A shorter one now, and probably less links…<\/p>\n

I have noticed, reading through the blogs by scientists that there seems to be a strange trend when Evolution (or anything with “anti-religious”, yet scientific, sentiment) is discussed. Now, we all know that creationists \/ ID proponents \/ fundamentalists are more than willing to resort to technology to meet their subversive aims. The sheer weight of “I love God” blogs on MySpace means they are probably not all 15 year olds like they claim.<\/p>\n

However, there is a trend for IDer participation on blogs (sadly not on this one…). They start off with an innocuous post, claiming to be an enthusiastic amateur. This post will normally put some odd spin on the topic but ask why the legitimate question \/ debate is not being entered into. This obviously ignores the fact science is not resolved by democracy<\/a>. Some example terminology is: “This seems (on the face of it, to me, an amateur) like a legitimate question, but if it’s not, why not?” (I am not<\/span> saying the person who made this particular comment is an IDer or anything, it is an example<\/span>!)<\/p>\n

Generally people will respond, trying to explain the scientific method or the like and then things go haywire with the creationist often demanding to know why evolution is a “theory” not a “law” if it is so well supported by evidence. At least at this point the crackpot nature become obvious.<\/p>\n

The thing which still eludes me, is why go through the farce at the early stages? It happens on USENET all the time: a crank posts something asking an apparently innocent question, then when people innocently reply, the crank goes postal on them.<\/p>\n

Is it valid (morally, scientifically?) to assume all creationists are somewhat insane to begin with?<\/p>\n