A Competition

No, I’m not hosting it – Rhonda Forlow of Science Essentials is. I direct you to her latest post, called Thank You!

According to her, “Providing you with current and relevant creation science information three times a week has been a challenging task.” Whether she has actually done this is debatable. She continues: “but I have been encouraged by the nearly 10,000 hits the site has received in such a short period of time!”

This raises the question of exactly how popular Science Essentials really is. I would argue that it is being viewed much less than it was back in October, and especially during the whole Spam and Censorship thing. If you remember, back then there were a large number of comments being made to the blog, both from people who agreed with her and from people who did not. In more recent times the spam and criticism has disappeared, but the supportive comments have dried up also. Last week, for example, the only comment was to a post not even from that week, and it was written in Spanish. The previous week was similar, but without the multi-lingual aspect. There have been no comments so far this week at all.

Secondly, we have another line of evidence from Google Reader. G.R. allows people to see how many people using the service are subscribed to a given feed. I can determine from that that only around 23 people subscribe to her site via G.R., one of whom is me. I don’t think that this has risen since I first checked.

The point that I’m trying to make here is that while she gets more readers than I do, she gets a lot less than you would expect, and that there is a case to be made that interest is dropping or at least not rising. In comparison, the ICR’s That’s a Fact channel is announcing that it has gotten nearly one hundred thousand views over basically the same period. (While I’m looking, I note that the comments for the channel have disappeared again. *sigh*)

Back to the contest. In an apparent attempt to revitalise said interest, Forlow will from Thursday be posting a series of 12 posts containing ‘questions’ of type as yet unknown, the answering of which in the comments will put you into the draw to win a daily prize of something on her resources page.

However, she is going to start early. This is what you need to do to get in the draw for the zeroth prize:

On Wednesday, I post elementary (K-5) and secondary (6-12) activities. Leave me a comment on one of the activities. You can comment on which activity you like or would use, or which activity you would change and how.

Sounds like a challenge!

The precise terms and conditions are not spelled out. Are they only for teachers? We don’t know yet, but I intend to find out. I, for one, would very much like to go over one of the books and DVDs the ICR has for purchase. I haven’t actually posted on her blog (or That’s a Fact) yet, and I don’t intend to pretend to be somebody else if I do post. We shall see…

What else will be interesting is if nobody takes the bait. What will she do if one day nobody comments? Again, we will have to see.

It should go without saying that anyone else’s actions with regards to this competition are nothing to do with me. I don’t really condone the use of pseudonyms etc in this kind of situation but I can’t exactly stop you. Again, we will see what happens. (Whatever you do, please take screenshots of all comments you make.)


This weeks series, if you are unaware, is based around the Newton video from a few weeks ago.

2 thoughts on “A Competition

  1. Hello again,
    Look to my comment on your post on the metamorphosis That’s a Fact video as to some ideas as to why they shut down the comments. I also gave you some additional information there. My regular e-mail is still blocked on Science Essentials, but I have left one innocuous comment under another e-mail. You can tell that I don’t want to post anonymously, but I’ll bet if I let the ICR know that I have another e-mail they will block that one too. Keep up the good fight.
    Take care,
    Christian

  2. By the way, this is the last comment that was posted to the That’s a Fact video on metamorphosis, by me.

    “Now that I know that the ICR can respond to posts here, I would like someone from that group to please explain who are the “some” are that your video refers to when it says “some say… evolution in action”. Personally, the only people I’ve ever heard say that are those associated with the ICR. It appears they have made up their own myth so they can valiantly knock it down. This is another excellent example of a straw man argument. Evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over generations. Where does ontogeny of a frog or a butterfly fit into that? Again, the ICR needs to learn what evolution is, and is not, before they publish such misleading rubbish.”

Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s