From Hardly...

"No way. We have more information available than ever before in history -- especially internationally.

Yes, we seem to be going through an uncomfortable, awkward period of time in which many are incapable of discerning reality/fact from disinformation (see the kookiness of religious belief evident in the current thread about 9/11 conspiracies).

So, sure, more people than ever will find a reality that tells them what they want to hear (their favorite conspiracies and cult beliefs) rather than what is actually true, but true science and empiricism will eventually win the day as it has througout history.

The only way I could see us actually heading into a "dark age" is if the new corruption that is falsely referred to as "science" -- that of the Dawkins/Hitchens ilk -- ever really takes hold, I could easily see us sinking into a "Brave New World" of eugenics, genocide, and other abominations done in the name of convenience (or in the name of solving the population crisis). But I have my hopes that that vacuous philosophy will be defeated."

We certainly have more data than ever. Whether it is information or not depends upon our ability to process it.

There is is certainly an anti-science, anti-reason trend in the USA, but it is not coming from Dawkins or Hitchens. They are a couple of old fashioned debaters who are only relevant to that section of society who have a firm interest in the intersection of religion and philosophy and no firm grounding in either. Those who know philosophy have heard it all before and made up their own minds.   Those who are firmly grounded in religion really don't care about the opinions of fundamentalist atheists.

IMHO, there are some trends in our society that do point to the recreation of a dark age. Many of these have been touched upon in this discussion.

The "debate" on climate change. Is a choice of ignorance. I see the politicians, pundits and opinionated boors who oppose it as simply those who do not want to take responsibility for their own wastefulness. We won't recognize Kyoto, because it is not fair that the USA would have to cut more than China. This seems pretty silly to one who has driven in Atlanta during rush hour where a simple sweep of the eyes can see literally hundreds of single occupant 13 MPG SUV's and ones experience indicates that a similar number occupies every quarter mile stretch of dozens of highways in a 50 mile radius.

Nope, people deny global warming because they want their Escalades and Ford Expeditions. It is ignorance by choice. Remember the lyric "There none so blind as those who WILL not see."

People deny evolution because they want to think they are better than monkeys without taking responsibility for being better. Saying that you are God's special creation and that God can absolve all of your mistakes is a lot easier than actually behaving better than monkeys do.

A monkey will shamelessly take another's food or territory, Bush and his minions apparently have shame when they do so. So they feel the need to say that their instructions come from God.
A monkey will shamelessly masturbate another monkey. Larry Craig did similar things but still insists upon his denial of Darwin.
A monkey will shamelessly fling turds at his tormentors. Every politician does this, few embrace their monkeyness.

A self anointed modern American "Christian" leader, whether preacher or Republican, and many self righteous monkeys will claim Devine separation from monkeys, act like a monkey, then blame their monkeyness on their departure from God's will. I think that God did make man in his image, but that he made all other things in his image as well. He simply holds man to a higher standard. It would be a much better, more peaceful world if all men would would embrace their monkeyness while endeavoring to let their humanity prevail.