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.

Religion has always been at war with science. And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

You know what I meant. Don't be argumentative for the sake of disagreeing with me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Are you for real?

Like"¦ damn"¦

Um. Who says?

You know what I meant. Don't be argumentative for the sake of disagreeing with me.

Are you for real?

Like… damn…

Um. Who says?

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.

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.

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.