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!

[Diagoras]

They certainly look closely related, but any scientist worthy of the name isn't going to presume anything until they've accumulated data to prove or falsify any testable hypothesis.

Well they're not closely related, one is a Wolf and the other is a Thylacine (a marsupial, became extinct in 1930s) their coding DNA is not even slightly similar, we are told they "probably" had a common ancestor about 160 MYA and the similarity is purely down to "convergent evolution" another made up term.

Certainly interesting, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove here. From my link:

In the past, these non-coding regions were considered 'junk DNA', but today it is recognised that they play important roles as regulators of genes during development, when most of the traits that make species unique arise.

TWARs were particularly abundant near genes involved in the development of bone, cartilage and muscles of the facial region.

This suggests that natural selection acted in very similar ways in both species, building their shared facial structure by tweaking the same underlying developmental processes.

Seems that "their coding DNA is not even slightly similar" is not entirely accurate. When scientists examined both species (and 61 others, apparently), they originally found fewer genetic similarities than they expected. Further research provided evidence of similarities in areas that hadn't been considered at first. This is a good example of science working well.

In the light of this, claiming convergent evolution is a 'made up term' in the face of plentiful evidence for it doesn't come across as a well-considered debating tactic.

Now that I've played your 'parlour game', can we return to the 'mice and bacteria' point now, please?

[Sherlock Holmes]

They certainly look closely related, but any scientist worthy of the name isn't going to presume anything until they've accumulated data to prove or falsify any testable hypothesis.

Well they're not closely related, one is a Wolf and the other is a Thylacine (a marsupial, became extinct in 1930s) their coding DNA is not even slightly similar, we are told they "probably" had a common ancestor about 160 MYA and the similarity is purely down to "convergent evolution" another made up term.

Certainly interesting, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove here. From my link:

In the past, these non-coding regions were considered 'junk DNA', but today it is recognised that they play important roles as regulators of genes during development, when most of the traits that make species unique arise.

TWARs were particularly abundant near genes involved in the development of bone, cartilage and muscles of the facial region.

This suggests that natural selection acted in very similar ways in both species, building their shared facial structure by tweaking the same underlying developmental processes.

Seems that "their coding DNA is not even slightly similar" is not entirely accurate. When scientists examined both species (and 61 others, apparently), they originally found fewer genetic similarities than they expected. Further research provided evidence of similarities in areas that hadn't been considered at first. This is a good example of science working well.

In the light of this, claiming convergent evolution is a 'made up term' in the face of plentiful evidence for it doesn't come across as a well-considered debating tactic.

Now that I've played your 'parlour game', can we return to the 'mice and bacteria' point now, please?

Now that Facebook are openly allowing posts that call for violence against Russians, a level of depravity I hoped I'd never see, I'm taking some time away from all this.

[brunumb]

The universe was designed, it is filled with beautifully designed structures, with symmetries and inter dependencies and so on, everything we design shares that trait, so the universe is filled with the kinds of patterns that I'd except if it had been designed.

Meanwhile, as admitted earlier, neither you nor any other intelligent design proponents have established any criteria which allows us to irrefutably determine if something has been specifically designed or not. All you have is an unsupported opinion.

[brunumb]

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, I mean what's the issue? why all the fuss?

I value the actual truth over your biased opinion. If there is no need for any fuss, then simply be comfortable with your belief and leave us to seek further.

[brunumb]

Ridiculous reasonoing, so typical of atheists who are out of their depth. If I cannot identify the painter of a painting does that mean the picture was not actually painted at all? that it just arose out of thin air?

By that incredibly bad argument, this was not painted:

Well? was that painted or wasn't it? cat got y'all's tongue?

The difference here is that we have precedents and criteria that we can apply to establish that the image was painted. In the case of the universe and God, we have nothing.

(By the way, although it is extremely unlikely, there is always the possibility that the image did indeed arise from some sort of freaky natural process. Just sayin'.)

[The Barbarian]

The difference here is that we have precedents and criteria that we can apply to establish that the image was painted. In the case of the universe and God, we have nothing.

(By the way, although it is extremely unlikely, there is always the possibility that the image did indeed arise from some sort of freaky natural process. Just sayin'.)

Ever since Paley, the "must have been design" guys always point to human artifacts to make their point. Why? Because if they cited something natural, no one would see their point.

Which is kind of a tip-off in itself, don't you think?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #272]

Understood - we've all got lives outside the forum.

[Abigail]

It all boils down to first cause doesn't it?

That is an issue of philosophy and theology, not science and certainly not evolution.

I would disagree. Also, science has yet to prove or even provide a credible theory that identifies the source for material reality and existence.

Believers hold that to be God. Atheists hold that is yet unknown. And insist there is no evidence for it to be anything called God.

Yes, unfortunately atheists are unable to prove anything not called by a three letter word is the source or cause for existence.

The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of belief in god/gods.

Atheists don't realize that is a faith in itself.
While many seem to occupy their time with debating about something they first insist isn't there.

[brunumb]

Now that Facebook are openly allowing posts that call for violence against Russians, a level of depravity I hoped I'd never see, I'm taking some time away from all this.

HUH? When your case crumbles that's the excuse for the cut-and-run is it? OK.

[Tcg]

The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of belief in god/gods.

Atheists don't realize that is a faith in itself.

I always love the "lack of belief is faith argument." We don't realize it is a faith for the very simple reason that it isn't.


Tcg