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 #381

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Clownboat wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:59 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:43 pm
Clownboat wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:19 pm
Abigail wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:10 pm I'm not a Theist.
Who cares!
Have you corrected your thinking about what an atheist is meant to commonly mean here on this board where you are participating?

If someone is showing that your definition is wrong, saying you are not a theist is a dodge and quite frankly a bit confusing as to your train of thought.
Which definition do you think she should be using? how many are there to choose from?
Clearly the one being supplied by the numerous people here engaged with said person. I count one: A lack of belief in any of the available god concepts.
Thanks for asking. Hopefully this will clear things up for Abigail.
What of the proper definition "The assertion that there is no God"?

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #382

Post by Tcg »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:57 pm
Clownboat wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:59 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:43 pm
Clownboat wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:19 pm
Abigail wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:10 pm I'm not a Theist.
Who cares!
Have you corrected your thinking about what an atheist is meant to commonly mean here on this board where you are participating?

If someone is showing that your definition is wrong, saying you are not a theist is a dodge and quite frankly a bit confusing as to your train of thought.
Which definition do you think she should be using? how many are there to choose from?
Clearly the one being supplied by the numerous people here engaged with said person. I count one: A lack of belief in any of the available god concepts.
Thanks for asking. Hopefully this will clear things up for Abigail.
What of the proper definition "The assertion that there is no God"?
That definition is perfectly inadequate as it leaves some atheists unaccounted for. Some do assert that there is no God, well not just the one of course, but that no gods exist. However, others simply lack belief in god/gods.

It is astonishingly straightforward. Theists are those who believe in some version of god/gods. Atheists are those who lack that belief. All atheists lack belief in god/gods, but not all assert they don't exist. This proper definition accounts for all atheists.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #383

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Tcg wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:15 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 3:57 pm
Clownboat wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:59 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:43 pm
Clownboat wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:19 pm
Abigail wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:10 pm I'm not a Theist.
Who cares!
Have you corrected your thinking about what an atheist is meant to commonly mean here on this board where you are participating?

If someone is showing that your definition is wrong, saying you are not a theist is a dodge and quite frankly a bit confusing as to your train of thought.
Which definition do you think she should be using? how many are there to choose from?
Clearly the one being supplied by the numerous people here engaged with said person. I count one: A lack of belief in any of the available god concepts.
Thanks for asking. Hopefully this will clear things up for Abigail.
What of the proper definition "The assertion that there is no God"?
That definition is perfectly inadequate as it leaves some atheists unaccounted for. Some do assert that there is no God, well not just the one of course, but that no gods exist. However, others simply lack belief in god/gods.
Not at all, this actually means there are people calling themselves atheists when they are not atheists.
Tcg wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:15 pm It is astonishingly straightforward. Theists are those who believe in some version of god/gods. Atheists are those who lack that belief. All atheists lack belief in god/gods, but not all assert they don't exist. This proper definition accounts for all atheists.
Tcg
Yet oddly includes agnostics who also "lack a belief" in God.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #384

Post by Purple Knight »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:22 pmNot at all, this actually means there are people calling themselves atheists when they are not atheists.
Your definitional structure for this is perfectly consistent.

However, I ask (not really of you, but of the world, mostly) why I never have to go through this with the Earth being flat, or unicorns, or mermaids?

(I've deliberately chosen examples where, in my thinking, the opposition has some good points, though in the case of flat earth I still believe absolutely no. However, I wonder why the only creature with an actual unicorn horn happens to be something that was decently closely related to horses before it decided to take a permanent skinnydip in the ocean, and why, if the aquatic ape theory is true, there could not have been mermaids at some point.)

But if I say, "I do not believe in mermaids," nobody tries to shoehorn me into being a mermagnostic, even though I technically am (though most people are probably not). Why is that?

There are people who believe yes, there are people who believe no, and there are people who believe maybe. That's the best categorisation, isn't it then?

But maybe is a spectrum and if you're intelligent it basically covers everything. So that's a problem.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #385

Post by brunumb »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:22 pm Not at all, this actually means there are people calling themselves atheists when they are not atheists.
Ah! The No True Atheist™ card is being played. What's the big deal anyway? That aside, why would anyone who believes in gods identify as not believing in gods?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #386

Post by alexxcJRO »

Abigail wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:10 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 2:40 am
Abigail wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 9:45 pm You lost my interest when you tossed the bogus charge of straw man.
Theists always like to find reasons to ignore relevant points.
You completely ignored my point: "We have the same evidence for all religions: unfalsifiable personal experience, anecdotal testimonial evidence for supposed miracles.
The problem is that religions cannot be all true for they are plagued by numerous mutually exclusive claims.
It is logically impossible for mutually exclusive claims to be all true.
One cannot rationally choose between them for the evidence is the same.
So one has to reject them all.
Also the unfalsifiable personal experience, anecdotal testimonial evidence(plagued by oral transmission, rumor, hearsay) are very weak, unreliable form of evidence considering how frail the human psyche is, how prone it is to all kinds of phycological deficiencies."


You chose to construct a straw man and talk about atheists saying there is zero evidence.
Its a double straw man in fact.
Atheist mostly say that there is zero scientific, empirical evidence for (personal) god or gods. No "no zero evidence of any kind".


Abigail wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 9:45 pm For others, the observations I made regarding atheists pertain to atheists who display the aforementioned beliefs or statements they use to sustain their perception of atheism as an atheist.
This is a debate site section where people debate ideas, address arguments and bring contra-arguments. Its not an observations site, preaching sites, ramblings site. Good debate form presupposes addressing someone points, actual arguments and not post irrelevant things.
Q: Have you come here to actually debate or just preach to the choir? :blink:
Abigail wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 9:45 pm There is no such thing as a hard atheist.
I meant hard atheist as opposed to weak/soft atheist.
Hard is antonym to soft. Strong is antonym to weak.

According to the reality of words and definitions there is such a thing like an hard atheist.
“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_ ... ve_atheism



Abigail wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 9:45 pm The correct term is actually, strong atheist. And it is not true they are a thing of the past.
They kind of are.
Modern atheists are mostly described as lacking a belief in god or gods.
There is plenty of evidence in form of testimonial kind on this forum and on the Internet.
Definitions support this.
Abigail wrote: Sun Mar 13, 2022 9:45 pm The two terms, Gnostic and, strong atheist, are mutually exclusive.
Wrong again.
Atheism deals with belief.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.
I am for example an agnostic atheist when it comes to general idea of god.
I don't have knowledge that there is no god or gods.
I don't claim that there is no god or gods.
I don't have the belief that there is no god or gods.
I simply lack a belief in god or gods.

On the other hand, ...

I am an gnostic atheist when it comes to Yahweh-Jesus.
I have knowledge that shows Yahweh-Jesus does not exist.
I claim Yahweh-Jesus does not exist.
I believe that Yahweh-Jesus does not exist.

My stance as agnostic atheist in respect to general idea of god is a passive one. Does not need defending.
My stance as gnostic atheist in respect to Yahweh-Jesus is an active one. It needs defending.
Claims need defending. Lack of ones do not.
In conclusion it follows that am not a strong/hard atheist but a weak/soft atheist.
I don't know about you but from where I stand everything is pretty logical and coherent. 8-)
I'm not a Theist.

That has as much relevance to what I said as saying: “I am not a Chinese”.
The relevancy of my points don’t go away because you are not a theist.
Your bad arguments still remain.
Very bad debate form.
Q: What has the fact that you are not a theist to do with our subject of debate: atheism – lack of belief, hard atheism, gnosticism, you constructing a straw-man and so on? :confused2:
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #387

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

brunumb wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 7:19 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 4:22 pm Not at all, this actually means there are people calling themselves atheists when they are not atheists.
Ah! The No True Atheist™ card is being played. What's the big deal anyway? That aside, why would anyone who believes in gods identify as not believing in gods?
All atheists lack a belief in God but not all people who lack a belief in God are atheists, does that make this any clearer?

A proper atheist who asserts "there is no God" and an agnostic who asserts "we cannot know if God exists or not" are examples.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #388

Post by brunumb »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:30 pm All atheists lack a belief in God but not all people who lack a belief in God are atheists, does that make this any clearer?
Hilarious. All people who lack a belief in gods are atheists.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:30 pm A proper atheist who asserts "there is no God" and an agnostic who asserts "we cannot know if God exists or not" are examples.
And it gets even funnier. Now we have proper atheists. Huh? Some atheists assert that there are no gods. Some atheists assert that we cannot know if gods exist or not. All are still atheists. They do not have a belief that gods actually exist.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #389

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

brunumb wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 8:01 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:30 pm All atheists lack a belief in God but not all people who lack a belief in God are atheists, does that make this any clearer?
Hilarious. All people who lack a belief in gods are atheists.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:30 pm A proper atheist who asserts "there is no God" and an agnostic who asserts "we cannot know if God exists or not" are examples.
And it gets even funnier. Now we have proper atheists. Huh? Some atheists assert that there are no gods. Some atheists assert that we cannot know if gods exist or not. All are still atheists. They do not have a belief that gods actually exist.
I use "proper" top distinguish from the vulgar, improper usage of the term so often embraced by those who really should know better.

The definition of atheist in philosophical literature, historic works, books, has for centuries been "One who asserts there is no God" so academically that really is the true established definition, there's nothing really to argue about here. The one you use was invented for the sake of an argument he made in a book, it was invented by Anthony Flew in the 1970s in the Presumption of Atheism.

I have encyclopedias from the 20th and 19th century, old dictionaries, various books on philosophy and theology and I can assure you that is what "atheist" means "One who asserts there is no God".

Flew's definition been eagerly adopted recently and is now propagated all over the web and is falsely portrayed as "the" definition of atheism, I suspect this is because of radical atheists like Dawkins and others who refuse to stoop to being called "agnostic" because that's conceding a little too much. So they want to distinguish themselves from agnostics yet at the same time want to avoid having to support "there is no God" so they adopt the vacuous Flewsian definition.

This is the truth, deny it, reject it, accuse me of whatever you want but this is fact that anyone can easily verify for themselves, if you are honest and unbiased and facts mean as much to you as you seem to believe they do, you'd agree with me and we could move on to the real substance of these discussions.

You will not find any example of your usage of "atheist" in any publication prior to 1976 - prove me wrong why don't you? Of course you'll have to do something that very few do these days and that is stop relying 100% on the web as your only source of knowledge. I happen to have a reasonable library of perhaps a thousand books and so I am not bound to the web.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Wed Mar 16, 2022 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

Post #390

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #389]
You will not find any example of your usage of "atheist" in any publication prior to 1976 - prove me wrong why don't you?
What justification do you have for ignoring things since 1976? That is 46 years ago and thousands of brand new words have appeared since then, with some older words having their definitions modified along the way. Merriam-Webster define atheism as:

Definition of atheism
1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

This is not a denial of gods, simply a lack of belief that they exist. Wikipedia (ie. whoever wrote the article) has this to say at the start:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. So they use your definition only as a minority position. The article continues ...

Etymology
The Greek word αθεοι (atheoi), as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:12[65] on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46. It is usually translated into English as "[those who are] without God".[a]

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[13]

The term atheist (from the French athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[67] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[68] and again in 1571.[69] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[70]

The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[71] and appears in English about 1587.[72] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[73][74]

Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[75] theist in 1662,[76] deism in 1675,[77] and theism in 1678.[78]

Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700 due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[79]

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the 16th and 17th centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[16]

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.

In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[45]


There is no denial of the existence of gods there ... just a lack of belief that they do exist. Cherry picking pre-1976 definitions or uses does not invalidate any post-1976 definitions or societies' alterations of the word (specifically, how atheists themselves define it today). Lack of belief in the existence of gods is the broadest definition of an atheist. I don't claim that gods do not exist, only that I don't believe that they do (for lack of any evidence that is convincing to me personally). Therefore, I'm an atheist under this most common and broad definition today.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply