Decline in interest in creationism/ID over time.

[inquiring mind]

If ID isn't producing any new research or propaganda material then you won't find anything new on Google or YouTube. My point is that it doesn't really matter where you look if ID 'research' has faded away.

OB

My point is I don’t know how accurate the google trend alone is in representing this overall search and interest. Granted, google represents a very large percentage of otherwise regular traffic. But, having said that all you have to do with google or youtube is type in creationism or intelligent design to quickly see that material, pro and con, has not faded away. I cannot speak to the amount of new material being put out anywhere. And, unless I misunderstood the OP, it’s about ‘interest shown’ and not ‘the amount of new material.’

 

[tas8831]

Google owns YouTube, and supposedly they operate separately. Do these trends include creationism research on YouTube as well? If not, maybe more people are using (switching to) YouTube for their research.

"Research"...

 

[inquiring mind]

"Research"...

Yeah, we've corrected that choice of words already... 'interest' it is.

 

[sfs]

My point is I don’t know how accurate the google trend alone is in representing this overall search and interest.

Seems like a reasonable question.

 

[pitabread]

My point is I don’t know how accurate the google trend alone is in representing this overall search and interest. Granted, google represents a very large percentage of otherwise regular traffic. But, having said that all you have to do with google or youtube is type in creationism or intelligent design to quickly see that material, pro and con, has not faded away. I cannot speak to the amount of new material being put out anywhere. And, unless I misunderstood the OP, it’s about ‘interest shown’ and not ‘the amount of new material.’

I'm basically using it as just another indicator of the downward trend of creationism in general. This coincides with demographic trends of creationism which have been pointing downward for a decade+ now.

Likewise, this forum has seen a dramatic decline in the creation/evolution debate here in the last couple decades. And looking at other social media venues (e.g. Reddit, YouTube) there isn't a whole lot of debate happening there either.

Creationism just seems to be gradually petering out.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm basically using it as just another indicator of the downward trend of creationism in general. This coincides with demographic trends of creationism which have been pointing downward for a decade+ now.

Likewise, this forum has seen a dramatic decline in the creation/evolution debate here in the last couple decades. And looking at other social media venues (e.g. Reddit, YouTube) there isn't a whole lot of debate happening there either.

Creationism just seems to be gradually petering out.

I've noticed this in other forums as well. 15 years ago or so it was much more active than it is today.

 

[tas8831]

My point is I don’t know how accurate the google trend alone is in representing this overall search and interest. Granted, google represents a very large percentage of otherwise regular traffic. But, having said that all you have to do with google or youtube is type in creationism or intelligent design to quickly see that material, pro and con, has not faded away. I cannot speak to the amount of new material being put out anywhere. And, unless I misunderstood the OP, it’s about ‘interest shown’ and not ‘the amount of new material.’

You can look for corroboration elsewhere - like the fact that the DI's "research" arm, The Biologic Institute, closed up shop. If IDC was such a great impetus for research, seems, with its great funding (actual researchers could have accomplished so much with the money wasted on creationist fantasies!) they could have really shown us.
After they had re-worked their online essays and 'published' them in their little magazine for the first few issues of their "journal", they very quickly ran out of material. The last few volumes had but a handful of essays in them none beyond the basic ranting at evolution that you would find on any YEC website. Sad.

YECism/IDCism was never really about science, it was about casting doubt on that which they have been programed to be against in order to protect their flimsy belief system.

 

[tas8831]

I'm basically using it as just another indicator of the downward trend of creationism in general. This coincides with demographic trends of creationism which have been pointing downward for a decade+ now.

Likewise, this forum has seen a dramatic decline in the creation/evolution debate here in the last couple decades. And looking at other social media venues (e.g. Reddit, YouTube) there isn't a whole lot of debate happening there either.

Creationism just seems to be gradually petering out.

The number of creation/evolution forums seems to have dropped off quite a bit, as well (though there do seem to be quite a few social media pages advocating creationism, they draw even less support and the claims made on them seem to be the same old hackneyed garbage that we see here). The quality of the creationism 'argumentation' on those that remain has also petered out - dramatically, as you say. I would say that, IMO, historically the majority of creationist posts/threads were just silly, but there were many that were at least a challenge, bringing up what could appear at first to be a real issue needing to be discussed. I would say maybe 30% - this is going back 20-25 years for me. In the past 5 years or so, though, the 'meaningful' creationist posts/threads - on ALL of the forums I have seen - have dropped to maybe 1-2%. You are way more likely to see the sorts of threads we see on here with titles like "Just to stretch your imagination: under the right conditions an insect, can become an animal?" or ""No sex" law in Darwinism", or dopey spam with repetitive "questions" that cannot possibly be posted seriously.
Then there are the creationist 'post and runners' - who stop in, post the same claims they've been using for years which have already been debunked or are unsupported, then scamper off for weeks or months at a time, only to return again making the same claims. Like the guy that keeps posting an out of context quote from David Raup, or those that keep claiming that DNA is exactly like computer code.

I'm sure they think they are 'witnessing' or something, but they don't even seem to get much support from other creationists like we used to see.

I'll just be happy when they stop being so dishonest and desperate.

 

[tas8831]

The scriptures' do say before the Lord comes back there will be an increase of ungodliness as it was in the days of Noah

Scripture also says it is OK to bash children's heads on rocks and rip up the bellies of pregnant women for living in a village that does not worship Jehovah. So forgive us for maybe not thinking Scripture is all that reliable in matters of morality.

 

[pitabread]

I would say that, IMO, historically the majority of creationist posts/threads were just silly, but there were many that were at least a challenge, bringing up what could appear at first to be a real issue needing to be discussed. I would say maybe 30% - this is going back 20-25 years for me. In the past 5 years or so, though, the 'meaningful' creationist posts/threads - on ALL of the forums I have seen - have dropped to maybe 1-2%. You are way more likely to see the sorts of threads we see on here with titles like "Just to stretch your imagination: under the right conditions an insect, can become an animal?" or ""No sex" law in Darwinism", or dopey spam with repetitive "questions" that cannot possibly be posted seriously.

A big difference I've noticed is that creationists used to cite specific sources. Typically AiG or ICR. And Hovind came up a lot.

These days creationists don't seem to use or reference creationist sources as much. So you get more of these bizarre ad-hoc posts or creationists coming up with their own versions of creationism.

 

[sfs]

In the past 5 years or so, though, the 'meaningful' creationist posts/threads - on ALL of the forums I have seen - have dropped to maybe 1-2%.

Maybe most the intellectual effort has shifted from denying genetics, paleontology, geology, and astronomy to denying virology, immunology, and epidemiology. I don't think it's an improvement.

 

[Doveaman]

From Google Trends, showing interest in subjects by way of Google searches over time. Note that these results are for the United States only. I'm not sure if including other countries might skew the results, since outside of the U.S. creationism/ID generally doesn't have as large a presence.

Creationism:

View attachment 303526

Creation Science:

View attachment 303530

Intelligent Design:

View attachment 303527

Discovery Institute:

View attachment 303528

Answers in Genesis:

View attachment 303529

Decline of the U.S. over time:

Creationism:

Intelligent Design:

 

[pitabread]

Decline of the U.S. over time:

Don't worry, I'm sure there are some Islamic theocracies that are still promoting creationism.

 

[the Vital One]

It could be a change in how the Internet is used and what it is capable of. Message boards and similar venues once had a bigger role in cyberspace. Now people have YouTube, Netflix and other video platforms.

At least that's my personal experience.

 

[tas8831]

Decline of the U.S. over time:

Fewer people caring about silly fantasies like creationism and ID creationism over time is a GOOD thing. Maybe if this trend had begun a decade earlier, we would not be suffering under the weight of the QAnon and Trump cults.

Creationism:

Intelligent Design:

It's all good:

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Fewer people caring about silly fantasies like creationism and ID creationism over time is a GOOD thing. Maybe if this trend had begun a decade earlier, we would not be suffering under the weight of the QAnon and Trump cults.


It's all good:

But what if QAnon and Trump cults are partially substituting for creationist beliefs, i.e. satisfying some need to construct and believe irrational narratives?

BTW - Bellingcat has some interesting material on the origins of Q & QAnon...