Short answer? No.

So, given my customary madness I recently found myself over on Creation Ministries International where they have a delightful little press release propaganda essay titled "Anti-creationists: Do they fear an overthrow of Darwin in the U.S.?" Right from the title, as you may guess, I had a few predictable reactions. The first is summed up in the title to this post. The second is something along the lines of, "'Anti-creationist'? I'm an anti-creationist, now? I always thought I was just pro-science!" Ah, viva la difference! I am reminded of nothing so much as those who claim that atheists are anti-god. Right, sure, just like I'm anti-unicorn.

To my surprise, however, the actual text of this missive is more entertaining than the title. Shocking, I know, but absolutely true. Read it yourself for some real giggles, such as:

To teach merely the scientific evidence against evolution is only a tiny sliver of what creation science teaches. But the Darwinists have made it clear that they cannot tolerate even that sliver. I think they know that once students begin considering scientific evidence, Darwinists have lost the war, because they know (at least the leaders know) that they have no real evidence on their side. [emphasis added]

Riiiight. Because, you know, it's vastly more scientific to conclude that an invisible, undetectable, omniscient, omnipotent sky-beast made everything. It seems to have eluded the writers at CMI that "parsimonious" and "simpleminded" aren't synonyms. Perhaps equally interesting is this passage describing the fight between intelligent design creationism and science:

But because the Darwinists “control the microphone” (Professor Johnson’s phrase for media dominance), they can still get away with what Phillip Johnson called “cheap lawyer tricks”, such as attacking the man (by labeling him “creationist” for example) rather than discussing the ideas. [emphasis added]

Leaving aside the obvious humor of labeling the opposition "Darwinists" and then bitching about being labeled "creationist" there's the amusing fact that, by and large, labeling someone who believes in creationism a creationist is probably not nearly so "insulting" as repeatedly linking evolution to Hitler. Not that, you know, creationists ever try that particular bit of ad hominem.*

Best of all, however, is the piece's optimistic vision for the future:

Perhaps every time an evolutionist lobby group shrilly attacks people who oppose them, a few more of the majority may wonder, “What’s all the fuss about? Maybe the issue is important after all. Maybe the Darwinists should be confined to churches of their own, and not permitted to run the schools.”

And no doubt every time a bell rings an angel gets its wings. There's a lot of territory being fought over in the creationism vs. science throw-down but, all the same, I don't think there's any "silent majority" that would confine evolutionary theory to some sort of nebulous "church." Insert creationism and lousy logic into schools? Oh, sure, that might happen. Confine science to churches, however? That I don't see happening any time soon.

But apparently I'm a demon-inspired true criminal of the world community, so what the hell do I know?**

* I don't have time to find the link but This American Life over the weekend had a bit about a woman talking to a preacher about her lack of faith following the death of someone important to her. I was horrified to hear that he went off about how evolution is linked to Hitler. Sympathy fail.

** Seriously, how's THAT for ad hominem?