Darwin’s Celebrity Status

How many blogs/articles, etc., have been written in the last year talking ABOUT creationists, as opposed to how many were written BY creationists. It's one thing for the fringe of a group to do silly stuff, but if you were sitting in the middle watching this, you'd see that the real uproar is by secularists who just want any excuse they can find to bitch about creationists.

I challenge you to go, now, and backtrack and see what the balance of these perspectives are. If, as you say, the majority of people are people of faith, then oddly not many of them seem to be pursuing this supposed crusade. This is akin to the Republican party spending a substantial amount of time ranting about the American Socialist Party, or the Whigs, for that matter...

You have to look to find a creationist blog around here, but you can spin around 5 times, blindfolded, toss a rock and hit an anti-ID blog with ease. I wonder if you are actually set off by "fundamentalists playing into the ghostly hands of Darwin", or if this is just some spontaneous gripe. The chicken little ID blogs keep rolling out, and yet I haven't seen anything to provoke them in a long time...

It is not all the religious right, per se.  But religious fundamentalist.  I am religious, and I am right, but I dont think you would say I am part of the religious right (they dont want me anyway, I am catholic).

The FEW that are so obsessed are because it does go against their beliefs.  I would invite you to check out the religion forum as I have several articles there were I have been debating some very intelligent and accepting members who may believe as the religious right does, but do not persecute those who do not.

We hear a lot about the fundamentalist (lets call them what they are), but they do not control the right, nor do a majority agree with them.

We hear a lot about the fundamentalist (lets call them what they are), but they do not control the right, nor do a majority agree with them.

You would agree that they are perhaps a little more... vocal... than the relative population they represent, so they seem to represent more people than they actually do.

"You would agree that they are perhaps a little more... vocal... than the relative population they represent, so they seem to represent more people than they actually do."

The odd part is, even then, we don't hear FROM them a fraction as often as we hear ABOUT them. I can't remember the last pro-creationism thread I saw around here, but there is a steady stream of derisive, "the Xtians are gonna get ya" blogs. When I see stuff about ID on Google News, the up-to-date, headline page, I click links and find that they are referring to something that was said six months ago.

but if you were sitting in the middle watching this, you'd see that the real uproar is by secularists who just want any excuse they can find to bitch about creationists.

You have a very selective eye, friend. Regardless of bloggers, Creationism is in the news--Dover,PA seems pretty recent. Stickers on science text books are meddlesome to say the least. Besides, it's just not creationism per say but the incursion of ID does a fairly good job at making the blogosphere and the general media. To me, all the hullabaloo ain't worth it.

You would agree that they are perhaps a little more... vocal... than the relative population

You got that right.

but they do not control the right, nor do a majority agree with them.

Still, their din gives the appearance they are voicing the "silent majority." As a Catholic you should know that the Vatican long ago put evolution to rest.

"Creationism is in the news--Dover,PA seems pretty recent. "

lol, no doubt, but not because there is some new fact. There's just day-to-day rehashing of months-old issues by people who feel the need to bitch about it incessantly.

To me, it looks a LOT more like some folks are granting CREATIONISTS celebrity status. They say one word, their detractors publish spend weeks railing to the heavens about it. You could turn a few words around in your post and ask why the hell people are trying so hard to make something out of a bunch of marginalized fundamentalists.

So why do the secularists keep playing into the ghostly hands of Creationism by giving it undue publicity? Haven’t they learned by now that bad press in entertainment and books only lead to tsunami of interest?

Still, their din gives the appearance they are voicing the "silent majority." As a Catholic you should know that the Vatican long ago put evolution to rest.

We hear a lot about the fundamentalist (lets call them what they are), but they do not control the right, nor do a majority agree with them.

I mean, Falwell and his ilk had the balls to call themselves the "Moral Majority". If that isn't claiming to speak for more than 50% of people, I don't know what is.

So why do the secularists keep playing into the ghostly hands of Creationism by giving it undue publicity? Haven’t they learned by now that bad press in entertainment and books only lead to tsunami of interest?

There is such a thing as defensive polity, you know. 

I mean, Falwell and his ilk had the balls to call themselves the "Moral Majority". If that isn't claiming to speak for more than 50% of people, I don't know what is.

Yes, Falwell and Roberson are constantly in our faces.

You could turn a few words around in your post and ask why the hell people are trying so hard to make something out of a bunch of marginalized fundamentalists.

I don't have to turn it around--you do very well.

I mean, Falwell and his ilk had the balls to call themselves the "Moral Majority". If that isn't claiming to speak for more than 50% of people, I don't know what is.

I can claim to sapeak for all Catholics, but I am sure Kerry would disagree with me.  I can claim anything, that does not make it a fact.  Even at his Heydey, Falwell only spoke for a few million people.  Hardly a Majority. Dean claims to speak for a majority of Americans, yet the democrats have not won a majority since 1976!

Defense is one thing. MEdia response to ID has been like the US focusing their military defenses on Lichtenstein. The reason I feel it is important is that secular protectionism can turn into religious bigotry fairly quickly when a group is villified constantly and made into more of a threat than they actually are.

People around here are definitely seeing creationists in every shadow, much like the nations was filled to the brim with commie spies in the 50's...

secular protectionism can turn into religious bigotry

I doubt it; there's much common ground--both rely on plumbing and pizza, and both go to church in SUVs. Cretionists behave more like McCarthy than do "secularists"--whatever that means.

For those who are stuck in the mid-1900's possibly. Otherwise you'd see how many interpret religious expression as religious imposition.

That's not to say they don't have their mirrors on the other end. I bet, though, you'd have a harder time convincing irrational people who see a Creationist lurking under every rock to admit they are out there on the fringe of anything...

what’s so terribly incompatible with the idea that the seeds of Adam and Eve were planted in primal cells that eventuated into a unique ape and then culminated as proud homo sapiens?

I have gotta admit, guys, as a Christian I don't see how intelligent design fits in with the Biblical account of the Creation in the first place. From what I know of the ID camp, I'm just not seeing it at all. I believe in six days, dust of the earth, and all that it entails. Don't misunderstand me, I'm certainly not a zealot who believes in the God-breathed scriptures or anything. I am not a fundamentalist, but I have seen them on TV. I just believe in the Creation. If I don't understand it all, that's just because I'm not God. I figure any problems I have with the nature of the universe are my problems, not God's. I define that as faith.

Sorry, maybe I'm going off-topic.

singrdave: It wouldn't fit in with a literalist interpretation, that's true. Many, dare I say most, Christians these days aren't hard-line literalist.

That's no judgement on those that are, mind you, but you'd be right in saying that ID doesn't jive with Creationism. That's what annoys me the most about people who want to turn the whole ID debate into the Scopes monkey trial.

That's what annoys me the most about people who want to turn the whole ID debate into the Scopes monkey trial.

ID per se is nothing new; philosophers and theologians have been grappling with the essence and mystery of creation since Plato, Anselm and Augustine. But the problem is the attempt to make it an integral unit of science which is not related, and on the other end creationists do exploit ID for their own gain.

That IS the problem. I'll give you that. A subsequent problem is when millions of people half-hear a description of ID and then wander onto the Internet and characterize it as creationism and poison the pond of scientists who would really like to entertain the idea that there might be more at work than chance.

That's why I said your blog could go both ways. Creationists hijack ID, granted, but staid theorists also hijack the paranoia to taint research they find threatening. If ID robs any discussion of scientific merit, then all you have to do is tag something with the stigma of ID to rid yourself of it.

I think science would do better to not entertain any opinion on either, frankly. If people want to try to prove scientifically that God made the earth in 6 days, let them. Debate them, sure, you don't have to accept their findings, but it seems crass to say that any point couldn't be scientifically tested before it actually has been.

but it seems crass to say that any point couldn't be scientifically tested before it actually has been.

Crass? Well, okay, granted, if hysterical about it; yet there is no logic to the argument in the first place. 

"Well, okay, granted, if hysterical about it; yet there is no logic to the argument in the first place. "

There didn't appear to be much logic to the idea that the world was round, either, or that the earth revolves around the sun. The opposite seemed self-apparent.

The problem is vantage point. As we acheived the ability to see the universe from a different perspective, the obvious became less so. It would be the height of unscientific behavior to claim that we have reached some pinnacle of perspective.

I personally don't adhere to creationism, but I wouldn't feel very scientific ruling out something offhand after hundreds of years of scientific convention being overturned over and over. All I can do is choose to believe based on the data at hand, and allow for surprises in the future.

The last thing we should do is reject the testing of a hypothesis as not being "science" in knee jerk fashion, as is being done with theories of Intelligent Design.

The problem is vantage point.

That is it in a nutshell.  The rest is just window dressing.

testing of a hypothesis as not being "science" in knee jerk fashion, as is being done with theories of Intelligent Design.

We are in the pit of definitions; "hypothesis is usually attributed to scientific data; it is not enough to say that because the eye is so complex that it must have been predesigned supranaturally--why not accept natural selection and let it go at that? [see my blog on "Natural Selecton is Design"]