user3340: This has been discussed before but these types of questions keep coming. 
Should we add questions about creationism/mythical stories/intelligent design as one of the permanently listed off topic criteria (such as basic chemistry and no-effort-homeworks)?

user3553: Creationism/intelligent design is wrong a matter of opinion.
Somewhat related is the recent PloS ONE retraction "Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living". Intelligent design cannot be shown with scientific rationale. If we consider this site to be scientific, we must accept that any such similar fundamentally unscientific ideas cannot be on topic.
Most of these questions will naturally be opinion based since in it is ones opinion that the original premise is either true or false (it remains untestable). By extension questions based on that already are a matter of opinion.
Evolution rhetoric can be edited out.
A side note here is that many times it is a simple semantic mistake implying that evolution is aiming at something. This is nothing more than a genuine misunderstanding and can often be easily edited out unless there is something else wrong with the question or OP is stubborn.
Myth and religion.
I must say I haven't come across too many of these. Most probably one could close for an individual custom reason like

Dragons don't exist, so it's tricky to answer a question about Dragon biochemistry.

or

Whilst nativity is a lovely story, there is no biological reason nor evidence this could have happened in humans.

Broadly speaking I agree with @Terdon. The close reasons in place are good enough when things break down. Custom reasons are good enough since the occurrences are so rare.

user1306: No. As I have already said here, in my opinion, such questions should be welcome here as long as they are good questions by the standards of SE. In my experience, such questions fall into two broad categories:

Questions where the OP is honestly confused, has had the misfortune of being raised in a place where creationism or ID are taught in school and offered as valid alternatives to evolution. The OP has an honest question and is truly interested in the answer.
In such cases, it is important that we, as the experts, help them understand. We tend to forget that the general public is not as aware of the details of what the theory of evolution posits as we are. As experts, it is our responsibility to enlighten them and help them understand.

Questions where the OP is trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution. These are more annoying but I still feel they should be welcome. All creationist/ID arguments I've ever come across are based on a fundamental misunderstanding or pure ignorance of what evolution is about and how it works. They are trvial to debunk and answer. We should do so.
Now, if the OP wants to start an argument and doesn't want to listen, we can either ignore them or close the question as too broad (since it is very likely to be so)


In short, most such questions are usually bad (too broad, primarily opinion based etc). Those we can close without needing any special close reasons. The few that remain that are good questions should be answered. If the OP makes the effort of formulating a clear, well written question about ID, we should take the time to answer them and set them straight. After all, we actually have valid arguments to support our position. Why would we choose to run from a question instead of answering it? Ours is the rational, verifiable position. Theirs is the irrational, non-verifiable one that is based on fairy tales. We don't accept the validity of evolutionary theory because it says so in our holy text books. We have actual evidence. If we just close these questions with extreme prejudice, we give the message that science is just as dogmatic as religion.

3340: <p>This has been discussed <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/111/are-questions-about-creationism-or-intelligent-design-on-topic-here">before</a> but these types of questions keep coming. </p>

<p>Should we add questions about creationism/mythical stories/intelligent design as one of the permanently listed off topic criteria (such as basic chemistry and no-effort-homeworks)?</p>
 3553: <h1>Creationism/intelligent design is <strike>wrong</strike> a matter of opinion.</h1>
<p>Somewhat related is the recent PloS ONE retraction <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living&quot;</a>. Intelligent design <em>cannot</em> be shown with scientific rationale. If we consider this site to be scientific, we must accept that any such similar fundamentally unscientific ideas cannot be on topic.</p>
<p>Most of these questions will naturally be opinion based since in it is ones opinion that the original premise is either true or false (it remains untestable). By extension questions based on that already are a matter of opinion.</p>
<h3>Evolution rhetoric can be edited out.</h3>
<p>A side note here is that many times it is a simple semantic mistake implying that evolution is aiming at something. This is nothing more than a genuine misunderstanding and can often be easily edited out unless there is something else wrong with the question or OP is stubborn.</p>
<h1>Myth and religion.</h1>
<p>I must say I haven't come across too many of these. Most probably one could close for an individual custom reason like</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Dragons don't exist, so it's tricky to answer a question about Dragon biochemistry.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>or</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whilst nativity is a lovely story, there is no biological reason nor evidence this could have happened in humans.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Broadly speaking I agree with @Terdon. The close reasons in place are good enough when things break down. Custom reasons are good enough since the occurrences are so rare.</p>
 1306: <p>No. As I have already said <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/573/1306">here</a>, in my opinion, such questions should be welcome here <strong>as long as they are good questions by the standards of SE</strong>. In my experience, such questions fall into two broad categories:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Questions where the OP is honestly confused, has had the misfortune of being raised in a place where creationism or ID are taught in school and offered as valid alternatives to evolution. The OP has an honest question and is truly interested in the answer.</p>
<p>In such cases, it is important that we, as the experts, help them understand. We tend to forget that the general public is not as aware of the details of what the theory of evolution posits as we are. As experts, it is our responsibility to enlighten them and help them understand.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Questions where the OP is trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution. These are more annoying but I still feel they should be welcome. All creationist/ID arguments I've ever come across are based on a fundamental misunderstanding or pure ignorance of what evolution is about and how it works. They are trvial to debunk and answer. We should do so.</p>
<p>Now, if the OP wants to start an argument and doesn't want to listen, we can either ignore them or close the question as too broad (since it is very likely to be so)</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>In short, most such questions are usually bad (too broad, primarily opinion based etc). Those we can close without needing any special close reasons. The few that remain that are good questions should be answered. If the OP makes the effort of formulating a clear, well written question about ID, we should take the time to answer them and set them straight. After all, we actually have valid arguments to support our position. Why would we choose to run from a question instead of answering it? Ours is the rational, verifiable position. Theirs is the irrational, non-verifiable one that is based on fairy tales. We don't accept the validity of evolutionary theory because it says so in our holy text books. We have actual evidence. If we just close these questions with extreme prejudice, we give the message that science is just as dogmatic as religion.</p>
