Sunday, August 12, 2007

Creationism

A few weeks ago, when the Creation Museum was in the news, one of my coworkers took offense at the Scriptural phrase "willfully ignorant" to describe evolutionists. Today, he mocked the idea that humans and dinosaurs could have coexisted. I mentioned the discovery of a T-Rex bone with hemoglobin still intact inside, which should have degraded hundreds of times over by this point. His response, "Well then it must not be a dinosaur bone." That seemed like willful ignorance to me.

Anyway, has anyone else noticed how the creationism debate has become much more strident and insulting? Most anti-creationist literature has been at best belittling for a long time, so I had been tuning it out for a long time. What brought my attention back to it was a post on the Dilbert Blog a while back (it's fallen out of the available archives, so no link), in which Scott Adams said that there was something about evolution that made his B.S. meter plink. He was absolutely ridiculed in his comments. Every since then, I've been keeping a closer eye on such things, and now I see the "at best belittling" commentary everywhere.

I wonder what's causing it? The theory that initially pops to my mind is the radicalization that ideologies undergo when they're threatened deeply (by the creationist movement, mayhap). Any better ideas?

2 Comments:

Blogger Karl said...

I googled site:dilbertblog.typepad.com B.S. meter and found the link. Interestingly, while I agree with your premise about evolutionists being more insulting in the abstract, I read several pages of comments on the top and the bottom and there wasn't anything vitriolic. Of course I'm used to "at best belittling" and more.

That fossil article Scott Adams links to, is actually one that I linked to an anthropologist scorning, remember? He was like, "Once again, the popular press rediscovers the fact that the evolutionary tree looks like a bush. How long have they been writing this article, twenty years?" Because if you didn't think the fossil evidence went in a straight line to humans, the DNA evidence wouldn't contradict anything at all, except for the example they cited that they did think was a straightline ancestor of humans.

11:24 AM  
Blogger Karl said...

Just found a recent article that does say what I was saying Scott's article did not. Link

8:44 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home