Decline in interest in creationism/ID over time.

[RDKirk]

I haven't Googled them myself, so I don't know that the stat says much. People who are being taught those things, or are debating them, are probably given direct links.

 

[Occams Barber]

I haven't Googled them myself, so I don't know that the stat says much. People who are being taught those things, or are debating them, are probably given direct links.

If you were referring to my post about creationist quote mining here's some background.

Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists (talkorigins.org)

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I haven't Googled them myself, so I don't know that the stat says much. People who are being taught those things, or are debating them, are probably given direct links.

After thinking about your post I realised it was probably a response to the OP.

What the OP post shows is a declining interest in Creationism, Intelligent Design, Answers in Genesis (the main creationist website) and the Discovery Institute (the 'scientific' wing of ID/Creationism). The OP is using the decrease in these terms being Googled as an indication of a declining interest.

This view is supported by the absence of ID/Creationism issues in public media along with the defunding for 'scientific' investigation via the Discovery Institute. This collection of indicators suggests that ID/Creationism, if not dead, is suffering from terminal indifference.

OB

 

[Bobber]

One is to be absolutely certain about something they very obviously know little about and don't really understand - basically evolution.

Just more bias again bordering on arrogance. Claim the other side is just ignorant and can't possibly understand their argument. Why? Not smart enough.

They: We therefore win the arguments because we say so.

 

[hedrick]

It’s probably true, but theistic evolutionism is going down as well. https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
My interpretation is that this is another consequence of the rise of the nones.

 

[Bradskii]

Just more bias again bordering on arrogance. Claim the other side is just ignorant...

It's not a claim as such. More an observation.

 

[durangodawood]

Just more bias again bordering on arrogance. Claim the other side is just ignorant and can't possibly understand their argument. Why? Not smart enough....

The "other side" absolutely can understanding the basics of biological evolution, for the most part. I just think they so often choose not to in order to preserve a precious theological commitment.

 

[pitabread]

Just more bias again bordering on arrogance. Claim the other side is just ignorant and can't possibly understand their argument. Why? Not smart enough.

They: We therefore win the arguments because we say so.

For the record, there are actual studies that correct lack of understanding of science and evolution with the rejection of the same.

And also for the record, I would never suggest it's because people aren't smart enough. Rather it seems to be a more case of education and what people have been exposed to (or in the case of science/evolution, not exposed to).

 

[pitabread]

This view is supported by the absence of ID/Creationism issues in public media along with the defunding for 'scientific' investigation via the Discovery Institute. This collection of indicators suggests that ID/Creationism, if not dead, is suffering from terminal indifference.

That's basically it. There are a lot of indicators that creationism and ID are on a downward slide. From demographic shifts (younger generations have fewer creationists) to the DI defunding issues to changing political focus...

I do wonder if someone will come up with some new branding for creationism, similar to how ID became a "thing" back in the 90's and early 2000's.

 

[jacknife]

Interesting that you stick around. Can't think of any other reason than to sow discord.

We sometimes do get into very intresting topics here. And if we can educate someone on evolution an absolutely fascinating topic in biology all the better.

 

[jacknife]

I was active a decade ago up until 2018 when life threw curve balls. I can't remember my information. Sword of the Lord is I believe the name I was using at the time; had an administrator change it from the previous Mikhael, Disciple of Christ. 95% of my time was spent in OBOB. Thousands of posts. Proud atheists or other faith members have always proudly been here to tell us they don't care about Christianity. Confusing as the hot place.

I think I remember did you spend time on the world religion fourm?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

I think I remember did you spend time on the world religion fourm?

Sometimes. Very against Islam and was very known for it.

 

[jacknife]

Sometimes. Very against Islam and was very known for it.

Nope definitely not who I was thinking of we probably argued over on that section then lol.

 

[Job 33:6]

Feb. 2014 was the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate - Wikipedia

It's interesting because some people say that maybe Bill Bye should not have "debated" ken ham, due to the possibility of giving some form of credence to YECs, But in my opinion, anyone who actually listened to that "debate" really just observed it as exposure of how ridiculous YECism is.

It's like the ark encounter. The more questions you ask, the worse off YECism is. And these stunts merely seem to drive people to ask more questions.

 

[Shemjaza]

It's interesting because some people say that maybe Bill Bye should not have "debated" ken ham, due to the possibility of giving some form of credence to YECs, But in my opinion, anyone who actually listened to that "debate" really just observed it as exposure of how ridiculous YECism is.

It's like the ark encounter. The more questions you ask, the worse off YECism is. And these stunts merely seem to drive people to ask more questions.

I don't think the purpose of these debates or theme parks is to convert the unbeliever, or even sway more moderate Christians... I think it's to show support to and reinforce bonds between already Creationist Christians.

(How charitable or self serving this purpose is, I'll leave up to individual readers.)

 

[Ophiolite]

Just more bias again bordering on arrogance. Claim the other side is just ignorant and can't possibly understand their argument. Why? Not smart enough.

The majority of Creationists encountered on forums such as this may very well be smart. However, what most of them share is a refusal to seriously investigate the evidence for evolution.
I respect those Creationists who state their rejection of evolution is a matter of faith. I think that is a mistaken position, but they have every right to their view. However, what I find unacceptable are those who deny that there is evidence for evolution, but make it clear - in post after post - that they are simply not familiar with that evidence, but rely upon arguments they have read in Creationist literature, which often they do not even understand, nor recognise that most of the arguments have been long refuted. They do a disservice to their fellow Creationists and to Christianity at large.

 

[Estrid]

It's not a claim as such. More an observation.

All it takes is for sopmeone to show they understand something.

As long as an individual or group consistently shows that they do not.
cannot or will not understand something it's a pretty good generalization.

 

[tas8831]

I don't know why you would think that "bandwagon" should be an effective means of persuasion in this matter...

Is that what those graphs indicate....

 

[tas8831]

This is no surprise. It is fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

No it isn't.

 

[tas8831]

Just more bias again bordering on arrogance. Claim the other side is just ignorant and can't possibly understand their argument. Why? Not smart enough.

That is very often the case. There are hundreds of such examples on this forum alone.

They: We therefore win the arguments because we say so.

No, we 'win' because 'you' have little but bible verses and creationist websites.