Creationism vs the internet

[wautd]

Does anyone ever wonder what effect the internet has on creationism?

On one hand, the internet makes it very easy for creationists to spread their misinformation to a large number of people.

On the other hand, while creationists may be shielded from reality in real life, the internet allows them to come in contact with other viewpoints, which may make them questioning their beliefs.

So do you think the internet had a positive or negative impact on creationism? Or is it a non-issue, since people rarely alter their views by just debating on the net?

[Darth Wong]

Does anyone ever wonder what effect the internet has on creationism?

On one hand, the internet makes it very easy for creationists to spread their misinformation to a large number of people.

On the other hand, while creationists may be shielded from reality in real life, the internet allows them to come in contact with other viewpoints, which may make them questioning their beliefs.

So do you think the internet had a positive or negative impact on creationism? Or is it a non-issue, since people rarely alter their views by just debating on the net?

I think the Internet has had a positive impact on creationism, by allowing them to organize and interact with each other in a much more proactive way. That is borne out by observation: creationism is now freely used as a political lever, whereas it was not used that way 20 years ago. Also, look at the rise of creationist "museums" and such. The movement is strengthening, not weakening.

The idea that they will be confronted by opposing viewpoints fails when you remember that you go where you choose to go on the Internet, and most creationists strictly visit ideologically pure sites. In the old days when "media" meant one of the big networks, a news story about creationism would have gone through much more scrutiny before being aired, and if it was aired, it would be aired by journalists (back when journalists had a reputation to uphold, and attractive women had difficulty rising in the industry because they weren't taken seriously), rather than its own advocates or a bunch of mindless copy readers.

[CaptJodan]

I'd consider it to be something of a wash both ways. Creationism picks up a few people, as do non-creationists. The core audience likely doesn't change for either side, as Mike said, most people tend to visit the areas most sympathetic to their belief systems.

I would suggest that the internet tends to be able to engage in the debate in methods not easily available elsewhere. While it is anecdotal, the fact is that I would never have gone to a site promoting, say, evolution or atheism. On the other hand, I would go to a site that delves into scientific explanations for fictional sci-fi universes, and from there, be exposed to SLAM. While not impossible, it's a lot harder to be in a conversation about your favorite new TV series and suddenly switch to "So God...yeah he doesn't exist" and have the evidence on hand to back it up.

I'm sure the reverse for creationism is true, where you go to a specific site (SFJ?) and are exposed to a creationist mindset. But I would think that the fact that it is predominately a text medium (Youtube and others notwithstanding) puts the advantages in those looking for actual logical explanations, rather than those trying to distort facts.

In summary...

Probably not much difference either way, but I would think/hope a slight advantage for those using logic.

[Illuminatus Primus]

In the old days when "media" meant one of the big networks, a news story about creationism would have gone through much more scrutiny before being aired, and if it was aired, it would be aired by journalists (back when journalists had a reputation to uphold, and attractive women had difficulty rising in the industry because they weren't taken seriously), rather than its own advocates or a bunch of mindless copy readers.

What's wrong with hot women in the news?

[Ted C]

In the old days when "media" meant one of the big networks, a news story about creationism would have gone through much more scrutiny before being aired, and if it was aired, it would be aired by journalists (back when journalists had a reputation to uphold, and attractive women had difficulty rising in the industry because they weren't taken seriously), rather than its own advocates or a bunch of mindless copy readers.

What's wrong with hot women in the news?

Nothing. He was just pointing out that their upward mobility was stifled by a patriarchal system in journalism.

[Hawkwings]

It has probably strengthened the movement. Before, lone creationists would not have spoken out as loud for fear of ridicule, but when you go on the internet and find a community of people who share your views, they reaffirm your own opinions, and you become that much more confident in your views. Plus then it's easy to organize large events.

[General Zod]

It has probably strengthened the movement. Before, lone creationists would not have spoken out as loud for fear of ridicule, but when you go on the internet and find a community of people who share your views, they reaffirm your own opinions, and you become that much more confident in your views. Plus then it's easy to organize large events.

What ridicule? Fundamentalist views including creationism have been, for the most part, seen as eccentric at best for centuries.

[Hawkwings]

What are you asking? I'm saying that isolated creationists generally won't be big on public speaking because they're afraid of a negative public response.

[Singular Intellect]

but when you go on the internet and find a community of people who share your views, they reaffirm your own opinions, and you become that much more confident in your views.

However, let's remember this isn't exclusive to religious views, but many others as well, including this board as one example. My point being is getting in touch with like minded individuals online is a arguement that can be made both ways in this context, and is a very poor arguement either way.

[General Zod]

What are you asking? I'm saying that isolated creationists generally won't be big on public speaking because they're afraid of a negative public response.

People still try to put evolution on trial because they think it's Satanic, while creationism is just another type of fundamentalism, and commonly accepted as the norm until recently. If you honestly think there was ever any fear of them getting any sort of public repercussion then you're full of shit.

[Mayabird]

The internet does also serve to give idiots a false sense of education, after they read some trivia on wikipedia that may or may not be accurate and think that they're suddenly an expert who knows way more than those evilutionists who sit in their labs working and studying all day.

[sketerpot]

The internet does also serve to give idiots a false sense of education, after they read some trivia on wikipedia that may or may not be accurate and think that they're suddenly an expert who knows way more than those evilutionists who sit in their labs working and studying all day.

What kind of classy creationists have you been dealing with? The ones I run into wouldn't dream of going somewhere as reputable as Wikipedia. They get their information from such paragons of scientific integrity as Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind (and, lately, Ben Stein).