, and agrees impressively with LXX and the "Textus Receptus" as delivered by the Catholic Church about a thousand years later.
By "agrees impressively" I mean, LXX says "Adonai" for "the Lord" whereas Q (the Qumran Isaiah scroll) uses the word YHWH, and other than that they are identical.
Regarding that specific verse, later Jewish scholars argued that the Hebrew ha-'almah means "young woman" and not virgin, but Iraneus in 140 CE countered that the Septuagint translators during Ptolemy's reign, centuries before Jesus' birth (during Augustus' reign), translated it to the Greek ha parthenos.
So in short, the idea that he'd be born of a virgin was recorded centuries before his time, and the Christian teaching that he was born of a virgin (and that it was foretold) is recorded a lot earlier than the time of converting Germanic tribes. Not that Catholics didn't adapt Xianity all sorts of other ways, (Your pagan gods are now Saints, and feast days are now ... Saints days!) but that doesn't appear to be one of them.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:4, Informative)
I get so tired of the two myths that often come up among discussions about Christian history regarding the "virgin" Mary. Don't get me wrong, Christianity is rife with messed up history and people doing things in the name of Christ that are despicable and wrong but the whole conspiracy that the church "created the Virgin Mary to appease..." reeks of ignorance and WAAAY too much faith in the non-research, clearly-disproved "facts" of overambitious, poorly-skilled novel writers (seriously... does anyone think Dan Brown is a good writer?).
Dislike and take issue with it all you want but the Bible (the currently accepted cannon) has been consistent in its assertion that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. The "Gospel of Luke" and the "Gospel of Matthew" both clearly say it and have both been reliably [wikipedia.org] dated [wikipedia.org] to before 100 AD (check the sources on those articles in wikipedia). 100 AD is FAR before anyone was thinking about converting Germanic tribes or the tribes of South America (the other common myth of when the Virgin Mary was first created). Constantine was emperor of Rome from 324-337 and even skeptics of the pre-100 dating of Luke and Matthew don't date them after that.
Christianity has its flaws and its screwed up followers but to start spouting clearly refuted conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit it does a disservice to those who reasonably object to the accuracy of the Bible or the core beliefs of Christianity as a whole.
You don't understand what science is (Score:2, Informative)
"Religion is a way of conveying real world knowledge, just like science."
Science is not "a way of conveying real world knowledge". Books or web sites or audio tapes are "a way of conveying real world knowledge". Science is a way of gaining real-world knowledge.
"Frequently, both in religion and in science, the humans behind it all get it wrong"
But that is the point: Science doesn't assume that it is right, and doesn't pretend that it is right. In science, you observe, construct a hypothesis, test the hypothesis (where you either disprove the hypothesis or not, but hardly ever prove it), discuss the results, and go back to step 1. Note that failure is part of this, but "truth" is not.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:3, Informative)
Much of the bible was written by the main participants.
That is not true. All of the gospels were written well after the fact. There are no eye witness accounts of even the existence of Jesus.