Interesting dilemma, but not uncommon amongst various rationalists trying to promote the understanding of science, only to have their blog threads besieged by the crazies in droves. Some of the crazies are quite coherent and articulate, some are not - but they are all unified in their complete lack of understanding of - and persistent refusal to understand - the scientific process, and inability to assess, understand and accept experimentally-derived empirical evidence.

But having followed the other thread closely, I do find myself siding with your second option, simply because it is such a good resource for learning.

At Pharyngula (since you mention it), PZ usually doesn't 'disemvowel' (not 'de-vowel'!) the troll comments, or throw a troll into the dungeon of silence unless the comments become obnoxious, hateful and homophobic, or on occasions, mind-numbingly dull. Keeping a discussion alive always helps because it exposes the fallacies of the crazies, even if they crawl out of the woodwork often.

And to address the other point, I shall be a little uncharitable and say that anyone gullible enough to be hoodwinked by the creationists' talking points - particularly when sources to rational evidence are also indicated in the same thread - probably deserve to be taken for a ride. It does not bode well for science-teaching and learning, but that issue probably may not be addressed by simply removing the presence of the fundies in the thread.

I should introduce myself. I am (I assume) one of those to whom Clay refers as a "fundamentalist illiterate" and a prime example of "human folly" that spouts "gibberish."

I would ask this question: As a teacher (which I am) does it show intellectual integrity to silence those with whom I disagree? Does it show that I am committed to honest inquiry?

The incident of the orginal post was praising the courage of those who publicly disagree with the status quo. Do you show the same courage if you de-vowel or delete the comments of those with whom you disagree? Or does it show more respect of your listeners to allow them to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Wow! I'm shocked you would even consider deleting the comments. Keep the debate focused on what belongs in a classroom - not on what constitues a valid comment to your blog.  Keep your comment thread as a resource - after all, you can't engage in good conversation if you're not listening to the other side.

I think I would stop reading if I knew you were deleting comments you thought were incorrect. Your revealing info about Emily's blog makes me much less inclined to spend time there.

I'm not interested in censored views.

I firmy believe you shouldn't delete delete the comments. To silence the debate in such a totalitarian and harsh manner simply serves to prevent discourse.

The comment thread should be a forum of open discussion – even among those with entirely unintelligent views. Fallacies are not contradicted by destroying them, but by rebutting them. This thread serves as testament to the ignorant arguments made by Creationists, which are easily rebutted by science.

Instead, consider closing comment threads when they get out of hand. This does not destroy "the evidence" but simply raises the bar for further discussion. Arguments should be ended when they no longer serve a purpose, but we shouldn't pretend they never happened.

Or, Happy New Year! It's 1984.

I would not delete.  To speak openly about a topic you have to hear both sides.  Like Andrew above, I'm not interested in reading censored views.  Unless it is spam and has nothing to do with the topic, I think it should stay.

I don't think it's right to delete either.  Free speech means putting it out there and then allowing others to call bullshit on it.  Having said that, I try not to even engage IDers anymore.  It's like playing chess with a monkey, and then the monkey eats your queen.  The logical rift is insurmountable.  Just refer here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php

But don't silence.  Fundamentally science is about the study of the natural world.  By definition it is incapable of dealing with the supernatural.  The sooner we all realize that, the sooner we can all get on being both scientific AND religious.  Imagine that.

Clay, are you serious?  Obviously the comments should not be deleted.  Your blog posts are already disturbingly insulting toward people you disagree with; those people at least deserve the chance to comment back.

That is a tough one.

If I understand your point correctly (i.e., that you don't want to allow posts that propose ideas that do not have the backing of the scientific community because they may sway anyone away from the chosen intent of the blog) then it would make sense to remove posts that fall in that category.

There are some obvious issues of ethics there, but not as much as those losing their voice would have you believe.

1) The fanatics on both sides, obviously, should be dropped without a second thought. If someone goes on without any apparent intent to be civil, then there is little point in giving them a voice. This happens most often on the creationist side, but I have seen more than my fair share of people on the evolution side that have no civil bone in their body. It's one thing to show a little emotion. It's another entirely to lob a bunch of insults with only an occasional comment on topic.

2) Another problem you'll run into is creationists that agree with you on a particular topic, but not on every scientific theory. Do you remove their comments or not? You obviously don't want to edit them. And occasionally they'll have a good point that you agree with. And sometimes they'll have a good point that you disagree with, but will persuade another creationist better than you ever could.

3) Yet another is, what about rebuttals? What if a creationist didn't say anything removal worthy until someone challenged them specifically? Or what if an evolutionist successfully rebuts something that you deleted? In the second case, it shows a lack of belief that the truth can defend itself.

4) And then there's: How much time are you willing to put into moderating? Your time is probably more valuable than weeding out those who are misleading from those who are simply wrong and don't realize it yet.

5) The worst yet is that those who currently disagree with you, but are interested in honestly debating, will see your blog as just another anti-religion fundamentalist blog if you don't spend an inordinate and unworthy amount of time making sure that you are only removing those that are causing trouble.

If you are only seeking to inform about what's going on for those who agree with you on everything, then, by all means, feel free to delete the posts of those who appear to disagree with you, because eventually that's the only people you'll get reading your blog. If you want to hear the occasional, surprisingly interesting idea that you don't expect, only remove the comments that are posted by yelling-with-ears-covered fanatics.

Remember: truth exists regardless of who believes it. If your belief is the truth, then it can be easily defended, with or without your silencing of it's opponents, and will eventually win out. It may not be in your lifetime, and it may not even be for millenia, but it will be the last word at some point in time. Round earth and solar centered system theories took centuries to gain a foothold and many of their proponents died for that belief, but eventually no one could logically deny it.

And just as a side note that's loosely related to this, please don't hold blame on a religion for the actions of those who claim to follow it, without finding out if the religion actually allows those actions first. There have been a great many atrocities that have been committed by those who claimed to be doing so for Christianity when the Christian religion specifically forbids the same actions within its religious text.

Deleting = censorship.  Not a good idea.

I can't believe you are seriously considering censorship.  I suppose I would modify that to this extent: censorship of seriously uncivil comments or ad hominem attacks is, I think, warranted based on a clear a priori comment policy.  But censorship based on your personal dislike of the content of comments?  I would say that would/should disqualify you as the moderator for this blog, which is intended as a public forum and isn't your personal blog.  If it were your own personal blog, I'd say--do as you please. 

I'd delete if they were idiotic and not useful of for further discussion.  As you say, you don't want to provide a forum.  The second thing to consider, which I don't think you mentioned, is whether or not your students read your blog.  There is the responsibility of a teacher to provide context and critical thinking tools to students before exposing them to "Teh Stupid".

I have used similar comment threads in class when discussing fallacies and rationality in science, and they provide great examples of people stuck in a non-scientific mode of thinking, especially as they often believe they are using science. There's nothing like good pseudoscience to illustrate the difference from real science.  If, however, the comments are simply uncritically supporting pseudoscience and are confusing students, I would delete.

To those that cry censorship, or 1984, they hyperbole is a little silly.  Teachers are required to censor, and would be irresponsible if they didn't.  I don't allow homeopathy to dictate what's taught about the properties of water, and I certainly wouldn't allow IDiots to determine what I teach about evolution.

If you don't like it, it's not censorship.  Get your own blog and say whatever you like.

Cheers,

Ron

I say don't delete, though many of the comments made were rather appalling.

The case you make for deleting above strikes me as judging that people aren't intelligent enough to decide for themselves.  I frown on nannyism.  As you mention, there are resources posted.  Any mind able of being swayed or worth swaying would do the due dilligence of reading such resources and filtering out the drivel.

Or straight up post the intent of the blog.  If it's to be a one-sided forum, then clearly say so, and no harm is done.

I don't think I'd delete them, but I might close it for the sake that it served the purpose you had (and hadn't) intended it to. I also wouldn't de-vowel them.

Here's an ethical analogy to put it bluntly: Hello Mao! Will you censor the word freedom from google in Korea?

Perhaps it's arbitrarily different, but the same fundamental concept applies. It just downright seems... Stupid. That is, to delete the posts made by a group.

Or... You could devowel all content from the thread, all comments, and the post. That'd be worth a laugh at the least. Though whatever you decide to do Clay, is of course your decision. Is there anyway to get an email update on your choice? I would be interested in seeing the outcome of your decision. Just for the sake of curiousity.

Option #4 Do nothing with the actual comments but devote a whole post proclaiming your concern about them and engage your audience in a discussion about whether or not you should give those people a platform to spread their ideas.  Wait a minute...

I say don't delete. Their arguments are not hard to defeat, and if they were deleted it would feel like we were giving up, which we definitely aren't. Besides, maybe some of them will even learn something... maybe...

Also, I just wanted to point out that you should be careful when using words like "creationism" and "intelligent design," as they aren't really the same thing. Creationism typically refers to the crazies who think Genesis is to be literally interpreted and taught in science classes. Intelligent design, on the other hand, as in Ben Stein's "Expelled," often refers to a theory in which evolution is accepted, but God is thought to have initiated it. I don't see anything wrong with that theory. It seems to be the one most of the Christians who are on our side follow. They aren't denying scientific fact, just saying that the scientific facts happen because God made them. So if you start insulting those people, you're picking a fight with everyone who believes in God, rather than just the fundamentalists.

Ben Stein has a very good documentary on ID.  You may want to check it out.  ... seems even handed to me, but I would be a bit biased (ID camper).

Lianne, my apologies, I should have read your post before hastily adding mine.  I think Stein does a wonderful job of exploring ID.  He, like you, is careful to differentiate between ID and Creationism.  I tend to agree more with you than Mark.  I don't think ID is a sneaky way of still teaching Creationism, but a view that there seems to be more order than chaos in the universe, which would seem to point to design over accident.

Thanks for keeping even the strangest of comments in the previous thread Clay, they serve as good contrast. When the whole section is read through, the comments on the side of Reason shine even Brighter.

Woah woah woah! Hold up a second! I was NOT taking the side of the creationists, despite what people seem to be thinking. I'm sorry, I was unaware that intelligent design and creationism now mean the same thing. I was also unaware that Ben Stein's documentary had such a bad reputation. I absolutely do NOT suggest that religion of any kind is taught in schools. I obviously agree that only science should be taught in science class. I was merely pointing out that there's a difference between separating science and religion, and outright bashing religion. All I meant was that you can believe in God and evolution at the same time. If you start to pretend you have conclusive proof of the non-existence of a deity, how is that better than the fundamentalists?

Pleeeeease read everything I said before bashing me. Let me repeat, I DO believe in evolution, and I do NOT think religion should be in schools. I just think that bashing theism in general is going too far.

Oh, and one other thing I forgot. Ben Stein didn't invent the word Darwinism. It's been around for a long time. I'm reading a book right now about "Darwinism" that was written in the 80s and uses that word. The term was actually coined by T.H. Huxley, a friend of Darwin's, in 1860. It has only recently become used by creationists as a derogatory word for evolutionary theory. So I'm not sure how Ben Stein ended up getting the credit for that.

Thanks for the input, folks. Comments closed on this one.