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!

[Jose Fly]

So first you accuse me of "arrogance" then "ignorance" and now "hubris"

Yep and I backed it all up too. You should take note.

you seem unable or unwilling to discuss anything with me without resorting to personal slurs.

It's not a slur if it's accurate. But this is pretty typical from an internet creationist....act a certain way and then cry like a stuck pig if anyone calls you on it.

See I did not ever once in any post say I was an "expert" so you were wrong.

Again, work on your reading comprehension. I never said you said you were an expert, I said you think yourself an expert (as evidenced by your grandiose proclamations on the subject).

The other things you cite above are true, I stand by those statements, get over it.

"The Bible is false" declares the person who doesn't know who Moses is or that there are both Old and New Testaments.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You accuse me of making a "leap" and implying that the possibility of something leads to it being probable, I don't think that's true at all, if something seems possible then that's all we can say without any more information.

This right here is the equivocation. What does "seems possible" mean? You've been using "possible" to mean "not falsified," which you've emphasized within this thread means that one is not "100% certain" that something cannot be true. Something that's "possible" is "not impossible." It's a binary state, so unless you want to acknowledge that you're changing what "possible" means, there's no such thing as "seems possible."

That's a matter of opinion Difflugia, some people think that it seems possible, seems plausible, seems to indicate, seems to suggest that what we see in a cell for example in the certain mathematical laws of physics, are evidence of design. You are not one of those people but do not elevate yourself to the status of some arbiter of truth.

If something looks designed then yes, of course it might be designed, I never said it was highly likely it was designed.

No, but you want us to think it without you having to say it. All you've got is "possible."

That's paranoid speculation, I don't "want you to think" anything at all, I've simply told you what I think. How can you take the position you take and then throw out the statement that I "want you to think" something? That right there is unwarranted, it is an ad-hominem, as if the motive for presenting some argument can be used to evaluate the argument, it can't not in the logic I use anyway.

The atheist argues from the assumption that it cannot even be contemplated as design yet has no criteria whatsoever for that biased interpretation.

You've got it backwards. The problem is that, at least by this criterion, the atheists are the ones that aren't biased. You want to lift one speculative, unfalsified, and unfalsifiable hypothesis out of the stack and give it preferential treatment.

So merely considering something you don't happen to approve of is to give it special treatment? Science involves speculation, one of the earliest steps the mind performs when confronted with some phenomenon that gets our attention, is to speculate, that begins the process of deciding how to investigate, how to approach, how to proceed.

Why do you think your biased rules about what I can and cannot speculate are to be imposed on me or anyone else? what are you trying to accomplish by this?

Sure, an intelligent designer is "possible," but so are Last Thursdayism, leprechauns, and sentient ham sandwiches. As you pointed out, all one can say about any of them is that they're possible. That's where the atheist leaves them. You're the one that wants us to give a wink and a nod to your favorite supernatural possibility and allow it a better spot in line without earning it with a falsifiable hypothesis and experimental evidence. That's what science is and why Stephen Meyer wants it redefined.

This is incredible, so now you disapprove of me saying that something is possible on the basis that there are an infinite number of other things that could also be deemed possible, is that right? You realize that right there you are abolishing speculation, one of the foundations of human thought?

Tell me then, what is the criteria you use for what X is allowed in the statement "X is possible"? If I understand you, you think one should never be permitted to say "design is a possibility" so what words would you allow in that statement?

Today it is taught that to even suggest that "the biological cell might have been designed" has no place in science and that is not right, it is not honest to teach that, either explicitly or implicitly, to young minds.

Unless you think "leprechauns might be responsible for rainbows" also belongs in science class, you're demonstrating that bias and probably don't even realize it.

Well sorry if this upsets you but claims like "leprechauns might be responsible for rainbows" cannot be evaluated in isolation, without either assuming various things or gathering data it is just an assertion, a proposition whose truth or falsity needs to be established. Let me give you an example, if the context was an animated children's movie about Leprechauns then it might be a true statement, yes?

There's no bias in what I said, admitting to the possibility, considering that something might be the case is not the bias, the bias is prevent that speculation in the first place.

I realized this decades ago, I realized that I was doing exactly this when I was an outspoken and articulate atheist and evolution advocate.

And then you managed to fool yourself and never looked back.

Everything you have to say about this indicates to me that you want to restrict thought, to prevent certain ideas from being considered, you seem to think science is the same as materialism but it isn't. Science is all about finding out about the world around us, why it looks as it does, why things behave as they do.

You really don't like the suggestion that something that looks designed might actually have been designed do you? why? what do you find so troubling about the speculation "the biological cell might have been designed"? I mean, what is your problem with this? fear? I mean, what??

[Difflugia]

This right here is the equivocation. What does "seems possible" mean? You've been using "possible" to mean "not falsified," which you've emphasized within this thread means that one is not "100% certain" that something cannot be true. Something that's "possible" is "not impossible." It's a binary state, so unless you want to acknowledge that you're changing what "possible" means, there's no such thing as "seems possible."

That's a matter of opinion Difflugia, some people think that it seems possible, seems plausible, seems to indicate, seems to suggest that what we see in a cell for example in the certain mathematical laws of physics, are evidence of design. You are not one of those people but do not elevate yourself to the status of some arbiter of truth.

How you use "possible" is not a matter of my opinion.

When you say "possible," do you mean something more than not falsified? Leprechauns haven't been falsified and it seems possible they could stash gold in rainbows. Is that similar to what you mean or do you mean something else? Give us a definition that you'll agree to stick to, even if it's artificial and only for this conversation.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This right here is the equivocation. What does "seems possible" mean? You've been using "possible" to mean "not falsified," which you've emphasized within this thread means that one is not "100% certain" that something cannot be true. Something that's "possible" is "not impossible." It's a binary state, so unless you want to acknowledge that you're changing what "possible" means, there's no such thing as "seems possible."

That's a matter of opinion Difflugia, some people think that it seems possible, seems plausible, seems to indicate, seems to suggest that what we see in a cell for example in the certain mathematical laws of physics, are evidence of design. You are not one of those people but do not elevate yourself to the status of some arbiter of truth.

How you use "possible" is not a matter of my opinion.

When you say "possible," do you mean something more than not falsified? Leprechauns haven't been falsified and it seems possible they could stash gold in rainbows. Is that similar to what you mean or do you mean something else? Give us a definition that you'll agree to stick to, even if it's artificial and only for this conversation.

I mean conceivable, plausible, reasonable to consider and so on.

[Difflugia]

I mean conceivable, plausible, reasonable to consider and so on.

Is is possible that leprechauns are responsible for rainbows?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I mean conceivable, plausible, reasonable to consider and so on.

Is is possible that leprechauns are responsible for rainbows?

I don't think so, the question doesn't seem to mean anything, what is a leprechaun?

[Difflugia]

Is is possible that leprechauns are responsible for rainbows?

I don't think so, the question doesn't seem to mean anything, what is a leprechaun?

I'm happy to accept that, but I don't think "intelligent designer" has been defined any better than "leprechaun." If I'm wrong and it has, is there a pointer to that definition anywhere in the discussions we've had so far?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Is is possible that leprechauns are responsible for rainbows?

I don't think so, the question doesn't seem to mean anything, what is a leprechaun?

I'm happy to accept that, but I don't think "intelligent designer" has been defined any better than "leprechaun." If I'm wrong and it has, is there a pointer to that definition anywhere in the discussions we've had so far?

No there isn't but the question of how to potentially recognize something as having been designed came up if I recall.

So the question that I ask is "could this structure have been designed?", as to by what or who that's not something I've asked yet.

A bit like SETI where they ask "could this radio signal have been designed" (or in their parlance is this radio signal artificial).

Like SETI, ID is concerned with identifying ways that we could - in principle - establish whether some structure is artificial or not, not so much the nature of the source of the design of the structure.

[Difflugia]

No there isn't but the question of how to potentially recognize something as having been designed came up if I recall.

So the question that I ask is "could this structure have been designed?", as to by what or who that's not something I've asked yet.

A bit like SETI where they ask "could this radio signal have been designed" (or in their parlance is this radio signal artificial).

Like SETI, ID is concerned with identifying ways that we could - in principle - establish whether some structure is artificial or not, not so much the nature of the source of the design of the structure.

And I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "possible." Is it possible that rainbows were designed? Or even some rainbows?

You're arguing that for some meaning of "possible," it's possible that an intelligent designer is responsible for at least something biological, but it's not possible that leprechauns are responsible for rainbows.

There must be a difference, so what is it?

[Jose Fly]

Now this is where ID creationism's rubber meets the road, so to speak.

Have ID creationists identified something specific from the biological realm as "designed" and explained in scientific terms how they reached that conclusion? The only attempts at that I've seen were Behe's initial arguments about systems and structures that he claimed were "irreducibly complex", but as those were quickly shot down he changed his criteria for IC from "needs all its parts to function" to something about the "number of unselected steps" and a ridiculous demand for what basically amounts to a video tape of something evolving millions of years ago.

So perhaps SH can take a stab at it? Can you point to something in biology that you've determined to have been "designed" and walk us through the methodology you employed to reach that conclusion?