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!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #71]

Now that's hilarious! Earlier, Denton was your preferred source and someone we all should pay attention to, but after it's shown that he's in agreement with universal common ancestry via evolution, suddenly "it really doesn't matter"

.

Many people change what they believe in. There are atheists that become Christians. In Christianity, you will know Christians by what they do. Take for example Ravi Zacharias an apologist that just died and then it was later revealed that he was doing more than getting a massage when he received his massages. The sad commentary on his life is that he had a head knowledge of the truth but he believed in his sin more than he believed in God. A Christian is known for his desire to turn from his sin. Ravi did not show that desire, so Ravi is in hell today because of that.

Denton changed his belief system. So what! All that simply shows is that he has some sin that he would rather hang onto than to follow Christ.

Obviously, for you this is first and foremost a religious issue. That's informative.

It is a religious issue for everyone. Religion is what you believe. It seems what you believe about the first cause is different that what I believe about the first cause. If you are an Athiest you BELIEVE there is no God, that is a belief system that encompasses what you believe about the first cause.

Except that was resolved quite a while ago. But since this is primarily a religious issue for you I have to wonder.....why do you care about the science? Why not just say that you believe in God and the Bible's creation account and leave it at that?

How does neutral theory solve the problem? 400 changes in the DNA every generation has to come together somehow. If these are all neutral changes can you explain how 400 hundred can come together every generation? And how could this happen if one has to be preceded by another? If this was resolved a while ago.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #71]

Now that's hilarious! Earlier, Denton was your preferred source and someone we all should pay attention to, but after it's shown that he's in agreement with universal common ancestry via evolution, suddenly "it really doesn't matter"

.

Many people change what they believe in. There are atheists that become Christians. In Christianity, you will know Christians by what they do. Take for example Ravi Zacharias an apologist that just died and then it was later revealed that he was doing more than getting a massage when he received his massages. The sad commentary on his life is that he had a head knowledge of the truth but he believed in his sin more than he believed in God. A Christian is known for his desire to turn from his sin. Ravi did not show that desire, so Ravi is in hell today because of that.

Denton changed his belief system. So what! All that simply shows is that he has some sin that he would rather hang onto than to follow Christ.

Obviously, for you this is first and foremost a religious issue. That's informative.

It is a religious issue for everyone. Religion is what you believe. It seems what you believe about the first cause is different that what I believe about the first cause. If you are an Athiest you BELIEVE there is no God, that is a belief system that encompasses what you believe about the first cause.

Except that was resolved quite a while ago. But since this is primarily a religious issue for you I have to wonder.....why do you care about the science? Why not just say that you believe in God and the Bible's creation account and leave it at that?

How does neutral theory solve the problem? 400 changes in the DNA every generation has to come together somehow. If these are all neutral changes can you explain how 400 hundred can come together every generation? And how could this happen if one has to be preceded by another? If this was resolved a while ago.

I wonder how long it will take for someone to excitedly fuss over "If you are an Athiest you BELIEVE there is no God" by telling you "But atheism is just an absence of belief" - like the AAAS did with "science" the atheists already did with "atheist" - when on the back foot, start redefining words, a strategy for the desperate!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #79]

Sir you did not knew the scientific theory of evolution does not entails humans evolving from chimps. That will not go away. Will remain forever in annals of history.
That's pretty basic.

Are you sure you know about DNA stuff?

And yet again are not getting the tenor of the argument. So I will simplify the concept.

Is there any DNA sample from the common ancestor that you say humans and primates are descendants from?

You must think that there is some sample like that in the world. You must be thinking that there is a 7 million-year-old (according to your theory) sample of DNA from that "great ape." Why don't you try to pull that up and show us all.

So our only means of comparison are species that are alive today. The closest species to man according to DNA is a chimp. That is why people say we are descendants of chimps because it is believed, according to the theory you are putting, forward that chimps would share our closest relative.

So what are you trying to say that man and chimps are not related that closely?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #82]

I wonder how long it will take for someone to excitedly fuss over "If you are an Athiest you BELIEVE there is no God" by telling you "But atheism is just an absence of belief" - like the AAAS did with "science" the atheists already did with "atheist" - when on the back foot, start redefining words, a strategy for the desperate!

Yea that always cracks me up also. But I keep saying it, because repetition is the key to learning.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #82]

I wonder how long it will take for someone to excitedly fuss over "If you are an Athiest you BELIEVE there is no God" by telling you "But atheism is just an absence of belief" - like the AAAS did with "science" the atheists already did with "atheist" - when on the back foot, start redefining words, a strategy for the desperate!

So you're quibbling over the difference in meaning between "I lack a belief in the existence of gods" and "I believe that gods don't exist"? Doesn't one follow from the other? I personally lack a belief in the existence of gods because I've never seen any convincing evidence that they do. This makes me an atheist. I "don't believe that gods exist" for exactly the same reason (no convincing evidence). Why do creationists always try to pull these word games and claim that atheism is a religion (or a belief system similar to a religion), or that evolution is a religion or a belief system? You guys really need some new tricks!

The big difference is that evolution has loads of empirical evidence to show that it is valid, while religions are belief without evidence (faith). What is the benefit (to creationists) of trying to cast atheism or evolution as belief systems or religions? What do you get out of this given that it is so obviously wrong, by simple definitions.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #82]

I wonder how long it will take for someone to excitedly fuss over "If you are an Athiest you BELIEVE there is no God" by telling you "But atheism is just an absence of belief" - like the AAAS did with "science" the atheists already did with "atheist" - when on the back foot, start redefining words, a strategy for the desperate!

So you're quibbling over the difference in meaning between "I lack a belief in the existence of gods" and "I believe that gods don't exist"? Doesn't one follow from the other?

Beats me, I often never get a straight answer myself when I ask "atheists".

I personally lack a belief in the existence of gods because I've never seen any convincing evidence that they do.

How can you be so sure? if I showed you evidence, would you recognize it as evidence? if you don't know what to look for then you'll never know you've seen it will you.

This makes me an atheist. I "don't believe that gods exist" for exactly the same reason (no convincing evidence). Why do creationists always try to pull these word games and claim that atheism is a religion (or a belief system similar to a religion), or that evolution is a religion or a belief system? You guys really need some new tricks!

It is littered with beliefs, for example you just conveyed that you believe you've never seen convincing evidence for God!

The big difference is that evolution has loads of empirical evidence to show that it is valid, while religions are belief without evidence (faith). What is the benefit (to creationists) of trying to cast atheism or evolution as belief systems or religions? What do you get out of this given that it is so obviously wrong, by simple definitions.

Really? the universe exists, life exists, I can think and to a degree understand the universe etc - that's evidence right there - if you can recognize it that is!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #86]

It is littered with beliefs, for example you just conveyed that you believe you've never seen convincing evidence for God!

Because I haven't. Humans have invented literally thousands of gods over the millennia, many incompatible with others (ie. they all could have have been legit), yet not one of them has ever made itself known in any concrete way that a human could use to be convinced. Why do they all have the same characteristics as something that is nonexistent? Why are they so good at hiding from detection? The one answer that is consistent with every god concept is that gods are purely inventions of the human imagination, and don't actually exist. That fits all observations. Many are defined as being only "known" by some personal experience or feeling, conveniently no physical method of identification is allowed. Do you believe there is only one god, or that all of the gods humans have invented are real? If only one god exists, which one, and why?

Really? the universe exists, life exists, I can think and to a degree understand the universe etc - that's evidence right there - if you can recognize it that is!

It is evidence of the existence of these things. There is no evidence that a god being had to be behind it. That is simply an assumption or belief on faith.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #86]

It is littered with beliefs, for example you just conveyed that you believe you've never seen convincing evidence for God!

Because I haven't.

You are 100% certain? how can you be so sure? unless you can prove that everything you've ever seen is definitely 100% not attributable to God then you cannot be 100% certain, that means you might have seen evidence for God but did not see it for what it was.

Humans have invented literally thousands of gods over the millennia, many incompatible with others (ie. they all could have have been legit), yet not one of them has ever made itself known in any concrete way that a human could use to be convinced.

You speak on behalf of all humanity now?

Why do they all have the same characteristics as something that is nonexistent? Why are they so good at hiding from detection?

How do you know, for certain, that you might not have misjudged this? that you did encounter evidence but were unable to see it for what it was?

The one answer that is consistent with every god concept is that gods are purely inventions of the human imagination, and don't actually exist. That fits all observations. Many are defined as being only "known" by some personal experience or feeling, conveniently no physical method of identification is allowed. Do you believe there is only one god, or that all of the gods humans have invented are real? If only one god exists, which one, and why?

Why do my beliefs even matter here? you are the one stating that you've seen no evidence for God and so you must either support that claim or retract it.

Really? the universe exists, life exists, I can think and to a degree understand the universe etc - that's evidence right there - if you can recognize it that is!

It is evidence of the existence of these things. There is no evidence that a god being had to be behind it. That is simply an assumption or belief on faith.

The entire universe is evidence of something that is a belief I'm sure we both share.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #88]

You are 100% certain? how can you be so sure? unless you can prove that everything you've ever seen is definitely 100% not attributable to God then you cannot be 100% certain, that means you might have seen evidence for God but did not see it for what it was.

I can't prove that everything I've ever seen is definitely 100% not attributable to the flying spaghetti monster either.

You speak on behalf of all humanity now?

Well, give us a link or reference to any demonstrated existence of any god since humans appeared on this planet. Just one will do.

How do you know, for certain, that you might not have misjudged this? that you did encounter evidence but were unable to see it for what it was?

If I encountered evidence but didn't see it for what it was then that would be nonconvincing evidence. If it was that vague I doubt anyone would be convinced.

Why do my beliefs even matter here? you are the one stating that you've seen no evidence for God and so you must either support that claim or retract it.

Excellent dodge of the question. But herewith I will provide support for my claim:

I, alias DrNoGods, claim that I have never seen convincing evidence for the existence of gods.

There ... or do you expect that someone else can speak on my behalf as to what I've seen or what is convincing to me?

The entire universe is evidence of something that is a belief I'm sure we both share.

Yes ... it is evidence that the universe exists. That fact alone is not sufficient to conclude that any god was behind it all.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #88]

You are 100% certain? how can you be so sure? unless you can prove that everything you've ever seen is definitely 100% not attributable to God then you cannot be 100% certain, that means you might have seen evidence for God but did not see it for what it was.

I can't prove that everything I've ever seen is definitely 100% not attributable to the flying spaghetti monster either.

Exactly, so you agree you cannot be 100% certain you've never encountered or come into contact with something that might have been evidence for God, good, we agree.

You speak on behalf of all humanity now?

Well, give us a link or reference to any demonstrated existence of any god since humans appeared on this planet. Just one will do.

Martyrdom of Polycarp

English translation of it.

How do you know, for certain, that you might not have misjudged this? that you did encounter evidence but were unable to see it for what it was?

If I encountered evidence but didn't see it for what it was then that would be nonconvincing evidence. If it was that vague I doubt anyone would be convinced.

That's not true, that it might not convince you is a subjective measure not objective. Nor did I say it would be "vague". The fact is you need criteria for deciding if something is or is not evidence for God, what are your criteria? do you even have any?

Why do my beliefs even matter here? you are the one stating that you've seen no evidence for God and so you must either support that claim or retract it.

Excellent dodge of the question. But herewith I will provide support for my claim:

I, alias DrNoGods, claim that I have never seen convincing evidence for the existence of gods.

There ... or do you expect that someone else can speak on my behalf as to what I've seen or what is convincing to me?

No but I expect a rational honest person to have some formal way to evaluate evidence, do you?

The entire universe is evidence of something that is a belief I'm sure we both share.

Yes ... it is evidence that the universe exists. That fact alone is not sufficient to conclude that any god was behind it all.

Nor that there wasn't.