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]

This is one of the ways you can tell ID creationism is just a belief (and not a well thought out one).

SH states in Post #185: "I regard the entire universe as being designed".

But then when asked about "the criteria you use to establish that an object has been designed rather than being not designed", SH replies in Post #193: "That's one the research goals of ID".

Like many creationists I've encountered, SH doesn't seem to have put his talking points together to see if they're consistent. If the entire universe is designed, then there are no "undesigned" things, which means "the research goal of ID" to differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things is pointless.

Oops.

That's a fair comment, I did say each of those things, I'm happy to explore this and clarify if you'd like.

Gotta respect em who fess to their claims.

[brunumb]

So I do have an insight into what makes designed things different to undesigned things, of course its only an insight and I can't say its infallible, we know of no way to generate software without human minds being involved.

Please enlighten us on some of that insight by supplying the criteria you use to establish that an object has been designed rather than being not designed. How do you ultimately make your determination?

We don't formally know or even know if there is an algorithm for this. That's one the research goals of ID.

So, after all this time the intelligent design proponents haven't even worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not. Too funny. Dead in the water alright.

No, just as we can't define intelligence itself, its being researched, explored, its called scientific inquiry for a reason.

This just gets better and better. The intelligent design proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not and they also don't even know what intelligence is. It's called comedy gold for a reason.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So I do have an insight into what makes designed things different to undesigned things, of course its only an insight and I can't say its infallible, we know of no way to generate software without human minds being involved.

Please enlighten us on some of that insight by supplying the criteria you use to establish that an object has been designed rather than being not designed. How do you ultimately make your determination?

We don't formally know or even know if there is an algorithm for this. That's one the research goals of ID.

So, after all this time the intelligent design proponents haven't even worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not. Too funny. Dead in the water alright.

No, just as we can't define intelligence itself, its being researched, explored, its called scientific inquiry for a reason.

This just gets better and better. The intelligent design proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not and they also don't even know what intelligence is. It's called comedy gold for a reason.

This just gets better and better. The evolution proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not and they also don't even know what intelligence is. It's called comedy gold for a reason.

Your move.

[JoeyKnothead]

This just gets better and better. The intelligent design proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not and they also don't even know what intelligence is. It's called comedy gold for a reason.

"We can tell how come it."

"How?"

"Well about that."

One's led to conclude the intelligent design propentist is missing em the one part of it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This just gets better and better. The intelligent design proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not and they also don't even know what intelligence is. It's called comedy gold for a reason.

"We can tell how come it."

"How?"

"Well about that."

One's led to conclude the intelligent design propentist is missing em the one part of it.

Can you look at something and determine if it was designed or not? Nope.

Can you even define intelligence? Nope.

Do you know what a conversation is? Nope.

Can you disagree with someone without ridiculing what they say? Nope.

[JoeyKnothead]

This just gets better and better. The intelligent design proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not and they also don't even know what intelligence is. It's called comedy gold for a reason.

"We can tell how come it."

"How?"

"Well about that."

One's led to conclude the intelligent design propentist is missing em the one part of it.

Can you look at something and determine if it was designed or not? Nope.

That's how come lest I drawed it, I don't claim it was designed.

Can you even define intelligence? Nope.

I might not can define it.

But you can't approach it.

Do you know what a conversation is? Nope.

Bull butter.

A conversation's where the pretty thing says we need to talk, but only she gets to do it.

Can you disagree with someone without ridiculing what they say? Nope.

Still ain't found ya no mirror, have ya?

I ain't here to comfort your insulterous, inflammatory, put down style of debate.

I'm here to point out how you employ insults and slander when the -ahem- conversation don't go your way, but then you cry like a baby when you get you your fee fees hurt.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This just gets better and better. The intelligent design proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not and they also don't even know what intelligence is. It's called comedy gold for a reason.

"We can tell how come it."

"How?"

"Well about that."

One's led to conclude the intelligent design propentist is missing em the one part of it.

Can you look at something and determine if it was designed or not? Nope.

That's how come lest I drawed it, I don't claim it was designed.

Can you even define intelligence? Nope.

I might not can define it.

But you can't approach it.

Do you know what a conversation is? Nope.

Bull butter.

A conversation's where the pretty thing says we need to talk, but only she gets to do it.

Can you disagree with someone without ridiculing what they say? Nope.

Still ain't found ya no mirror, have ya?

I ain't here to comfort your insulterous, inflammatory, put down style of debate.

I'm here to point out how you employ insults and slander when the -ahem- conversation don't go your way, but then you cry like a baby when you get you your fee fees hurt.

Nobody cares Joey, nobody cares, save your energy sonny.

[JoeyKnothead]

This just gets better and better. The evolution proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not

Evolution proponents don't claim design has anything to do with it.

and they also don't even know what intelligence is.

Evolution proponents don't claim an intelligent agent's involved in it.


It might be best to just stick to them claims it is you're proud about, and quit trying to stuff em into the mouths of others.

It's called comedy gold for a reason.

Your move.

One o' y'all wanna tell 'im?

[JoeyKnothead]

This just gets better and better. The intelligent design proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not and they also don't even know what intelligence is. It's called comedy gold for a reason.

"We can tell how come it."

"How?"

"Well about that."

One's led to conclude the intelligent design propentist is missing em the one part of it.

Can you look at something and determine if it was designed or not? Nope.

That's how come lest I drawed it, I don't claim it was designed.

Can you even define intelligence? Nope.

I might not can define it.

But you can't approach it.

Do you know what a conversation is? Nope.

Bull butter.

A conversation's where the pretty thing says we need to talk, but only she gets to do it.

Can you disagree with someone without ridiculing what they say? Nope.

Still ain't found ya no mirror, have ya?

I ain't here to comfort your insulterous, inflammatory, put down style of debate.

I'm here to point out how you employ insults and slander when the -ahem- conversation don't go your way, but then you cry like a baby when you get you your fee fees hurt.

Nobody cares Joey, nobody cares, save your energy sonny.

If nobody cares, how come you took the time and effort to respond?

And how might we confirm you polled the entire planet of folks, and found not the first one of the many billions of em don't give em a dang?

[Sherlock Holmes]

This just gets better and better. The evolution proponents haven't worked out how to definitively establish if something is designed or not

Evolution proponents don't claim design has anything to do with it.

and they also don't even know what intelligence is.

Evolution proponents don't claim an intelligent agent's involved in it.

Really? evolution is a theory invented by human minds.

It might be best to just stick to them claims it is you're proud about, and quit trying to stuff em into the mouths of others.

Or what? you'll stamp your feet?

Later dude, as soon as you say something that I can regard as a sign of intelligence I'll reply.