Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

[Jose Fly]

As someone who spent a lot of time on the evolution v creationism battles over the last 20 years, I've noticed that in the last 5 years or so the issue seems to have largely gone off the radar. In the message boards that are still around (both Christian and secular) it's barely debated, if at all. Websites specifically dedicated to countering creationist talking points such as talkorigins and pandasthumb have gone silent, seemingly because there just isn't much to talk about.

Surveys have shown that younger Americans accept the reality of evolution at pretty much the same rate as the rest of the developed world. Thanks to national focus on science education by organizations like the NCSE, evolution is more widely taught than ever, even in the deep south. The Discovery Institute (the main "intelligent design" organization) stopped advocating for ID creationism to be taught in schools years ago, and they closed their alleged "research arm" last year.

On the science front, creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant.

So for all practical intents and purposes, this debate is over. There isn't any sort of public debate over teaching creationism, nor is there any real debate about whether evolution should be taught. For sure there's still work to do in some parts of the country (mostly the south and interior west) where even though evolution is officially required, teachers don't teach it either because it's "too controversial" or they don't believe it themselves, but big picture-wise, "evolution v creationism" is in about the same state as "spherical v flat earth"....nothing more than something a handful of people argue about on the internet, but outside of that has little to no significance. And even on that front it's kinda dead....most forums where it's openly debated have a very skewed ratio where there's like 10 "evolutionists" for every 1 creationist.

Glad to see it!

[JoeyKnothead]

I cannot convince you, just as you cannot convince me, cannot show me evidence that the universe was not created, not designed; we can each only choose which of the two we are to believe.

Nobody ever convinces anyone of anything, we can only convince ourselves after hearing what others have to say. If we become convinced then that is always our own doing, it is our minds reaching that state by their own reasoning, choices, beliefs.

If you do not believe what I say, do not accept what I offer as evidence, then you are as much a part of that as the evidence, your mind, how you think, your fears, your current incomplete knowledge, existing beliefs, assumptions etc. all of these play in, it is never a matter of evidence alone, when will this sink in?

So instead of refuting my arguments, you simply point out how difficult it is to convince folks - either way.

I consider that sound indication my position has merit.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I cannot convince you, just as you cannot convince me, cannot show me evidence that the universe was not created, not designed; we can each only choose which of the two we are to believe.

Nobody ever convinces anyone of anything, we can only convince ourselves after hearing what others have to say. If we become convinced then that is always our own doing, it is our minds reaching that state by their own reasoning, choices, beliefs.

If you do not believe what I say, do not accept what I offer as evidence, then you are as much a part of that as the evidence, your mind, how you think, your fears, your current incomplete knowledge, existing beliefs, assumptions etc. all of these play in, it is never a matter of evidence alone, when will this sink in?

So instead of refuting my arguments, you simply point out how difficult it is to convince folks - either way.

I consider that sound indication my position has merit.

What arguments are you talking about? simply disagreeing with me does not constitute and argument Joey.

To give an argument is to provide a set of premises as reasons for accepting the conclusion. To give an argument is not necessarily to attack or criticize someone. Arguments can also be used to support other people's viewpoints.

Here is an example of an argument:

If you want to find a good job, you should work hard. You do want to find a good job. So you should work hard.

The first two sentences here are the premises of the argument, and the last sentence is the conclusion. To give this argument is to offer the premises as reasons for accepting the conclusion.

From What is an argument?

So in your case I'd expect some kind of argument that begins like this:

If the universe was designed...<Joey's argument>...therefore the universe was not designed.

With the middle bit filled in, so go on, if you actually do present an actual argument, I guarantee I will refute it.

But claiming this is an argument won't work:

[Jose Fly]

I did not say that anything is being concealed. I said dissent is discouraged, that most people adopt a position based on trust in an authority you seem to agree anyway.

I've not seen any indication that "dissent is discouraged", and again I am not about to take your empty say-so as unquestioned gospel, especially when it comes to science.

Nah, the ridicule comes about when the denialists make absolutely ridiculous arguments and/or engage in repeated and blatant dishonest tactics, e.g., the well known creationist tactic of quote mining.

Well that really isn't true

Yeah it is. Not only do creationists regularly make ridiculous arguments, they tend to repeat them ad nauseum, with no regard to how thoroughly or how many times they've been debunked. That's why science advocates often use the term "PRATT" (points refuted a thousand times) and is why I often chide creationists with things like "Y'all really need new talking points".

As for quote mining, it's such a common tactic of creationists, science advocates started pages like THIS ONE to document examples of it. Interestingly though, I can't recall a case where any creationist has defended the practice. Obviously taking a paper, book, or other material and chopping up excerpts to make it seem as if the authors said the opposite of what they actually said is a deliberate and conscious act (IOW, it's not something one does accidentally), so IMO it's an act of blatant and intentional deceit. Yet whenever I've asked creationists about the practice they refuse to engage.

Such is the nature of denialism.

I mean Dawkins (a "science authority") has written a book that claims I (for example) am suffering from a delusion, a mental illness, that's pretty dismissive, I mean he and I have never even spoken. He and many others also say "evolution is a fact" such statements are fully intended not to add to the scientific strength of an argument but purely to discourage dissent. These opinions on those who are skeptical of evolution are not actually scientific, they are opinions, biased judgements of those who do not share your belief system.

Well, given that evolution is something that we directly observe happening pretty much every day, is so trivial to demonstrate that it's commonly done in undergrad biology classes, and is something we both exploit (domestication) and fight against (antibiotic resistance), denying that it even happens does call one's mental health into question.

It's no different than if someone asserted that erosion never happens. If someone said that the general reaction would likely be along the lines of "Um.....are you okay?"

By all means speak of science, but making claims like "this theory is actually a fact"

Once again you demonstrate a stark lack of knowledge of both science and evolutionary biology. Evolution happens, that much is a fact. The "theory of evolution" seeks to explain how evolution happens (mechanisms, pathways, outcomes). As SJ Gould put it, theories don't become facts, theories explain facts.

It's quite revealing that despite your claim of having debated evolution for 30 years you still don't understand the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution.

and "if you believe in God you are deluded" are NOT SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS.

That's correct.....statements like that about beliefs in gods are not scientific statements.

Such statements, judgements have no place in a scientific discussion and don't even arise except when talking to evolutionists.

You may need to expand your horizons a bit. Arguments about the existence of gods come up in all sorts of other areas, such as flat-earthism, faith healing, the global flood, etc.

You won't accept this I know, you likely truly cannot see what I'm trying to say to you, it will make no sense, it must be gibberish because that's what you've been indoctrinated to believe about evolution skepticism.

Nope, it's based on what I've experienced in my debates with creationists.

EDIT: And to be quite frank, you are among the last people I would ever listen to when it comes to how scientists and science educators do their jobs.

That's the indoctrination messing with you! right there!

Um no....it's based on your demonstrated lack of knowledge of the very subject you have been attempting to debate.

[Abigail]

You lost my interest when you tossed the bogus charge of straw man.

Theists always like to find reasons to ignore relevant points.
You completely ignored my point: "We have the same evidence for all religions: unfalsifiable personal experience, anecdotal testimonial evidence for supposed miracles.
The problem is that religions cannot be all true for they are plagued by numerous mutually exclusive claims.
It is logically impossible for mutually exclusive claims to be all true.
One cannot rationally choose between them for the evidence is the same.
So one has to reject them all.
Also the unfalsifiable personal experience, anecdotal testimonial evidence(plagued by oral transmission, rumor, hearsay) are very weak, unreliable form of evidence considering how frail the human psyche is, how prone it is to all kinds of phycological deficiencies."

You chose to construct a straw man and talk about atheists saying there is zero evidence.
Its a double straw man in fact.
Atheist mostly say that there is zero scientific, empirical evidence for (personal) god or gods. No "no zero evidence of any kind".

For others, the observations I made regarding atheists pertain to atheists who display the aforementioned beliefs or statements they use to sustain their perception of atheism as an atheist.

This is a debate site section where people debate ideas, address arguments and bring contra-arguments. Its not an observations site, preaching sites, ramblings site. Good debate form presupposes addressing someone points, actual arguments and not post irrelevant things.
Q: Have you come here to actually debate or just preach to the choir?

There is no such thing as a hard atheist.

I meant hard atheist as opposed to weak/soft atheist.
Hard is antonym to soft. Strong is antonym to weak.

According to the reality of words and definitions there is such a thing like an hard atheist.
“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_ ... ve_atheism

The correct term is actually, strong atheist. And it is not true they are a thing of the past.

They kind of are.
Modern atheists are mostly described as lacking a belief in god or gods.
There is plenty of evidence in form of testimonial kind on this forum and on the Internet.
Definitions support this.

The two terms, Gnostic and, strong atheist, are mutually exclusive.

Wrong again.
Atheism deals with belief.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.
I am for example an agnostic atheist when it comes to general idea of god.
I don't have knowledge that there is no god or gods.
I don't claim that there is no god or gods.
I don't have the belief that there is no god or gods.
I simply lack a belief in god or gods.

On the other hand, ...

I am an gnostic atheist when it comes to Yahweh-Jesus.
I have knowledge that shows Yahweh-Jesus does not exist.
I claim Yahweh-Jesus does not exist.
I believe that Yahweh-Jesus does not exist.

My stance as agnostic atheist in respect to general idea of god is a passive one. Does not need defending.
My stance as gnostic atheist in respect to Yahweh-Jesus is an active one. It needs defending.
Claims need defending. Lack of ones do not.
In conclusion it follows that am not a strong/hard atheist but a weak/soft atheist.
I don't know about you but from where I stand everything is pretty logical and coherent.

I'm not a Theist.

[Abigail]

For readers this is offered to correct the error in the above reply.
There is no such thing as a hard atheist.

The correct term is actually, strong atheist. And it is not true they are a thing of the past.

"Weak and Strong Atheism: History

While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have been in use for some time. In earlier philosophical publications, the terms negative atheism and positive atheism were more common; these terms were used by Antony Flew in 1972, although Jacques Maritain (1953, Chapter 8, p.104) used the phrases in a similar, but strictly Catholic apologist, context as early as 1949.[1]

The strong and weak names did not come into common usage until the early 1990s, their popularization assisted by their common usage in the alt.atheism Usenet group at the time. They are now the most commonly-used terms for the concepts in question, though by a relatively small margin—positive/negative atheism and hard/soft atheism are also common."

source

ALLIADT (A little learning is a dangerous thing)

No. Because even a litle knowledge beats a lot of ignorance

There is no one correct term.

There is in this case.

[Clownboat]

I'm not a Theist.

Who cares!
Have you corrected your thinking about what an atheist is meant to commonly mean here on this board where you are participating?

If someone is showing that your definition is wrong, saying you are not a theist is a dodge and quite frankly a bit confusing as to your train of thought.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I did not say that anything is being concealed. I said dissent is discouraged, that most people adopt a position based on trust in an authority you seem to agree anyway.

I've not seen any indication that "dissent is discouraged", and again I am not about to take your empty say-so as unquestioned gospel, especially when it comes to science.

Nah, the ridicule comes about when the denialists make absolutely ridiculous arguments and/or engage in repeated and blatant dishonest tactics, e.g., the well known creationist tactic of quote mining.

Well that really isn't true

Yeah it is. Not only do creationists regularly make ridiculous arguments, they tend to repeat them ad nauseum, with no regard to how thoroughly or how many times they've been debunked. That's why science advocates often use the term "PRATT" (points refuted a thousand times) and is why I often chide creationists with things like "Y'all really need new talking points".

As for quote mining, it's such a common tactic of creationists, science advocates started pages like THIS ONE to document examples of it. Interestingly though, I can't recall a case where any creationist has defended the practice. Obviously taking a paper, book, or other material and chopping up excerpts to make it seem as if the authors said the opposite of what they actually said is a deliberate and conscious act (IOW, it's not something one does accidentally), so IMO it's an act of blatant and intentional deceit. Yet whenever I've asked creationists about the practice they refuse to engage.

Such is the nature of denialism.

I mean Dawkins (a "science authority") has written a book that claims I (for example) am suffering from a delusion, a mental illness, that's pretty dismissive, I mean he and I have never even spoken. He and many others also say "evolution is a fact" such statements are fully intended not to add to the scientific strength of an argument but purely to discourage dissent. These opinions on those who are skeptical of evolution are not actually scientific, they are opinions, biased judgements of those who do not share your belief system.

Well, given that evolution is something that we directly observe happening pretty much every day, is so trivial to demonstrate that it's commonly done in undergrad biology classes, and is something we both exploit (domestication) and fight against (antibiotic resistance), denying that it even happens does call one's mental health into question.

It's no different than if someone asserted that erosion never happens. If someone said that the general reaction would likely be along the lines of "Um.....are you okay?"

By all means speak of science, but making claims like "this theory is actually a fact"

Once again you demonstrate a stark lack of knowledge of both science and evolutionary biology. Evolution happens, that much is a fact. The "theory of evolution" seeks to explain how evolution happens (mechanisms, pathways, outcomes). As SJ Gould put it, theories don't become facts, theories explain facts.

It's quite revealing that despite your claim of having debated evolution for 30 years you still don't understand the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution.

and "if you believe in God you are deluded" are NOT SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS.

That's correct.....statements like that about beliefs in gods are not scientific statements.

Such statements, judgements have no place in a scientific discussion and don't even arise except when talking to evolutionists.

You may need to expand your horizons a bit. Arguments about the existence of gods come up in all sorts of other areas, such as flat-earthism, faith healing, the global flood, etc.

You won't accept this I know, you likely truly cannot see what I'm trying to say to you, it will make no sense, it must be gibberish because that's what you've been indoctrinated to believe about evolution skepticism.

Nope, it's based on what I've experienced in my debates with creationists.

EDIT: And to be quite frank, you are among the last people I would ever listen to when it comes to how scientists and science educators do their jobs.

That's the indoctrination messing with you! right there!

Um no....it's based on your demonstrated lack of knowledge of the very subject you have been attempting to debate.

The term "evolution" is synonymous with "the theory of evolution" much like "relativity" and "theory of relativity" or "quantum mechanics" and "theory of quantum mechanics". You'll never hear a physicist say "relativity is a fact" or "quantum mechanics is a fact" only those with a weak understanding of science, those who work in the soft sciences would ever speak so unscientifically. There is no other reason to assert "evolution is a fact" other than to discourage people from expressing doubt. You like to talk of the difference between "evolution" and "theory of evolution" knowing full well they are to all intents and purposes synonyms.

So tell me if I argued that humans did not evolve from prokaryotes that existed four billion years ago, would I be questioning evolution or would I be questioning the theory of evolution?

Are all arguments made by creationists ridiculous? is there not a single argument that's is relevant, important?

Evolution has become a religion, any other way of perceiving the world is unavoidably "ridiculous", boy are you in for some surprises!

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm not a Theist.

Who cares!
Have you corrected your thinking about what an atheist is meant to commonly mean here on this board where you are participating?

If someone is showing that your definition is wrong, saying you are not a theist is a dodge and quite frankly a bit confusing as to your train of thought.

Which definition do you think she should be using? how many are there to choose from?

[Jose Fly]

The term "evolution" is synonymous with "the theory of evolution" much like "relativity" and "theory of relativity" or "quantum mechanics" and "theory of quantum mechanics".

That's likely the case among laypeople with little to no formal education in the biological sciences. Seeing someone not know the difference between the theory and that which it seeks to explain is often a dead giveaway that the person doesn't really know what they're talking about.

A more apt and knowledgeable comparison would be to gravity. Like evolution, gravity happens and is a directly observed fact. And like how evolutionary theory seeks to explain how evolution occurs, gravitational theory does the same with gravity.

[You'll never hear a physicist say "relativity is a fact" or "quantum mechanics is a fact" only those with a weak understanding of science, those who work in the soft sciences would ever speak so unscientifically.

Again, you are among the last people who are qualified to lecture about science.

There is no other reason to assert "evolution is a fact" other than to discourage people from expressing doubt.

LOL....except for the fact that it is a fact. Other than that.....

So tell me if I argued that humans did not evolve from prokaryotes that existed four billion years ago, would I or would I not be questioning evolution?

No, you would be questioning an aspect of common ancestry. If it turned out that humans did not share a common ancestry with prokaryotes, it wouldn't change the observed and documented fact that populations evolve.

Not sure what part of this is tripping you up...it's not like it's really complicated.

Are all arguments made by creationists ridiculous? is there not a single argument that's is relevant, important?

I've not seen any.

[Clownboat]

I'm not a Theist.

Who cares!
Have you corrected your thinking about what an atheist is meant to commonly mean here on this board where you are participating?

If someone is showing that your definition is wrong, saying you are not a theist is a dodge and quite frankly a bit confusing as to your train of thought.

Which definition do you think she should be using? how many are there to choose from?

Clearly the one being supplied by the numerous people here engaged with said person. I count one: A lack of belief in any of the available god concepts.
Thanks for asking. Hopefully this will clear things up for Abigail.