Why the creationists are winning

In part, because the New York Times identifies their creation myth as a "theory" on par with evolution.

I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this nation is slowly devolving into a theocratic idiotocracy. But Jesus H. Christ, Elisabeth Bumiller, you don't have to help the process along.

Gentle reminder: a theory stands up under the scrutiny of scientific testing. Myths, like "intelligent design," do not, and so it is inaccurate to call them theories.

Update: For some guidance, Bumiller could read her own editorial page, where Paul Krugman spells out what's happening.

Double update: I shouldn't pick only on Bumiller. The Washington Post is also guilty. Its reporters at least wait until the fourth paragraph to call creationism a "theory," but then attribute the lack of scientific evidence to a claim by "opponents."

This is a situation where journalists should educate themselves on the subject matter and write with authority: "There is no peer-reviewed science that supports the idea of 'intelligent design,' which is called creationism by many biologists." The end. And when the creationist assholes call to complain, tell 'em to show you the science.