Threatiness and blog traffic
by machtA while ago, Chris at Mixing Memory wrote about the tendencies of some anti-ID blogs:
"Post after post on every single piece of nonsense that an IDist puts on the internet, and as they become more obsessed, post after post about what IDists are eating for breakfast, signifies a deep lack of focus and direction, and it's less "pro-science" than it is masturbation."
I see signs that they may be starting to realize this. Myers offers a number of explanations for why UD has low traffic compared to his blog but he neglects one that we at Telic Thoughts have been mentioning for quite some time - ID just isn't that big of a threat. Not a lot of people know what ID is, not a lot of people talk about ID, not a lot of people accept ID, and the threat ID poses to society is quite minimal. Because of these things, ID blogs don't get a lot of traffic.Â
The problem with some of these anti-ID blogs is that if they do start to realize and (perhaps) curtail their masturbatory tendencies, their own blog traffic may go limp, too. Check the sidebar at Science Blogs and you will notice that the most active and most emailed posts are quite often about the ID movement (with the other hot topics being religion, politics, and anything else that isn't strictly science).Â
September 1st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Could you elaborate on that? If ID is not such a big deal, why is this science vs religion war being waged since the inception of the human race? Perhaps you wanted to say that not many people go into details about ID and don't really care about it's merits vs science but merely take their beliefs on faith and don't want anything to do with them beyond it - that makes a lot of sense then.
Comment by dimasok — September 1, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 7:54 pm
The reason some blogs are obsessed with 'fighting ID' has more to do with what ID can become, and is becoming, and next to nothing to do with what ID (or at least the "anti-evolution" fight that preceded or ran alongside it) currently is.
The prospect of scientists, or theists-at-large, being able to happily accept evolution and all of the data of scientific discoveries while still maintaining a teleological view and belief in their faith(s) is the real terror. For many people, science and religion are supposed to be downright incompatible. If people are able to accept both at once, the joy of science will be gone - and ID, like it or not, was a step towards realizing that unification.
Comment by nullasalus — September 1, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
September 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 am
"science vs religion war being waged since the inception of the human race?"
Are you for real?
Like… damn…
Um. Who says?
Comment by BenK — September 2, 2007 @ 6:59 am
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 am
You know what I meant. Don't be argumentative for the sake of disagreeing with me.
Comment by dimasok — September 2, 2007 @ 10:30 am
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 am
Most critics engage this topic because of a sense of threatiness or because of a need to validate their stereotypes (either for personal reasons or because it earns them applause and favor among their herd).
Ironically, it is the critics who have kept the ID issue alive in the post-wedge world. Once the Dover victory was secured, their most effective response would have been to turn the cold shoulder on ID, relegating it to the realm of its small niche audience. Yet by constantly criticizing and berating ID and those associated with it, the critics, who represent the establishment, confer a degree of legitimacy to ID. And now, all because of their slash-and-burn techniques (viewed as necessary due to their sense of threatiness), plenty of material was handed to certain mainstream documentary makers. BTW, did you notice that Ben Stein's web page is more than happy to reproduce LeHigh University's decree against Behe? While the decree was not needed for the Dover decision, it does seem to come in handy for a movie, now doesn't it?
So why do you think the critics are so keen on keeping the ID movement afloat?
Comment by MikeGene — September 2, 2007 @ 11:31 am
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I live in Oklahoma, and most of my friends are fundies or close to it, I go to a conservative Church, and so on and so forth. Of my friends, I haven't found a SINGLE ONE who knew who William Dembski was. My sister-in-law knew Behe and Darwin's Black Box, but that's about it.
Even here in fundie-land, there's hardly anyone who has heard of Intelligent Design or any of the ID crew.
Of course - that may be what they are really scared of — that these people are making inroads not in the popular culture, but rather in the intellectual culture.
Comment by johnnyb — September 2, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:35 am
johnnyb:
You nailed it johnnyb. If one looks at the ebb and flow of history one finds it is shaped by ideas that gained acceptance by a relative handful of people interested in the ideas of Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Locke, Hegel, Darwin and many more. Only after a paradigm shift occurs within this sub-group does it spread to the popular culture.
Comment by Bradford — September 3, 2007 @ 12:35 am
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:24 am
No, I really don't. If you're approaching criticism of Darwinism from a 'War between Science and Religion' perspective you're trying to insert it into a narrative that is largely mythical.
Comment by BenK — September 3, 2007 @ 7:24 am
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
BenK wrote:
Religion has always been at war with science. And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 3, 2007 @ 10:19 pm