Creationism as Science,

in

I'm at the netsci08 conference and there is a really delightful talk

about the network of papers published in the creationisim/evolution

debate.



The group looked at key people in the ID debate and people who acted as

strong defenders of evolution. One can then make a graph of the links

between the groups and intra-groups based on citation and co-citation.



Now one area of social science that is pretty interesting in this debate

is looking at triads, as there are clearly going to be antagonitic

relationships in this debate.



In the graph evolutionists are blue, creationists are yellow and Dawkins

is red on his own.



From the graph it is clear that there are some people who are opinion

leaders.



Ok, what is interesting is that there are far more mixed triples than

similar triples in the graph, meaning that people from both sides seem

to be spending more time slagging each other off than agreeing with

their friends.



This is the first time that I would be tempted to say that the study of

creationisim could be considered science.


Read and post comments |
Send to a friend