That’s just the undergrad class, the higher level classes require more words. I looked around a bit, and noticed that it never says the students are supposed to actually argue anything, just post. I didn’t see anything about being logical, or having well thought out and reasoned posts, or producing cites. It just says post 2000 words.
How can this possibly be seen as a good idea? Go forth and be an ass unto others! They aren’t even trying something new, or bringing new arguments, or anything that might have a positive effect. How would they react if hostile websites started organizing trips to christian websites to deliberately troll them? This really makes no sense to me. How is this anything more than a childish game of ding dong ditch?
Seriously though, it’s because they can’t win based on the merits. Intelligent Design proponents are stupid, uneducated and / or cowardly. This sounds like just the sort of thing they would do.
It’s like the anti-health care crowd. Can’t win the argument? Scream like a frightened child.
It’s when you go up to a random house, ring the doorbell, and then run like hell. Repeat as necessary. The intent is to annoy whoever has to answer the door. Generally only found to be amusing by those in grade school. See also ‘Hit & Run Posting’.
I think this is a great idea. Let them post their ideas and see what comes back. What better way for them to have their ideas scrutinized. They’ll get more out of this than handing a paper they’d write into the teacher.
Perhaps the quality requirements are implied. He doesn’t say that the exam questions have to be answered “correctly” either, but you don’t conclude from that any random answers on the exam would get you a passing grade.
It’s all very well to beat up on the ID nutcakes, but I am not sure this is as bad as we are making it out to be.
Heck, if they go out to “hostile” websites they might learn something, in spite of themselves.
Sometimes I wonder if I am too wishy-washy to participate on the SMDB.
It doesn’t say anything about them having to respond to counterarguments, or even evaluate them. Clearly the most efficient thing for a student to do is post and run.
Well thought out, reasoned posts? Give these poor kids a break. If they could do that, they wouldn’t be taking a class from Dembski, would they? Not that it is all that possible for an idist. And if they really wrote something logical, they’d fail.
I wonder what grade they’d get if they met the requirements but put something on their paper stating that they didn’t believe in ID after all, the way creationist students in bio classes can?
I think Intelligent Design is an unaparalleled crock of hog drippings and its proponents are mostly deluded/dishonest stealth advocates for getting religion’s foot back in the door at schools. I can’t get overly outraged by class attendees being required to post on opposition websites though. I am a bit concerned for the poor students’ mental health. They’ll be eaten alive.
I don’t see much of a genuine debate occurring on this thread. (I doubt that we could find many posters willing to defend Dembski as a nice guy with whom to have a beer, much less as an academic or an instructor.)
