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!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #178]

That is true but I am asking about the claim that YOU made, the claim "no god beings have ever been shown to exist" so the burden of proof lies with you surely? that is the claim you made isn't it?

Why can't you understand this? If I claimed that no unicorns have ever been shown to exist would you demand some proof of that? My "claim" is supported by the lack of any instance in which a god being HAS been demonstrated to exist. Until such a demonstration exists my claim is valid. Can you provide one? Of course not.

I'm always prepared to support claims I make.

Really? I think your record of consistently not doing exactly that speaks for itself!

Your claim is not proven true simply by the fact that the opposite claim has not been proven true, this is ridiculous, seriously the standard of rigor in logic and reasoning never ceases to amaze me when debating atheists or evolutionists.

Right ... anyone who disagrees with you deserves an insult of some type. You just can't resist doing this in nearly every post you make if the opponent is an atheist or evolution supporter. But trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't help your case. Here's some reading recommendations that might help you:

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences ... -Proof.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of ... hilosophy)

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #179]

The scripture passage is revealing to us that God is evident from what he has created, trying to obfuscate this and insist that nothing was designed because there's no evidence it was designed and the designed things themselves aren't evidence of design - is just hopeless, it leads nowhere.

It is faulty logic, that's why it leads nowhere. A god explanation is no more valid than any other supernatural explanation for the existence of something that may appear designed. Is a snowflake evidence of a designer? Why not? ... it appears to have been designed. By your logic, anything that appears to have been designed is evidence of a designer when that clearly is not the case for snowflakes and many other things. So obviously, as most people appreciate, the appearance of design is not evidence of a designer.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #180]

Bottom line is that Creation Cosmology has a workable theory about ERVs and atheist cosmology does not. Those are the facts. You can try to spin the facts all you want but the facts are still the facts.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #178]

That is true but I am asking about the claim that YOU made, the claim "no god beings have ever been shown to exist" so the burden of proof lies with you surely? that is the claim you made isn't it?

Why can't you understand this? If I claimed that no unicorns have ever been shown to exist would you demand some proof of that?

I'd ask how you reasoned to reach that conclusion, it is a proposition that's either true or false, why do you claim it is true?

My "claim" is supported by the lack of any instance in which a god being HAS been demonstrated to exist.

How did you establish there is a "lack of any instance in which a god being HAS been demonstrated to exist"? tell me how you reached that conclusion? why do you claim it is true?

Until such a demonstration exists my claim is valid. Can you provide one? Of course not.

This is far too sloppy, it uses vague terms like "demonstration", that's subjective, one person's convincing demo is another person's dubious claim.

Also you or me not finding a proof that some claim is true does not constitute a proof it is false.

If I do have a convincing (to me) proof that some claim is true, your refusal to be convinced does not prove my claim false either.

You make absolute propositions but cannot, it is not logically possible to prove "no god beings have ever been shown to exist" it is a belief, for example Jesus showed convincing proof he was alive to the disciples after they'd seen him dead. Unless you can prove that is a lie then it might be true. Now granted you and many people will not regard this is plausible, even possible but that does not 100% prove it did not happen.

You're mistaking many of the things you personally believe for absolute unquestioned truth, but that's not right.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #179]

The scripture passage is revealing to us that God is evident from what he has created, trying to obfuscate this and insist that nothing was designed because there's no evidence it was designed and the designed things themselves aren't evidence of design - is just hopeless, it leads nowhere.

It is faulty logic, that's why it leads nowhere.

I very much doubt that, see my post above where I explain your own faulty logic. My skills in logic are trustworthy, trust me!

A god explanation is no more valid than any other supernatural explanation for the existence of something that may appear designed.

Well careful here, I've been careful to specifically focus on the question - is something designed? is a designed thing in and of itself evidence of design? not gone into the nature of a designer, an explanation for the thing, only talking about the determination if something was designed.

Is a snowflake evidence of a designer?

Fair question, totally sensible question. I'd argue yes, it is designed (but I regard the entire universe as being designed), water, water vapor, crystalline ice, surface tension and so on all contribute to the growth of these flakes and lead to snow, that could well be a good example of a stunning design capability. That is the laws of nature that lead to snowflakes forming, were designed, those laws might be what was designed.

Why not? ... it appears to have been designed.

It does.

By your logic, anything that appears to have been designed is evidence of a designer when that clearly is not the case for snowflakes and many other things. So obviously, as most people appreciate, the appearance of design is not evidence of a designer.

Easy, hold on, I never said appears designed -> therefore designed, I did ask would it be unreasonable to say that, I don't know the answer but that's what I was saying.

I design for a living, I have to write intricate, often difficult to reason about software, that code often contains bugs or does not quite behave as some person expects and so on, it can be very hard work, doing it well can be a huge challenge.

So I do have an insight into what makes designed things different to undesigned things, of course its only an insight and I can't say its infallible, we know of no way to generate software without human minds being involved.

[Diagoras]

If I do have a convincing (to me) proof that some claim is true, your refusal to be convinced does not prove my claim false either.

If you can't convince anyone else that your claim is true, then it might just be a weak claim. As in science, the burden is on you to back it up with evidence.

The strongest theory is the one that 'survives' the most repeated attempts at falsification.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If I do have a convincing (to me) proof that some claim is true, your refusal to be convinced does not prove my claim false either.

If you can't convince anyone else that your claim is true, then it might just be a weak claim. As in science, the burden is on you to back it up with evidence.

Sure it might be a weak claim, but I also said - deliberately - your refusal to be convinced. Whether something convinces you or not is subject to your knowledge and understanding and beliefs.

The strongest theory is the one that 'survives' the most repeated attempts at falsification.

Well we're not really talking about theories, explanations, but more propositions, statements we regard as true with some good enough reason and another person not sharing the view that the reason is good enough.

The mere act of you saying "Nah, not convinced" is not a proof that I'm wrong, does not mean that I am wrong.

[Difflugia]

Bottom line is that Creation Cosmology has a workable theory about ERVs and atheist cosmology does not. Those are the facts. You can try to spin the facts all you want but the facts are still the facts.

Those aren't the facts, though. I linked you to three workable evolutionary theories that are based on evidence, so your second "fact" isn't one, no matter what you mean by "workable theory."

Even worse, your first "fact" is meaningless even if it's true. If "workable" does require evidence, then Creation Cosmology™ has exactly zero workable theories. If it doesn't, then Creation Cosmology™ has one workable theory, but it has to share the probability space with the uncountably infinite other made-up theories (and potentially made-up theories) that have no evidence.

You can try to spin your theological bias all you want, but the sample space is still the sample space.

[Diagoras]

The strongest theory is the one that 'survives' the most repeated attempts at falsification.

Well we're not really talking about theories, explanations, but more propositions, statements we regard as true with some good enough reason and another person not sharing the view that the reason is good enough.

The mere act of you saying "Nah, not convinced" is not a proof that I'm wrong, does not mean that I am wrong.

<bolding mine>

Sure, if we take testable, observable scientific theories off the table and restrict ourselves only to 'propositions that we regard as true', then we can simply trade opinions that each other's propositions aren't good enough all day long. This is why scientific enquiry needs to hold itself to a higher standard, and has been remarkably successful by doing so.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The strongest theory is the one that 'survives' the most repeated attempts at falsification.

Well we're not really talking about theories, explanations, but more propositions, statements we regard as true with some good enough reason and another person not sharing the view that the reason is good enough.

The mere act of you saying "Nah, not convinced" is not a proof that I'm wrong, does not mean that I am wrong.

<bolding mine>

Sure, if we take testable, observable scientific theories off the table and restrict ourselves only to 'propositions that we regard as true', then we can simply trade opinions that each other's propositions aren't good enough all day long. This is why scientific enquiry needs to hold itself to a higher standard, and has been remarkably successful by doing so.

I said we were not discussing theories and that's true we were not. We were discussing the dilemma of the advocate and the skeptic and who is correct when the skeptic rejects the evidence proffered by the advocate.

The skeptic can only evaluate what is proffered within the context of their own knowledge, so if I say "Look this is evidence of God" the way you evaluate that as true or false, is a function of what you already believe, that is what we were discussing, nothing to do with science.

You really don't need to remind me of the utility of science either.