One characteristic of the recent setbacks for the Darwin lobby is the reduced hold of the legacy media narrative. What every legacy journalist knows: Brave Darwin lobbyist confronts the “anti-science” hordes?
Today, you are anti-science if you doubt that we are living in a giant sim or that design of the universe is “blasphemous.” In other words, if you doubt what is dubious.
In a world where science increasingly means that sort of thing, it is inevitable that the legacy media would be running stories on how popular political candidates are mostly anti-science. Like this one from Discover Mag’s “Bad Astronomy” blog (August 29, 2011:
A lot of folks on the web are buzzing about Paul Krugman’s NYT OpEd today about the antiscience convictions of the current cohort of Republican candidates running for President of these United States. I find little fault in what Krugman wrote. Each candidate on the right is simply scrambling to be even more antiscience than the next.
Or more in touch with reality? That’s where most people live.