Creationism, Unchallenged

A short, pointed essay on how much responsible media should report on stupid things (debunking gives them oxygen). The case study: creationism. In the 2000s it was a top public enemy (Discovery Institute, Behe, 'teach the controversy,' the Creation Museum), fiercely fought by the 'reality-based community.' Today the creationists are all still there — 40% of Americans creationist, ~unchanged since 1983; the Institute still blogging; a $5.5M Creation Museum upgrade; Behe still publishing — but the mainstream went from fierce challenge to total silence, and the silence didn't help them: no new victories or converts, arguably worse off because nobody hears them. The lesson, aimed at the 2020 misinformation panic (QAnon, flat-earth, anti-vax) and especially at censorship/no-platforming/walled-gardens: unchallenged creationism suggests ignoring may beat fighting, and we can relax.

Quality 71 · Strong. A tight, well-evidenced argument (the stable Gallup numbers) with a timely, useful application to the misinformation/censorship debate — ignoring creationism worked, so the 'rivers of ink' and especially the censorship against today's equivalents may be useless or counterproductive. Strong; brief and single-point, so held there.

Claude’s paradigm shift 56 · Moderate. The empirical observation (ignoring creationism worked) repurposed for the misinformation/censorship debate is a fresh, useful framing. Notable.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. A within-discourse essay on the misinformation/censorship debate; no material-world effect. Within-blog influence.