5

Two questions were asked earlier today by the same user:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1483/what-popular-arguments-are-there-against-young-earth-creationism and What are the common arguments against theistic evolution?

The first has been closed as a "list question" and "argumentative". The second question remains open, and has received upvotes.

To me this smacks of censorship. Is a group of young earth creationists trying to squelch any discussion of views other than their own? I suspect this may be the case, but I could be wrong.

However, even if I am wrong, this is a double standard that should not be tolerated here. If the first question is argumentative, then the second is too. But if the second question is valid, then the first is also.

I've voted to reopen "What popular arguments are there against Young Earth Creationism?" because I think it is good to provide space for both points of view.

Edit:

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I appreciate the reasons for closing, but I'm still struggling to see any consistency. If these two questions should be closed as "lists" and "argumentative", then what about other questions like:

What is the physical evidence for a global flood?

I don't see how that's a different category from the closed questions above. And yet, some of the same people who voted to close "arguments against YEC" not only did not vote to close the "global flood" question, but actually gave answers for it.

So I'm trying to understand what the standard is here. Is the difference that the flood question asked for "evidence for", while the other questions asked for "evidence against"?

And if that's the case, should this one be closed?

Modern revelation. Is there Biblical evidence against it?

I guess I'm looking for a rule to determine what is acceptable, and have not found it.

  • 4
    There, fixed that for you... For future reference, putting "don't argue here" into a question asking for arguments, especially on controversial topics, is a bit naive. And list questions are a poor fit for this Q&A system. If you read the comments on the first question, that would have been a good time to do some heavy editing on the second... – Shog9 Aug 31 '11 at 22:16
  • 3
    To be fair, both should be considered for closing, as they both incite listing behaviour. In my defense, I'm trying to think of how to rework both questions so they don't incite lists. Perhaps they can be reopened when I or someone else comes up with better phrasing. – djeikyb Aug 31 '11 at 22:17
  • @djeikyb if someone could do it i'd support it. also, the wording for both was very similar too, so one will end up staying closed unless both are edited to where they're completely different questions. – DForck42 Aug 31 '11 at 23:01
  • 2
    @DForck42 Actually, the two questions were asking for opposite points of view. – Bruce Alderman Aug 31 '11 at 23:29
  • 1
    It's worth repeating: The questions cover opposite ends of a controversy. – djeikyb Aug 31 '11 at 23:45
  • Today, all but the archeology question are closed or deleted. – fredsbend Jun 1 '15 at 15:16
8

The important thing to realize with closures is that they are not done automatically, methodically, or globally: they're done by members of the community who take each question on its own merits and decide for themselves whether the question should be closed.

If five people happen to agree, the question gets closed. If five others happen to disagree, they can vote to re-open and the question gets reopened. There is no censorship or double-standard: one question happened to catch the attention of people closing while the other didn't. It can just as easily be re-opened by 5 other members of the community who happen to disagree with the first five, just as the second question could just as easily be closed.

If you think a question should be reconsidered, raising a question about it here on meta is the appropriate thing to do, but it'd be helpful to keep the argument for why a question should be re-opened aside from accusing people of a double-standard or censorship, as that's not really what's going on.

To the specific questions, they're not really specific and provide no context as to who actually believes the theories being asked for explanation. I've asked a separate question about whether we want these types of questions, but I'm apt to agree with the closure of both questions.

6

There is no reason to infer that there is an organized double standard here. We're all out here trying to sort out the scope of the site and how things can be asked in a non-argumentative way. There is a discussion going on about how to deal with creation related questions right now.

The point of both of those being lists is perfectly valid, just not everybody has noticed the other question yet.

Before you vote to open on the basis of toleration, please consider the points being made on meta, comments and chat about what makes for constructive questions and what doesn't.

-1

It seems to me that most of the members of this exchange don't want to here argumenst against anything.

I think the topic of this exchange is way to controversial to generate a successfull Q&A site, just because most answers can't be more than opinions. This site is not the right format for discussions, but as Christianity is divided among itself, there might not be a right answer anyony can agree upon.

  • 6
    There are countless forums and message boards where you can argue to your heart's content about anything imaginable. There's even a chat system attached to this site, if you're so inclined. But the Q&A system, while providing limited support for criticism, is not intended for either opinion or discussion. This goes for every. single. topic hosted on the SE network. – Shog9 Aug 31 '11 at 22:26
  • 3
    There are countless forums and message boards where you can argue to your heart's content NO THERE AREN'T! YOU'RE WRONG! Wait... Am I doing this right? – Kalamane Sep 2 '11 at 2:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .