Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID is winning the language war

arroba Email

Language matters.

And my recent search on the terms “post-Darwinist” and “post-Darwinian” suggests that getting over Darwin may be catching on. Check the figures.

I would not have named my personal ID news blog the Post-Darwinist in April 2005 if the use of the term then had been anything like what it is now.

Someone else searched on “intelligent design”, minus the supposed chief culprits (you can do that with a Google Advanced search), also with some very interesting results.

And all this in the year of ridiculous Darwin hagiography – with more to come in 2009!


When I first started researching this controversy in 2001, I kept turning up promotional copy for products or ideas that show “intelligent design”.Today I doubt that Hill Clinton could claim that her proposed health care program shows “intelligent design” without igniting an uproar. But twenty years ago, a politician could have put it that way without controversy.

That too is a cultural change.

Legacy media are losing this one and they deserve to. They did not examine the issues, they simply dusted off stale story formulas.

For more go here.

Ekstasis and all, The main thing to see here is the relative comfort level that many people now experience when disagreeing with the conventional Darwinism yapped at us by talk show hosts or National Geographic magazine. The search does not mean that all those people agree with the ID folk. No one said it did. They may have some other explanation. But they know what's hot and what's not. And Darwin is not. Despite the hagiography strenuously supported by his current followers. And budgeted by museums. In reality, natural selection has never been anything other than a conservative force in nature, and the source of useful variations (on the schedule that is actually needed) is still missing. O'Leary
It would be interesting to conduct further analysis of how and to what degree the post-darwinian viewpoint is expanding beyond its "traditional base". I am unfamiliar with the history, but presume it perhaps got its start with Michael Denton and was limited primarily to Creationists? The sociology of it must be fascinating. For what its worth, I did a similar Good search and, without getting anywhere near a scientifically valid sample size, noticed a large number of sites that appear not to fall into the traditional base of Creationists or ID specific sources. Ekstasis
Denyse, is a valuable asset to the ID community. Does good research, writes good articles. Thank God she is on our side. PannenbergOmega
Excellent observation, Denyse. I never really stop to consider that how terms enter the language speaks volumes about the underlying controversy. I hope that I don't embarass you by stating that your constant attention and writings on this subject have played a major role in confusing the enemies of intelligent design. poachy

Leave a Reply