Fun With Google Trends – ID vs. Darwinism vs. Creationism

I get different result, Dave.

http://www.google.com/trends?q.....+evolution

Hey Dave,

I love the Googlytics! But isn’t “Darwinian Evolution” the type of term the average Googler would not use? What about “Theory of Evolution” or just “Evolution”?

And who uses the term “Scientific Creationism” in lieu of plain old “creationism”?

I tried evolutionary theory, theory of evolution,darwinian evolution, theological evolution – it returned “darwinian evolution does not have enough search volume for ranking”

I then tried evolutionary theory, theory of evolution,intelligent design, creationism. It shows a spike in ID searches leading up to and during the Dover trial and in the last month a spike in searches for “Creationism”, no doubt due to the smears against Sarah Palin’s views on the same.

Check this one on darwinism, atheism, creationism, theism.

Thank you so much for having enough time on your hands to find something wonky enough to kill the rest of my morning!

You would be a good campaign manager Dave.

ID doesn’t dispute all “evolution”. It disputes Darwinian evolution.

Dave,

What other kind(s) of “evolution” is/are there with respect to the study of the development of life on this planet?

One gets similar results with physics vs. newtonian physics.

-DU-

Since atheists are promoting evolutionism more than ever, it is no surprise terms related to evolution will appear more than those relating to ID, specially considering the fact that they own the mainstream.

Theres also a battle over terminology over Fuller’s text posted here. The link, again is: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=622

Atheists are pissed because Fuller uses the term evolutionISM. According to them, only evil creationist liars use this term.

Anyways, it would be funny if someone actually could find out some darwinist using the term.

“ID doesn’t dispute all “evolution”. It disputes Darwinian evolution.”

No, ID only disputes some Darwinian evolution, not all of it. There is nothing in ID that would dispute micro evolution which is Darwinian evolution. It is macro evolution that is disputed by ID to have happened because of Darwinian principles.

When I say Darwinian evolution I mean the term writ large accounting for the entire history of life on earth. Do I really need to tediously qualify it at every mention? I don’t think so. Most of the subscribers and audience here recognize by now that micro-evolution by chance & necessity is not being disputed. We don’t dispute facts. We dispute theory.

Well since even Pokemon “evolve”, it’s kind of like the argument that evolution isn’t the most common multisyllabic word in Mein Kampf, because in German “development” and “evolution” are the same word. Sensitive males are “evolved”, and people have indicated they are “evolve” when they mean “enlightened”.

Off topic: There was some controversy about how the movie “Expelled” was represented to Darwinians depicted in the film. This is from an article about Bill Maher’s “Religulous” in which Maher’s movie is being treated as completely uncontroversial by the usual media/establishment sources:

http://townhall.com/columnists.....out?page=2

None of these forums even located any controversy for all of Maher’s dishonesty in filming. “We never, ever used my name,” Maher told Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times when asked about how interviews were arranged. “We never told anybody it was me [sic] who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it ‘A Spiritual Journey.’”

Why would that surprise anybody? Maher can probably even make whatever comparisons to his cartoon idea of Nazis he wants, and they won’t blink either.

err so we’re supposed to search with just “design” now too?

since this has already gone a little off-topic, I continue the digression, although this actually relates to the blog wars on evolution in a big way….

I am sure there are others here, like me, who are sick to death of the blog Littlegreenfootballs blathering on about the “unscientific” evils of ID which Charles Johnson over there naturally conflates with Creationism. LGF was once a semi-decent blog especially (actually solely) on issues relating to leftwing PC hysterics, the Left’s apologetics re Islamic extremism and related. However these days LGF seems more concerned about propogandising for the Darwinian faithful than anything else, LGF these days comes across as a poor Pharyngula blog imitation. Johnson is a big fan of – no surprises here – Ken Miller, whose attacks on ID Johnson is continually praising as the ultimate refutations of ID pretensions, as if Miller’s critiques of Dembski and Behe have not been effectively rebutted uh years ago. But then Johnson even put up a piece by Chris Hitchens whose grasp of evolutionary science and controversies is non-existent.

LGF pretends to be so concerned at the threat the West faces from Muslim extremism; but nowadays, in an irony so completely lost on Johnson, he like the leftwing media he pretends to be so opposed to (eg The Guardian, The Independent, SF Chronicle and all the rest of them) can only parrot the Darwinbots, as Islamic fanatics grow in power in Europe and elsewhere, extend their reign of terror in Pakistan and other parts of Asia and plot mass murder world-wide. In other words Johnson sounds more and more like a hack for salon.com and others of that ilk that he pretends to scorn.

While Johnson goes out of his way to try and laughably prove that the DI is in league with Islamic creationists; on evolution, Johnson merely repeats what many (not all of course) of the leftwing PC pseudo-intellectual pseudo-liberal hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil on Islamic terror crowd (and that to a degree includes Camp Obama) have to say re Intelligent Design and evolution.

I don’t bother reading the comments (sometimes hundreds) to a single post of the great Charles Johnson, I have a life after all, so I wouldn’t know if any dissent is tolerated there or not, but his fanclub do seem to function as an echo-chamber for Charles the Great.