There were a large number of very active and very effective creationists at the national level twenty years ago.
May be that is because they picked the low hanging intellectual fruit. They got to develop and present the first arguments that hadn't been shot down for being stupid yet. They are the ones that brought forth the origins of the acronym PRATT. They were the explorers. The Christian Knights going forth.
As for a new generation? I haven't seen one, have I? I don't think I'd know.
I see kids coming in here dangling pratts they got off some old websites, but, I don't see a new generation of arguments. They were trying to make ID that new generation idea while trying to ignore its centuries long history and known rebuttal. Doesn't seem to be working.
Maybe consider that the intellectual elite of creationism, the Illiteratii, don’t care to argue any longer but rather to politically influence the growing prominence of stupidity in our societies where we have so recently seen facts and reality mean less than the political wish.
They don't disagree with the science, they disagree with the atheism.
That is simply not true marc. There is nothing in science that is atheistic.
No there's proof that it is, for anyone with their eyes open. The proof was the scientific community's kneejerk meltdown in 1996 over the "Darwin's Black Box" book. It got plenty of attention in the coming years, not for any interest in the science, but to shout it down and discredit it. The scientific community was completely unified in its anger. Any religious biologist who dared do anything but toe the line knew he'd lose his job if he didn't.
That book was not a threat to AMY religion, only to pure atheism. Their first, and most effective reaction was tie it to the "Wedge Document", as if that document was the sole purpose of Behe's work. They called it "thinly disguised creationism" largely because of that Wedge Document marriage they created with it. When questioned about books like The God Delusion", or the many articles about atheism we see in "The Scientific American" website and magazine, or the love of "science" at the American Atheists website, the constant THINLY DISGUISED ATHEISM in what the scientific community wants to teach in public schools, we always hear "oh that's just those atheist's personal opinions - has nothing to do with the science". Strange how the Wedge Document writers weren't allowed to have personal opinions apparently. The double standards really are glaring.
Everyone is religious, atheists have been writing the textbooks for science courses for a long time, because atheism controls science.
And that too is simply not true marc. Reality controls science.
Again, proven by Behe's demonization. Many people who pay taxes to support science don't believe that all of reality can be jam-packed into re-arrangement processes, the only scientific thing that humans can actually study.
I don't think current creationists recognize defeat so much as that they're just not in the same league as the previous generation of creationists. There were a large number of very active and very effective creationists at the national level twenty years ago. If we were still dealing with the equivalent of Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Andrew Snelling, John Baumgardner, Kent Hovind, Kurt Wise, Walt Brown and so forth in their prime I think things would be very different.
Creation is defeated now? Because of one judge's decision at Dover? Because of a decrease in creationist posters here? Because of Biden's election?
Morris and Dembski are inactive now, but their many books live on. Some of them in private hands, some of them still in book stores. Hopefully you don't think the government should seize them.
Behe was simply shown to be the carny snake-oil salesman and freak show barker. He was never a demon, just a clown.
Also it is essential to point out that much of Christianity also totally rejects creationism and Intelligent Design so all the evidence shows that Science and Old Earth and Evolution are not atheistic but simply reality.
Since this is PaulK's thread about the Dawkins/Lennox debates I think if I responded at any length it would be too much off-topic discussion. If you truly want to discuss the quality of creationist contributions over the years then it would be better to propose a new thread, probably for the Is It Science? forum.
A pointless debate on a totally irrelevant topic by two aging playground bullies who were legends in their own minds played out solely for the entertainment of those who had already decided the outcome.
I dont know nor care too much about defending Creationism. In regards to the new generals, however, I had heard that Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Sarfati were the Literati whom were left. What flaws do the majority of you discern in these two men? And again....I don't really see why there even exists Creationism except for the profit motive in writing books.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox
“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” - Criss Jami, Killo
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).