> A person can be a creationist without being a fool and can be a believer in evolution by nothing more enlightened than a lack of independent thinking in an environment where atheism is in fashion among the cool kids.
Lots of people are ready to make definitive statements about creationism without ever having studied the subject. Unless I am mistaken, creationism is not taught in universities, so one could only make EDUCATED statements about it if one had put the personal effort into studying creationism independently. And if a person had done that, they are unlikely to be making glib statements about how foolish creationists are, instead they would be blogging on the subject where there is enough space to make reasoned arguments.
People who say that creationists are fools, are just like people who are politically correct, or like right-wing extremist ideologues (Christian or Muslim). They are true-believers who have received wisdom from their chosen prophet (who may be a biology professor) but they are not thinking and reasoning.
Thinking is hard. Reasoning is even harder. But I would hope that on HN, there is a larger population of thinkers and reasoners than in the general public.
I'm not even going to state my beliefs on the subject because I am happy to let all of you believe what you want to. Evolution is a useful tool for biological life, but as the article states, it is not the be-all and end-all. It certainly does not negate creationism in all its forms because if it did, I would have heard of the paper which demonstrated this proof. Since I have heard of no such paper, and I know of no biology department in which creationism is studied, I feel confident in saying that evolution has not trumped creationism. I'm even willing to allow that some well-described theory of creationism in the future, could include evolutionary theory and the current neutral genomic mutation theory as part of a larger whole.