That does not mean, however, that the truth should not be proclaimed, or that it should be tempered.

Proclaim it. And do so with all the legitimate angles such as the connection between Hitler and naturalism (sorry Dave).

But let us proclaim it to those who can hear it, and not to belittle those blowing with the zeitgeist.

It’s not that I have done what I preach in my own sophomoric debates, and I am no Sakharov…

But I am learning…

And I believe all will be vindicated. I believe that Justice is absolute. And yes, that is a whole subject in itself, but worth remembering.

God bless

Thanks, Robert. No fear, I will.

- d. – “Confronting the fascists where they live.” (In Canada currently that’s no joke.)

I think there are far better indicators that could be used to gauge ID’s social impact than Hancock’s origins.When you consider how liberal Hollywood is, you have to stop and consider the signifigance. Producers routinely make ‘R’ rated movies rather than ‘G’ movies to satisfy their own interests. In doing this they intentionally make less profit for their companies. So to have a major movie that overcomes the personal bias of Hollywood producers is very signifigant.

I think there are far better indicators that could be used to gauge ID’s social impact than Hancock’s origins.
I’m certain there are, but I don’t discount even subtle pop culture trends when it comes to recognizing the validity of design scenarios — even fantasy ones.

Do you have any favorite examples? I know that opinion polls show a high amount of skepticism regarding undirected processes, and a surprising support for a special creation scenario. That’s not bad in and of itself, and confounding to the materialist establishment.

Pop culture indeed qualifies as an indicator, and movies are right up there with music in cultural influence, and can be a reflection of cultural attitudes. I’d say that even a minor reference to creation as opposed to some hogwash about natural selection is not nothing, and is a possible indicator of a shifting status quo, albeit a small one.

I don’t deny that pop culture can be used as an indicator of cultural trends and attitudes. What I am finding hard to believe, however, is that the fictional origin of a superhero — Hancock in this case — is any sort of indication of the attitudes of popular culture. It may reflect the attitude of Will Smith, or of the writers, but to me it seems like quite a stretch from even beginning to represent the attitude of a culture as a whole.

I think there are far better indicators that could be used to gauge ID’s social impact than Hancock’s origins.