So, I was looking around recently, and I saw several answers/questions which were downvoted because people thought that "Oh, that science is 'incorrect'", when the person actually proves in their question/answer that their position is correct. As an outspoken Intelligent Design proponent, I am a bit worried that somebody(s) might do this to me. If enough people were to do it, it would ruin my reputation.
What do I do when a question or answer is downvoted out of bias?
A little late to the show, but one point I'd like to address re your insectomammalian answer. And that is the claim of bias itself. Science and the whole ID thing aside, I don't see how you could actually expect to "do" anything at all unless you can demonstrate that bias was at work in this instance.
You get all kinds of folks in forums that deal with the art & craft of geopoesy: different perspectives on science itself; different perspectives on ultimate origins (first principles) etc. You might get one or two up or down votes based solely on pro or contra ID bias. Most of the downvotes, as far as I can tell, were most likely cast because you didn't actually answer the question!
That's one of the seven deadly sins around here. I can guarantee that had you addressed the OP's query on its own terms, even using ID assumptions, you would have fared much better!
As you learn yourself in the comments: In the future I shall make sure to use the assumptions of the question when asking questions. This is the way to go, because the querent is not asking us for how this or that can or can not be in the real world. No, they're asking for help in understanding how it works in their own fictional / fantastic / sciencefictiony world.
In summary: I think you would find it impossible to demonstrate or even imply that anti-ID bias was used against your answer. If I had seen it timely, I might have downvoted it (for not answering the query), or at best upvoted a better answer. I might have left a comment to the effect of "in what way does this answer the original query?" Not out of bias, but simply because the OP deserves your best answer!, and it's a community responsibility to nudge our fellow respondents towards making excellent answers and improving poor answers.
The OP appears to be under the regrettably common misapprehension that criticism of an opinion that they hold is criticism of themselves.
To use a neutral example:
Alice states that she believes in X.
Bob states that X is wrong, and Y is correct instead.
Charlie says that Alice is an idiot for believing that X is correct.
Bob is attacking X. Charlie is attacking Alice. Attacking beliefs is part of what we do here on SE. Attacking others for what they believe is unacceptable here.
Alice may hold X very dear to herself, and considers an attack on X by Bob to be an attack upon herself just the same as the attack upon herself by Charlie. However, this is not the case.
In the case of Alice vs Bob, Alice has a choice:
Engage in a discussion of X vs Y with Bob and try to show why X is true and Y is not.
Accept Bob's argument that Y is true.
Or
In the case of Alice vs Charlie, Alice need only flag Charlie's post, since Charlie was making a personal attack.
To bring the example closer to what appears to have occurred, let us assume that Alice had been answering Bob's question, and Bob's question had been written with the assumption that Y applies. Alice's answer made with the assumption that Y does not apply and that in fact X applies would not be well received, and is likely to be downvoted. However, these downvotes are not an attack upon Alice, but upon her apparent error in assuming X where Bob had asked a question presupposing Y.
So, to the OP, I say: Be sure to match the assumptions of your answers to the assumptions of the question that you are answering. If you fail to do so, expect downvotes. However, having made an assumption in your answer at odds with that of the question, you need not put up with personal attacks for your error.
I would suggest that you write you question including a statement at the beginning along the lines of "In a world where life was created in the ways proposed by intelligent deign" or "assuming we accept the principles of intelligent design". It may also be worth quickly outlining the key points of intelligent design just to make sure everyone is working from the same premise.
This makes it very clear that you are wanting answers that accept intelligent design and so whether intelligent design is correct or not doesn't matter in the context of the question. Beyond this there's not much you can do although if massive down voting is occurring and you believe this is why you could try raising this in meta although I'm not sure this will do much.
Another thing that could help reduce down voting is making sure you phrase the question so that it doesn't look like an argument for intelligent design/against other people's views. People on the site are much more likely to engage helpfully if you are simply asking for help with your problem than if you are perceived to be trying to push your point of view onto people.
In terms of writing answers it's trickier as you are not setting the constraints of the world, this is done in the question. Make sure before you answer that an answer based on intelligent design will fit the question's constraints. For instance, if someone asks "How could X have evolved" answers based on theories other than evolution would probably be downvoted for not addressing the question. Obviously the same applies the other way around as well.
If you are not sure about how a question will be received you could post it in the Sandbox first but I'm not sure how active the Sandbox is at the moment so there's no guarantee that anyone will see it. The other option is to get a more informal discussion on your question in the chat.
The system is designed to protect from this, being skewed to favor upvotes vs downvotes.
A downvote takes away 2 reputation.
An upvote gives 10 reputation.
You need 5 downvotes to cancel a single upvote. Based on my experience only extremely poor answers get 5 or more downvotes and not a single upvote.
I saw your answer on the question about insects and mammals. I would have downvoted it had you not deleted it before.
I have nothing against using pseudosciences to answer questions, I do that all the time. God knows I got a couple of flat Earth answers here. I always take care to make it clear that I'm not serious about them though.
But when you make a claim that some pseudoscience is actual science, you are opening a can of worms.
You said you used four or five scientific articles, calling the name of molecular biology, but did not provide any links to the articles. Your post also defies high school classroom biology.
It was, all in all, maybe a good faith attempt at answering the question - but unfortunately it was more about defending ID than providing an answer to how some specific kinds of animals could end up filling some niches.
If someone were to post a question about day/night cycles and one of the replies is written assuming that the earth is flat would you expect that to be down voted?
Wrong answers will be down voted, and your answer is wrong. That's not bias, it's fact.
You added a comment saying there are 5 articles and 4 books but that is not a citation. A citation is something like Book X, Edition Y, Page Z where Professor A says that "B C D".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and you are not providing that.
Many people using this site have a scientific background, we know how to read claims and cross reference articles. We also know what the consensus scientific literature on something like this is. For example we know that genetic algorithms work - people use them all the time in various fields of computing.
I remember as a kid back in the late 80s playing around with a computer program that had simulated creatures running around on a field eating food. Their behavior allowed them to breed and mutate and compete and even that very simple simulation had surprisingly sophisticated behaviors emerge.
I'm sorry you feel attacked about this - but please remember none of this is aimed personally at you. If you bring pseudo-science to a real-science question it will get shot down in the same way someone suggesting psionics, the flying spaghetti monster, or astral projection will.
There are plenty of stack exchanges (including this one if it is phrased correctly) where you can go to ask questions about evolution and hopefully work out where you have been misled. There are certainly areas where our (meaning both individuals here and the wider scientific community) understanding can be improved, so further research there would be most welcome. If you come in assuming that millions of scientists and engineers over hundreds of years have got it wrong than you're going to need some very compelling evidence though.
For example in one of your comments you said:
What I was essentially saying is that, due to the nature of mutations, you cannot get from a simple bacteria (the genetic equivalent of a 3-page instruction manual written in grammatically incorrect Chinese) to a human (the genetic equivalent of a 3,000 page tome written in grammatically correct English)
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how genetics works - if the bacteria's instruction manual was grammatically incorrect they would die.
Additionally I could trivially write an algorithm using only random mutations and selection that would turn any input text you like into any output text you like. It would only take a few minutes to write, although for a long text it might take a while to run.
