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!

[brunumb]

How else can one recognize that something has been designed, other than by examining it and seeing that it looks like it was designed? do you know of another way?

Good question. What does 'designed' look like? The question particularly applies to things we encounter that cannot be directly compared with things we already know have been designed. For example, if we find an object that looks like a clock and we know that clocks were designed, we might confidently conclude that the object was designed. What if we have no precedent for comparison? What criteria do you suggest we then apply to determine if something has been specifically designed or not?

[sp]

That's the challenge that ID strives to explore, it is a legitimate question isn't it? The same kind of question arises in SETI.

The very question you asked "What criteria do you suggest we then apply to determine if something has been specifically designed or not?" is exactly what ID represents to me and why it interests me so much.

As an ID proponent I've asked that identical question and been attacked and ridiculed for asking it.

On the other hand, using the argument that something looks designed implies that it is designed is not valid if you haven't even established the appropriate criteria to make the initial determination. So, the issue is not about asking the question, it is about making claims before you have the answer.

[brunumb]

If something looks designed then yes, of course it might be designed, I never said it was highly likely it was designed. The atheist argues from the assumption that it cannot even be contemplated as design yet has no criteria whatsoever for that biased interpretation.

That is patently false. The argument does not question the possibility. it questions the claim that design was involved in the absence of any confirming evidence.

For the atheist there is a biased way of looking at this, the chosen default position is that nothing in nature was designed, intelligence, creativity (things we know about) were not involved and further information is said to be needed before giving the idea any consideration but nothing is said about the nature of that further information and so whatever further information might be presented can be simply rejected thus defending the biased assumption as if it were some fundamental truth.

Non-existence is always the default position. Therefore the default position is logically that nothing in nature was designed until there is evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

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.

What is taught in science today is what we know about cells. There is nothing to teach when it comes to the speculation that cells might have been designed.

Science - I never thought I'd say this - is becoming just boring, regimented, it should be fun, it should be speculative, it should be encouraging alternative ways of perceiving nature, the over emphasis on the "scientific method" as if that's all there is to science, is a step backwards.

It can be, and is, exploratory and fun along with explaining all that we have learned about the natural world so far. If there is a better way of establishing what is true as distinct from what is imaginary, do you have any better alternative to the scientific method?

If there is a God and God did design stuff or used creativity to produce some of what we see in nature, then so what? what the hell is all the fuss about? what harm is done? what are all the trumped up, stuffy "science types" worried about? scared of?

IF. When it is established as fact, then the relevant aspects have their place in science. Until then it is just religious belief. When you promote it as fact you are also promoting the enforcement of the rules and dogma that are associated with a particular god-belief. Live your own life according to your own religious beliefs, but don't be telling the rest of us about your alleged truths and expect us to step in line.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #147]

Well that depends on what you understand and teach by the term "science" doesn't it? Why is the question "might this have been designed?" to be discouraged? this is a question about the world around us and science is basically the systematic study of that world. The question is far from "baseless" too! anyone can look at the machinations of a cell and quite reasonably recognize that it "looks like a little factory" or "look at how well all those different components mesh together" what is baseless here?

No it doesn't depend on my personal understanding of what the term science means. And I never said that any particular question should be discouraged (more strawmanning ... your specialty). Go ahead and ask all day if anything might have been designed, but don't make a claim that it has just because it might appear so (snowflakes come to mind). If no credible designer can be identified as actually existing, then it is baseless to attribute anything to such an entity.

How do you know? what evidence do you have that "no god beings have been shown to exist"? talk about baseless and speculation! If a biological cell was indeed designed (we don't know, we're asking but don't know) then obviously that could be evidence of a "god being".

What? The burden of proof to show that any god being exists lies with the person making that claim. Unless you can provide some evidence that a god being has been demonstrated to exist, I'm free to claim that no such demonstration has occurred. Give us an example, just one, of the positive demonstration that any god being ever invented by humans actually does/did exist.

You cannot logically argue that the the cell being designed is outside of science (systematic study) because no designer has been shown to exist when the existence of the designer is shown by the fact that the cell was designed!

What ... again! Don't you see how nonsensical that statement is? You're claiming that it is a "fact that the cell was designed" to show that there is a designer, when it has not been established that the cell was designed in the first place! For someone claiming that logic is their profession, it is surprising that you can't see the complete illogical reasoning in the quote above. Until you can prove that the cell was designed, you can't claim the existence of a designer. Textbook begging the question.

This is absurd, the very thing that could "show god beings exist" is the very thing you won't consider as possible evidence that "show god beings exist".

What is absurd is that you make a claim that it is a fact that something was designed simply because it appears so, then conclude that a designer exists.

[Diagoras]

You can't (you've prohibited yourself) consider the only thing that is evidence for X, because to regard it as evidence for X, you first need evidence for X!

See? see what happens when you try to replace human thinking with rules? that is what your view of science is, rule following and that (as Godel revealed) always fails to reveal things that are real but undiscoverable by those rules.

People will probably never stop looking for the god they believe in, scientists included, but until one of these beings can be identified as actually existing there is no point in science invoking them as explanations for nature, or teaching kids that such explanations are in any way part of science.

There you go, a better demonstration of the incompleteness theorem has seldom been put into words!

<bolding mine>

I didn't see a rebuttal of this last point anywhere in the thread, so thought it might be worth addressing.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are:

two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.

Note the very precise terms being used here. Not 'science', but 'mathematical logic'. Not 'revealing things that are real but undiscoverable', but 'limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories'. These theorems don't apply outside formal axiomatic systems.

A reminder: an axiom (in mathematics) is a statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. While science as a whole may indeed start from a statement (typically expressed as either a hypothesis to be proven, or a null hypothesis to be falsified), it can't be said to be a formal axiomatic process by any means. The "rules" to be followed in performing any experiment in science simply aren't anything like those required in mathematical logic.

To suggest all science is somehow restricted to following mathematical logic is ridiculously wrong.

[alexxcJRO]

You can't (you've prohibited yourself) consider the only thing that is evidence for X, because to regard it as evidence for X, you first need evidence for X!

See? see what happens when you try to replace human thinking with rules? that is what your view of science is, rule following and that (as Godel revealed) always fails to reveal things that are real but undiscoverable by those rules.

People will probably never stop looking for the god they believe in, scientists included, but until one of these beings can be identified as actually existing there is no point in science invoking them as explanations for nature, or teaching kids that such explanations are in any way part of science.

There you go, a better demonstration of the incompleteness theorem has seldom been put into words!

<bolding mine>

I didn't see a rebuttal of this last point anywhere in the thread, so thought it might be worth addressing.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are:

two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.

Note the very precise terms being used here. Not 'science', but 'mathematical logic'. Not 'revealing things that are real but undiscoverable', but 'limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories'. These theorems don't apply outside formal axiomatic systems.

A reminder: an axiom (in mathematics) is a statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. While science as a whole may indeed start from a statement (typically expressed as either a hypothesis to be proven, or a null hypothesis to be falsified), it can't be said to be a formal axiomatic process by any means. The "rules" to be followed in performing any experiment in science simply aren't anything like those required in mathematical logic.

To suggest all science is somehow restricted to following mathematical logic is ridiculously wrong.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems apply to mathematical and logical systems which are deductive reasonings.
Creationists claim that Gödel's incompleteness theorems pose serious problems for scientific method and keep saying there are scientific assumptions when they don’t understand that axioms/rules and assumptions only exist in the mathematics and logic which science uses.

Science uses induction(inductive reasoning) to go about and find axioms/rules about “reality” may it be simulated or not. Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world. Context can change, our contrived things can change based upon new findings, experimentations.
A simulated universe/ “reality” still obey certain rules one can discover them the same way.

A child uses inductive reasoning and informal scientific method to investigate their world. They do it without any formal mathematical framework. The Piraha tribe for example do not have a number system in their mental framework.
One can do science without mathematics. The essence of math is to express things precisely so that one can expand and test the consequences implied by them.
Scientists can also expand on those rules(mathematics) and figure new possible aspects about reality(ex: black holes derived out of Einstein field equations ). They go and try to find evidence to support the mathematics which off course may be wrong and not congruent with reality.

One can use mathematics and logic to imagine all kinds of possible worlds, concepts and phenomena.

The scientific method comes as a useful tool to determined things about the reality we live in.

The creationists can complain all they want, but the inescapable truth remains: so far the scientific method has been useful and it works, has worked.
They type so much on and on, ad nauseum and complain talking down on science on a PC, using the Internet and electricity. They do this in heated/cooled home with their belly full of safe food.
While ignoring that all this comfort and amazing things they use exists because of the scientific method and the huge collective work of huge number of highly trained, schooled, very intelligent individuals.
The whole thing screams Idiocracy. The lack of respect is leaving a very sour, bitter taste in my mouth.

[otseng]

To reiterate, it's the combination of ignorance and arrogance about your knowledge and abilities in biology that I find fascinating, such as how even though you don't know basic biology,

Moderator Comment

Please just debate the subject without commenting on other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #135]

That's nice. It's funny how you use the word "probably" in the absence of any evidence. When you do have evidence of anything you've speculated, let me know. In the meantime, I'm claiming that even though the wombats will crack the secrets of time travel, they probably won't be too careful about cleanroom techniques. They probably won't even wipe their feet, for that matter, because they're wombats.

I am not sure as to why you would think that wombats would evolve to a point that they could crack the secret of time travel. But such is the fairytale of evolution, it does not have to make sense. The observed facts do not need to be logically connected by observed mechanisms that are even possible in the time frame needed for evolution to occur.

When are these smart wombats going to evolve? Tomorrow, the next day? How long will it take for the new DNA sequences to become fixed in the wombat DNA?

Creation cosmology does have an answer on the origin of viruses, the fairytale of evolution does not. If you would rather me say it is hypothesized that an increase in radiation after the flood caused viruses to become deadly I can say that. The problem that the fairytale of evolution has is that viruses cannot live outside of a host for more than a few days. That is if the present is the key to the past like Lyell says that it is. Another problem is how many generations does it take for ERVs to become fixed in a genome? Haldane calculated that to be 300 generations. If that is the case, then it would take around 600 million years. That can't be now, can it? And then how could these ERVs stay in the genome for so long if they are not being used?

Why do facts always have to get in the way? I know why don't you just forget about those pesky little things called facts. Oh, wait that is what evolution already does.

So many questions and so few answers that the fairytale of evolution has.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #147]

Well that depends on what you understand and teach by the term "science" doesn't it? Why is the question "might this have been designed?" to be discouraged? this is a question about the world around us and science is basically the systematic study of that world. The question is far from "baseless" too! anyone can look at the machinations of a cell and quite reasonably recognize that it "looks like a little factory" or "look at how well all those different components mesh together" what is baseless here?

No it doesn't depend on my personal understanding of what the term science means. And I never said that any particular question should be discouraged (more strawmanning ... your specialty). Go ahead and ask all day if anything might have been designed, but don't make a claim that it has just because it might appear so (snowflakes come to mind). If no credible designer can be identified as actually existing, then it is baseless to attribute anything to such an entity.

How do you know? what evidence do you have that "no god beings have been shown to exist"? talk about baseless and speculation! If a biological cell was indeed designed (we don't know, we're asking but don't know) then obviously that could be evidence of a "god being".

What? The burden of proof to show that any god being exists lies with the person making that claim. Unless you can provide some evidence that a god being has been demonstrated to exist, I'm free to claim that no such demonstration has occurred. Give us an example, just one, of the positive demonstration that any god being ever invented by humans actually does/did exist.

You cannot logically argue that the the cell being designed is outside of science (systematic study) because no designer has been shown to exist when the existence of the designer is shown by the fact that the cell was designed!

What ... again! Don't you see how nonsensical that statement is? You're claiming that it is a "fact that the cell was designed" to show that there is a designer, when it has not been established that the cell was designed in the first place! For someone claiming that logic is their profession, it is surprising that you can't see the complete illogical reasoning in the quote above. Until you can prove that the cell was designed, you can't claim the existence of a designer. Textbook begging the question.

This is absurd, the very thing that could "show god beings exist" is the very thing you won't consider as possible evidence that "show god beings exist".

What is absurd is that you make a claim that it is a fact that something was designed simply because it appears so, then conclude that a designer exists.

You say "no god beings have ever been shown to exist" I ask for the argument that leads to that conclusion and you then say that "The burden of proof to show that any god being exists lies with the person making that claim".

That is true but I am asking about the claim that YOU made, the claim "no god beings have ever been shown to exist" so the burden of proof lies with you surely? that is the claim you made isn't it?

I'm always prepared to support claims I make, but if you make a claim I do not see how that then means I am suddenly carrying a burden of proof.

Your claim is not proven true simply by the fact that the opposite claim has not been proven true, this is ridiculous, seriously the standard of rigor in logic and reasoning never ceases to amaze me when debating atheists or evolutionists.

If you won't acknowledge this, admit that your claim - like any claim - carries a burden of proof, then there's no point in us continuing with this, its a fascinating subject and I enjoy it, but I don't expect this kind of sloppiness and then to imply its a failing on my part.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You can't (you've prohibited yourself) consider the only thing that is evidence for X, because to regard it as evidence for X, you first need evidence for X!

See? see what happens when you try to replace human thinking with rules? that is what your view of science is, rule following and that (as Godel revealed) always fails to reveal things that are real but undiscoverable by those rules.

People will probably never stop looking for the god they believe in, scientists included, but until one of these beings can be identified as actually existing there is no point in science invoking them as explanations for nature, or teaching kids that such explanations are in any way part of science.

There you go, a better demonstration of the incompleteness theorem has seldom been put into words!

<bolding mine>

I didn't see a rebuttal of this last point anywhere in the thread, so thought it might be worth addressing.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are:

two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.

Note the very precise terms being used here. Not 'science', but 'mathematical logic'. Not 'revealing things that are real but undiscoverable', but 'limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories'. These theorems don't apply outside formal axiomatic systems.

A reminder: an axiom (in mathematics) is a statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. While science as a whole may indeed start from a statement (typically expressed as either a hypothesis to be proven, or a null hypothesis to be falsified), it can't be said to be a formal axiomatic process by any means. The "rules" to be followed in performing any experiment in science simply aren't anything like those required in mathematical logic.

To suggest all science is somehow restricted to following mathematical logic is ridiculously wrong.

You are of course correct and I do not dispute the formality that is present in Godel's theorems, that they are mathematical theorems.

But the broader informal implications of the theorem are, I think, worth keeping in mind.

That is we make propositions about the world that we can't support because the things we've assumed ("axioms") prevent us from doing so.

So look, here's what DrNoGods wrote:

If something appears to have been designed, it may well have been, but such a hypothesis can only remain a hypothesis until a god being or the ID agent can be shown to actually exist.

This implicitly assumes that there's another way to "show a designer exists" other then by the evidence of the designed things themselves, but if there isn't we cannot (according to the good Dr.) ever conclude things were designed.

The folly of this way of thinking is revealed to us here:

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

If the designer is only revealed by virtue of the fact we observe designed things then what?

This is analogous to there being a true mathematical proposition that cannot be proven true within the axioms of the system, it's analogous.

The scripture passage is revealing to us that God is evident from what he has created, trying to obfuscate this and insist that nothing was designed because there's no evidence it was designed and the designed things themselves aren't evidence of design - is just hopeless, it leads nowhere.

[Difflugia]

I am not sure as to why you would think that wombats would evolve to a point that they could crack the secret of time travel.

Oooh, you are so close...

Creation cosmology does have an answer on the origin of viruses

...and yet so far.

If you would rather me say it is hypothesized that an increase in radiation after the flood caused viruses to become deadly I can say that.

You could also hypothesize that viruses became deadly from pixie dust that the demons were freebasing out of angel pee. Both hypotheses are built on the exact same evidence.

The problem that the fairytale of evolution has is that viruses cannot live outside of a host for more than a few days.

We have plenty of modern evidence that obligate parasites have often and independently evolved from free-living ancestors. To say that it's not a problem is a bit of an understatement.

Why do facts always have to get in the way? I know why don't you just forget about those pesky little things called facts. Oh, wait that is what evolution already does.

Yep. That's us. You've found us out.