Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #1

Post by 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!
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #2

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm 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.
Even if this were true (you've presented no supporting data, only anecdotes and opinions) it doesn't lead to any firm conclusion about any specific claims made by either side being true or false.
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm 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.
Let me give you the benefit of the doubt on that claim, then tell me please what conclusions do you draw from this? do you conclude "therefore the universe was not created" for example?
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm 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.
This seems to be a repeat of the weak attempt to support a belief on the basis of the perceived popularity of that belief.
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm On the science front, creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant.
This is a meaningless statement IMHO. How does one establish if any subject or belief or idea has any or no "scientific relevance"? you take it upon yourself to decide that? Why should anyone take the claim of a biased individual?
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm So for all practical intents and purposes, this debate is over.
Yes, you've said this already yet presented no data, no statistics, no explanation of how you measure "debating" so as to conclude something is "over", if the debate was over we'd not have several threads here where I've upended your reasoning and exposed your reliance on ad-hominem.
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm There isn't any sort of public debate over teaching creationism, nor is there any real debate about whether evolution should be taught.
This is a false statement, all I need to do to prove that is give one counter example, here's one from a great many:


Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm 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!
Well your personal views on what should and should not be taught, what is and is not good for the country are as irrelevant as mine when it comes to the specific narrow scope of the limits of science, the explanatory power of creation and so on.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #3

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:22 pm Even if this were true (you've presented no supporting data, only anecdotes and opinions) it doesn't lead to any firm conclusion about any specific claims made by either side being true or false.
That's not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the state of the debate, mostly in terms of creationists' efforts to get their beliefs into public schools and influence science.
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm 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.
Let me give you the benefit of the doubt on that claim, then tell me please what conclusions do you draw from this? do you conclude "therefore the universe was not created" for example?
Exactly what I said, namely that the issue is barely debated these days. I've no idea why you think I would take "the universe wasn't created" from what I said about TO and the PT.
This seems to be a repeat of the weak attempt to support a belief on the basis of the perceived popularity of that belief.
Again, the focus of this thread is the state of the debate and creationists' efforts to get their beliefs into schools and science. Try and stay on topic.
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm On the science front, creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant.
This is a meaningless statement IMHO. How does one establish if any subject or belief or idea has any or no "scientific relevance"? you take it upon yourself to decide that? Why should anyone take the claim of a biased individual?
It's established by creationism's complete lack of any contribution to our scientific understanding of the world for at least the last century.
Yes, you've said this already yet presented no data, no statistics, no explanation of how you measure "debating" so as to conclude something is "over", if the debate was over we'd not have several threads here where I've upended your reasoning and exposed your reliance on ad-hominem.
Pay closer attention. I cited numerous reasons why this debate is effectively dead. If you disagree, provide some examples of it having life and relevance.
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm There isn't any sort of public debate over teaching creationism, nor is there any real debate about whether evolution should be taught.
This is a false statement, all I need to do to prove that is give one counter example, here's one from a great many:

Is anyone in that video actively working to get creationism into public schools, or get evolution out?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #4

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:36 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:22 pm Even if this were true (you've presented no supporting data, only anecdotes and opinions) it doesn't lead to any firm conclusion about any specific claims made by either side being true or false.
That's not the topic of this thread. This thread is about the state of the debate, mostly in terms of creationists' efforts to get their beliefs into public schools and influence science.
Drawing your attention to unsubstantiated claims and beliefs you post is always within topic.
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:36 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm 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.
Let me give you the benefit of the doubt on that claim, then tell me please what conclusions do you draw from this? do you conclude "therefore the universe was not created" for example?
Exactly what I said, namely that the issue is barely debated these days. I've no idea why you think I would take "the universe wasn't created" from what I said about TO and the PT.
This seems to be a repeat of the weak attempt to support a belief on the basis of the perceived popularity of that belief.
Again, the focus of this thread is the state of the debate and creationists' efforts to get their beliefs into schools and science. Try and stay on topic.
Drawing your attention to unsubstantiated claims and beliefs you post is always within topic.
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:36 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm On the science front, creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant.
This is a meaningless statement IMHO. How does one establish if any subject or belief or idea has any or no "scientific relevance"? you take it upon yourself to decide that? Why should anyone take the claim of a biased individual?
It's established by creationism's complete lack of any contribution to our scientific understanding of the world for at least the last century.
Yes, you've said this already yet presented no data, no statistics, no explanation of how you measure "debating" so as to conclude something is "over", if the debate was over we'd not have several threads here where I've upended your reasoning and exposed your reliance on ad-hominem.
Pay closer attention. I cited numerous reasons why this debate is effectively dead. If you disagree, provide some examples of it having life and relevance.
You expressed personal opinions Jose, yes these are reasons and we all have them but it would be an error if you were imply that your beliefs are any sounder than my beliefs.

I don't know if I disagree with "creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant" since you have not explained what you mean by that term, if you can explain what that means then I can either agree or disagree but not until then.

Please explain how you personally decide if something is "scientifically relevant"? perhaps you mean that if you personally agree with a scientific claim then it's relevant and irrelevant when you don't? is that what you meant?
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:36 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 12:43 pm There isn't any sort of public debate over teaching creationism, nor is there any real debate about whether evolution should be taught.
This is a false statement, all I need to do to prove that is give one counter example, here's one from a great many:

Is anyone in that video actively working to get creationism into public schools, or get evolution out?
Well you never referred to "public schools" did you? you said "teaching creationism" and debates about any subject are often of educational value, if you meant specifically to refer to what is taught in schools in the United States then you should have made yourself clear.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #5

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:56 pm I don't know if I disagree with "creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant" since you have not explained what you mean by that term, if you can explain what that means then I can either agree or disagree but not until then.
I already explained. Creationism hasn't contributed anything to our scientific understanding of the world in at least a century.
Well you never referred to "public schools" did you? you said "teaching creationism" and debates about any subject are often of educational value, if you meant specifically to refer to what is taught in schools in the United States then you should have made yourself clear.
Pay closer attention.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #6

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Speaking of that debate I cited above, take a look at some of the comments viewers have posted (also I think the presence of these replies undermines Jose's unsubstantiated belief that there's "no debate").
Atkins - "A dead body cannot rise from the dead."
Also Atkins - "Everything came from absolutely nothing."
This was at least a little painful to watch. I salute Professor Lennox for his patience. I don't think I could have handled such a difficult conversation anywhere as graciously as he did.
I came in neutral but John Lennox converted me. Thanks for the brain wave
Thank God for Peter Atkins, he has helped create a lot of Christians with this debate.
The more I study science, the more I believe in God!
Atkins: "any speculation that includes the word God is intellectually corrupt"
Atkins next sentence: "God doesn't exist"
Atkins: "We should all be open-minded. The only thing we can believe is evidence"
Atkins: "No amount of evidence would convince me to rescind my position."
I'd agree with prof Lennox. Our world of experiences doesn't begin with matter and energy, it begins with consciousness.
Only after we have consciousness we can contemplate about things like matter and energy, not before.
I don't think I could have engaged Peter's insolence and continued insults nearly as graciously as Mr. Lennox. Through the decades we are occasionally gifted with clear and concise thinkers who can distill cogent meanings from the fog of perpetual discussion. Mr. Lennox is certainly one of them.
Just as a presentation, Atkins came off as an angry and pompous old man, while Lennox seemed completely calm while making his points.
Evolutionists: When religious people don’t understand something they just say ‘God did it’.
Also evolutionists: We don’t understand <insert one of countless biological or cosmological mysteries> oh well, evolution did it somehow.
and so on and so forth...
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #7

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:10 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:56 pm I don't know if I disagree with "creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant" since you have not explained what you mean by that term, if you can explain what that means then I can either agree or disagree but not until then.
I already explained. Creationism hasn't contributed anything to our scientific understanding of the world in at least a century.
I won't accuse you of ignoring my question but it does seem you may have overlooked it:

Please explain how you personally decide if something is "scientifically relevant"? perhaps you mean that if you personally agree with a scientific claim then it's relevant and irrelevant when you don't? is that what you meant?

If you can't explain what you mean then why are you making claims, the meaning of which you do not know? this is surely a recipe for disaster in any debate?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #8

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:23 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:10 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:56 pm I don't know if I disagree with "creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant" since you have not explained what you mean by that term, if you can explain what that means then I can either agree or disagree but not until then.
I already explained. Creationism hasn't contributed anything to our scientific understanding of the world in at least a century.
I won't accuse you of ignoring my question but it does seem you may have overlooked it:

Please explain how you personally decide if something is "scientifically relevant"? perhaps you mean that if you personally agree with a scientific claim then it's relevant and irrelevant when you don't? is that what you meant?

If you can't explain what you mean then why are you making claims, the meaning of which you do not know? this is surely a recipe for disaster in any debate?
Pay closer attention. I decide if something is scientifically relevant by seeing what, if anything, it contributes to science. Creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century, thus it is scientifically irrelevant. This isn't complicated.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #9

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:30 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:23 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:10 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:56 pm I don't know if I disagree with "creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant" since you have not explained what you mean by that term, if you can explain what that means then I can either agree or disagree but not until then.
I already explained. Creationism hasn't contributed anything to our scientific understanding of the world in at least a century.
I won't accuse you of ignoring my question but it does seem you may have overlooked it:

Please explain how you personally decide if something is "scientifically relevant"? perhaps you mean that if you personally agree with a scientific claim then it's relevant and irrelevant when you don't? is that what you meant?

If you can't explain what you mean then why are you making claims, the meaning of which you do not know? this is surely a recipe for disaster in any debate?
Pay closer attention. I decide if something is scientifically relevant by seeing what, if anything, it contributes to science. Creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century, thus it is scientifically irrelevant. This isn't complicated.
I see, thank you.

Can you provide evidence to substantiate the claim "Creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century"? or is this just a belief you hold? Imagine you were seated facing a completely neutral party, how would you convince them that the claim is true?

You also say that it did, last contribute about a hundred years ago, can you give a few examples of what these contributions were?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #10

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 2:32 pm Can you provide evidence to substantiate the claim "Creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century"?
I already explained....creationism's complete lack of contributions to science in at least 100 years. If you disagree with that assessment, then provide an example.
You also say that it did, last contribute about a hundred years ago, can you give a few examples of what these contributions were?
Again, pay closer attention. I specifically said "at least a century".
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Post Reply