"But the creationists still know more about evolution than they do, and always will. Because they want to know, that’s why." (Uncommon Descent)
Does anyone actually believe that? Have you run into any Creationist who actually know even Evolution 101? I sure as hell haven't! The point here doesn't make much sense. I know you can point to knee-jerk liberals and conservatives who know little about what they are espousing on any topic under the sun, but I have yet to discuss anything about Evolution with a Creationist who actually understands what gets covered in basic biology, even at the High School level. I tend to hear to same tired cliches, like tornadoes in a junkyard and how evolution is totally chance driven. I don't believe they even want to know more because knowing more might make them question their own faith way more closely than their own religious leaders would want them too.
I did find it funny that they had to define 'Creationist'. And the author does so in the loosest possible terms with
"So I clarify: I mean people who think that at least some life forms appeared as an act of divine creation. That’s the traditional meaning."Is that the traditional definition? It's not the one I have heard from people who self-identify as a Creationists. It's certainly not the one put out by AiG, ICR, or ACN. They are considerable more hard line about what is a Creationist. In fact Kennie (AiG) is even more hard-line on what it means to be a Christian -- which seems to be what Kennie says it is regardless of the rest of the Christian community believes. No matter how well educated a Creationist claims to be, someone who believes in the Genesis version of Creation doesn't delve too deeply into evolution for one reason or another . . . or should I say one rationalization or another.
Of course folks at the DI might think differently. Don't forget Uncommon Descent was started by the DI's own Bill Dembski, so the connection is there. But I wonder if this loose definition helps prop up the big tent approach they have used for years to try and align YEC, OEC, Biblical Literalists, and the like, into one political group to market Intelligent Design? I mean if you were too hard-line, you might alienate the very folks you need to try and pass the next pseudo-academic freedom piece of **** legislation. It should make one think, I know it makes me consider the possibilities. But it still isn't enough to assume that the typical Creationist knows as much or more about evolution as I do, or even any of the people I know.
The article has a few other choice phrases that I wish they would back up with evidence. I mean really, who are they kidding? Sure, teaching real science is stamping out dissent? If that were true we would be still teaching exactly what Darwin wrote. The science wouldn't have changed in 150+ years.
"Darwin’s followers have spent so much time stamping out dissent, they haven’t noticed the looming pile of contrary evidence, let alone done much to address it."Where? Anyone else actually see this looming pile? Or is it more steaming?