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!

[William]

They cannot be based on a supposed divine communication, which itself can never be verified.

Of course it can.
What can also be done, is that folk can make it impossible for themselves to accept any evidence by placing unrealistic conditions upon what such evidence 'should' consist of.

That tactic doesn't make any evidence which does not reach such expectation, truthfully invalid.

I am certainty convinced that the evidence I share on this Message Board - just in itself - is more than sufficient to make non-theism a pointless position to hold, especially considering that no one - theist or non - has been able to debunk said evidence.

I am satisfied that non-theists who call out for evidence of "God" are not interested in any evidence of God, or that they even know what it is they are looking for re that - perhaps because they are not even looking for it, but rather, are focused upon finding any way they can imagine up, which allows for that they don't have to look ...

The evidence is there to find. I can only show another the evidence [door]. I am not the one who must open the door and walk through it for another. [since I have already done that for myself.]

[Miles]

All that's necessary to convince someone of a truth is to present convincing evidence for it. In the case of the existence for god obviously many people have a very low threshold of evidence---they may believe there's a god simply because of the beauty they see in nature (typically disregarding the ugliness it also contains), whereas others may require far more reasonable evidence---the claims for it cannot be contradictory, irrational, or based on emotional needs. They cannot be based on a supposed divine communication, which itself can never be verified.

Somehow it seems that only Christians are able to be genuinely convinced of the existence of their God. When one questions the evidence that convinced them and argues that it is not convincing, magical excuses emerge like the necessity of being possessed by the alleged Holy Spirit. This in itself has no supporting evidence and it becomes something of a turtles-all-the-way-down chase. In the end one is confronted with....... faith.

And what can't be taken on faith? Nothing! Any assertion can be held as true based on faith. I have faith that pink unicorns exist. I have faith that whites have superior musical skills. I have faith that atheists are more grounded in reality than Christians. Does this mean these faiths express some kind of truth? Absolutely not. Faith is the last gasping breath of the bankrupt believer.

.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #322]

Atheism doesn't exist, it is a vacuity, an empty, illogical, irrational, self contradictory act of self deception. I mish-mash of pseudo science and pseudo philosophy.

I'm sure I've never seen a more jumbled and meaningless definition of atheism, and following a claim that it doesn't exist makes it also completely illogical. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of gods, for whatever reason, simple as that. It is none of the gibberish your erroneous definition includes.

Produce some convincing evidence that gods exist and you'll have defeated all of the atheists and proven them wrong. Until then, we have a case to argue and you have not won the debate.

[brunumb]

It is nothing more than an invented answer for every question without actually answering anything.

All explanations are invention.

I have an inkling that you will be excluding God from that claim.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #332]

And what can't be taken on faith?

That the universe started unfolding with a "Big Bang" although it is still reasonable to state that given what evidence there is, any faith in the theory is reasonable.

Any assertion can be held as true based on faith.

Is that true though? Presently it appears to be more of an unsupported statement of opinion.

I have faith that pink unicorns exist.

The thing about faith is that it generally is based upon things that are known to exist.
It is reasonable to imagine that pink unicorns do exist, given what we know about the diverse range of critters hereabouts on this planet, and the size of the Milky Way Mother Galaxy also lends support for the imagination that pink unicorns probably exist somewhere - if not in our own Galaxy, then likely in some others.

Point being, it is not really a matter of having faith but of having reason to believe pink
probably do exist.

I have faith that whites have superior musical skills.

Nope. If you believe that, you have racism. Clearly humans are humans regardless of ethic/cultural differences.

I have faith that atheists are more grounded in reality than Christians.

Probably true, but is the faith based in truth [reality] or is this simply another unsupported claim?
Clearly Theists include in their observations that there is likely a Mind involved with the continuing formation of the whole universe [all of its parts] and there is no supporting evidence from non -theists [be they atheists or some other such held positions] that their take on reality is any more grounded than theists.

Point being, having faith that "atheists are more grounded in reality than Christians" isn't something one can easily prove a truthful position to hold. Such is the nature of faith.

Does this mean these faiths express some kind of truth? Absolutely not.

Agreed.

But faith still has its place. What can be questioned [as you seem to be saying] is that - like the example I made re the Big Bang - faith is reasonable for one to have...rather than faith itself simply being unreasonable to hold, in the face of reality.

Well - you might not be saying that, but I certainly am.

Faith is the product of realizing the evidence of the unseen within the structure of that which is seen.
Feel the truth that stands behind the symbols, and tap into this energy-force that reaches out for you.

[Difflugia]

I am certainty convinced that the evidence I share on this Message Board - just in itself - is more than sufficient to make non-theism a pointless position to hold, especially considering that no one - theist or non - has been able to debunk said evidence.

If you're talking about your "Generating Messages" thread, it's been debunked twice in the last three weeks. Even if your thesis is absolutely correct, your methodology is flawed in multiple ways, each of which is sufficient on its own to render your data meaningless:

• The study isn't blinded.
• The data scoring is entirely subjective.
• There are obvious confounding variables.
• There are no controls.

These could all be cured and you were offered a number of suggestions. You instead satisfied yourself with the claim that we don't understand what you're seeing. You may be right, but that wouldn't eliminate any of the above flaws. Those flaws are all fatal.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #332]

And what can't be taken on faith?

That the universe started unfolding with a "Big Bang" although it is still reasonable to state that given what evidence there is, any faith in the theory is reasonable.

Any assertion can be held as true based on faith.

Is that true though? Presently it appears to be more of an unsupported statement of opinion.

Let me clarify. In these instances the truth I assert is solely dependent on faith. The trust that it is so. It's as if faith has power equal to convincing evidence.

I have faith that pink unicorns exist.

The thing about faith is that it generally is based upon things that are known to exist.

If this is the case then why not simply appeal to the known elements and forget about using faith? Where are you inserting faith into the equation?

As I see it, people only appeal to faith when they lack sufficient evidence, which is why pink unicorns can be asserted to exist for no other reason than the assertion is based on faith. I can assert that Paul Bunyan exist for no other reason than that I have faith that he does. Does this make my assertion true? Of course not. Likewise, I could claim that Jesus Christ will save me from Hell for no other reason than that I have faith that he does. Does this make my assertion true? Of course not. Faith allows us to excuse our lack of knowledge and put in its place unfounded trust. If such trust had an actual foundation, such as convincing evidence, for example, faith would be superfluous.

It is reasonable to imagine that pink unicorns do exist, given what we know about the diverse range of critters hereabouts on this planet, and the size of the Milky Way Mother Galaxy also lends support for the imagination that pink unicorns probably exist somewhere - if not in our own Galaxy, then likely in some others.

Sorry for forgetting to specify that such pink unicorns would necessarily be confined to Earth and in the present. I assumed this would be regarded as a given.

Point being, it is not really a matter of having faith but of having reason to believe pink
probably do exist.

Well the point of claiming the existence of pink unicorns was that it only made sense if such a truth was based on faith. That anything, the existence of pink unicorns, flying frogs, or woodland faeries can be based on faith. All of which demonstrates the faith's inability to establish any truth.

I have faith that whites have superior musical skills.

Nope. If you believe that, you have racism. Clearly humans are humans regardless of ethic/cultural differences.

I only presented this as an example of an absurdity, like the claim of flying frogs. IT is not to be taken seriously

I have faith that atheists are more grounded in reality than Christians.

Probably true, but is the faith based in truth [reality] or is this simply another unsupported claim?

Another example of an absurd claim. IT is not to be taken seriously

Clearly Theists include in their observations that there is likely a Mind involved with the continuing formation of the whole universe [all of its parts] and there is no supporting evidence from non -theists [be they atheists or some other such held positions] that their take on reality is any more grounded than theists.

Point being, having faith that "atheists are more grounded in reality than Christians" isn't something one can easily prove a truthful position to hold. Such is the nature of faith.

And another one. IT is not to be taken seriously

But faith still has its place. What can be questioned [as you seem to be saying] is that - like the example I made re the Big Bang - faith is reasonable for one to have...rather than faith itself simply being unreasonable to hold, in the face of reality.

This sounds like belief to me. "Belief" being an acceptance of a state of affairs without good evidence. On the other hand, "faith" also embraces complete trust or confidence in someone or something. A form of trust that equally affirms the existence of both that which is true and that which is false.


.

[Sherlock Holmes]

DELETED DUPLICATE POST.

[Sherlock Holmes]

All that's necessary to convince someone of a truth is to present convincing evidence for it. In the case of the existence for god obviously many people have a very low threshold of evidence---they may believe there's a god simply because of the beauty they see in nature (typically disregarding the ugliness it also contains), whereas others may require far more reasonable evidence---the claims for it cannot be contradictory, irrational, or based on emotional needs. They cannot be based on a supposed divine communication, which itself can never be verified.

Somehow it seems that only Christians are able to be genuinely convinced of the existence of their God.

You're quite observant.

When one questions the evidence that convinced them and argues that it is not convincing, magical excuses emerge like the necessity of being possessed by the alleged Holy Spirit.

Why do you actually expect to be convinced by things experienced by someone else?

This in itself has no supporting evidence and it becomes something of a turtles-all-the-way-down chase.

Again, each of us experiences the world uniquely, subjectively, why you expect to share the experiences of others is something you need to clarify.

In the end one is confronted with....... faith. One has to wonder how it is possible to be thoroughly convinced by the alleged evidence for God, lead the life of a devout Christian for possibly decades and then come to the realisation that it was all wrong. Same evidence, different outcome. Oh, you were never really a Christian to begin with, even though you accepted the very evidence you now consider inadequate. Maybe the answer lies in how the belief was acquired in the first place.

When one considers that the vast majority of believers have their belief in god(s) inculcated through indoctrination from birth, the arguments usually presented later merely sound like attempted rationalisations. Something like the beauty of the universe was not one of the arguments that actually convinced them to begin with. It is part of the later retrofitting of whatever could possibly be regarded as evidence to shore up an already held belief. If a non-believer is not convinced by it, then that it is not surprising because it was not really part of the process that convinced the believer either.

Everyone of us is "indoctrinated from birth" I mean look at how the majority of the public believe evolution yet know next to nothing about it, about genetics, fossils, paleontology and so on. Talk to "Joe Average" and they know almost nothing yet steadfastly support evolution, what else can explain this but indoctrination?

[Sherlock Holmes]

All that's necessary to convince someone of a truth is to present convincing evidence for it. In the case of the existence for god obviously many people have a very low threshold of evidence---they may believe there's a god simply because of the beauty they see in nature (typically disregarding the ugliness it also contains), whereas others may require far more reasonable evidence---the claims for it cannot be contradictory, irrational, or based on emotional needs. They cannot be based on a supposed divine communication, which itself can never be verified.

Somehow it seems that only Christians are able to be genuinely convinced of the existence of their God. When one questions the evidence that convinced them and argues that it is not convincing, magical excuses emerge like the necessity of being possessed by the alleged Holy Spirit. This in itself has no supporting evidence and it becomes something of a turtles-all-the-way-down chase. In the end one is confronted with....... faith.

And what can't be taken on faith? Nothing! Any assertion can be held as true based on faith. I have faith that pink unicorns exist. I have faith that whites have superior musical skills. I have faith that atheists are more grounded in reality than Christians. Does this mean these faiths express some kind of truth? Absolutely not. Faith is the last gasping breath of the bankrupt believer.

.

Faith is simply trust, you have faith, you trust claims like "The sun will rise tomorrow" or "because every time I did X in the past X will always occur in the future". Scientific theories all 100% trust, the very word "predict" is an expression of trust, of faith.