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!

[brunumb]

The universe is the same, everything in a cell was designed, fundamental particles were designed and used to build atoms, atoms were used in the design of molecules as were the various kinds of molecular bonds.

Whoa! Assuming facts not in evidence. Good grief.

[brunumb]

Why present support when its rejected out of hand?

Great excuse for never presenting support that you actually don't possess. I bet you believe that a lot of people are convinced by your unsupported arguments.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why present support when its rejected out of hand?

Great excuse for never presenting support that you actually don't possess. I bet you believe that a lot of people are convinced by your unsupported arguments.

There's no such thing as undisputed support, everything we evaluate is evaluated within a context and if our contexts differ sufficiently we'll evaluate something differently.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The universe is the same, everything in a cell was designed, fundamental particles were designed and used to build atoms, atoms were used in the design of molecules as were the various kinds of molecular bonds.

Whoa! Assuming facts not in evidence. Good grief.

It's self evident that the universe was designed. If really do you want to assume it wasn't (though where that gets you I don't know) then that's your choice of course but it is an assumption.

[JoeyKnothead]

It does if it's self evident.

Because invisible sky beings are so self evident.

If one knows what to look for.

So you claim, while offering no means to confirm you speak truth.

At best, the data shows things act according to their properties.

Yes, they've been designed to do that, that's not an accident!

Another claim without confirmation.

Nonsense, I confirmed this years ago.

How so?

Why present support when its rejected out of hand?

Honor and integrity?

Or, ya know, continue making assertions, in debate, while offering no means to confirm you speak truth.

[Abigail]

It all boils down to first cause doesn't it?

Believers hold that to be God. Atheists hold that is yet unknown. And insist there is no evidence for it to be anything called God.

Evolution,aka/adaptive change, is either God's input to sustain God's creation or, it is natures "self" preservation. Because material reality always has the momentum/energy that moves it forward.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It does if it's self evident.

Because invisible sky beings are so self evident.

If one knows what to look for.

So you claim, while offering no means to confirm you speak truth.

At best, the data shows things act according to their properties.

Yes, they've been designed to do that, that's not an accident!

Another claim without confirmation.

Nonsense, I confirmed this years ago.

How so?

Why present support when its rejected out of hand?

Honor and integrity?

Or, ya know, continue making assertions, in debate, while offering no means to confirm you speak truth.

It is not my responsibility to "confirm" that which I have already established. I cannot convince an unwilling mind either.

If you are not convinced then look within yourself to ask why that is, not to me.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It all boils down to first cause doesn't it?

Yes I think that's fair.

Believers hold that to be God. Atheists hold that is yet unknown. And insist there is no evidence for it to be anything called God.

Not quite, that all depends on which definition of atheist the atheist uses, the original, long established one, or the recent (1970s) vacuous one.

Evolution,aka/adaptive change, is either God's input to sustain God's creation or, it is natures "self" preservation. Because material reality always has the momentum/energy that moves it forward.

Well adaptive change is one thing, bacteria becoming mice is quite another.

[Clownboat]

If there is a God and God did design stuff or used creativity to produce some of what we see in nature, then so what?

So nothing. That would be very interesting and I would want to know more about it. "If a God..." is not a great start though in suggesting you speak the truth.

what the hell is all the fuss about?

That I was not shown this to be the case earlier. Why the wait? That would be my fuss.

what harm is done?

None. I am open to a god concept being the cause of all the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record. No harm as I don't believe my eternal soul is on the line unlike those directed by religious thinking. I just want to believe as many true things as I can.

what are all the trumped up, stuffy "science types" worried about? scared of?

You are just projecting your own fears on to others. Why would anyone be worried if one of the many god concepts were shown to be true? I shouldn't say 'anyone' as obviously those that believe in competing god conceps might have something to worry about. Someone just following where the evidence leads though... nothing to fear.

It is you sir that has a dog in this fight. Show me a god, I am very interested and am not afraid.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If there is a God and God did design stuff or used creativity to produce some of what we see in nature, then so what?

So nothing. That would be very interesting and I would want to know more about it. "If a God..." is not a great start though in suggesting you speak the truth.

what the hell is all the fuss about?

That I was not shown this to be the case earlier. Why the wait? That would be my fuss.

what harm is done?

None. I am open to a god concept being the cause of all the animals we see not only now, but also in the fossil record. No harm as I don't believe my eternal soul is on the line unlike those directed by religious thinking. I just want to believe as many true things as I can.

what are all the trumped up, stuffy "science types" worried about? scared of?

You are just projecting your own fears on to others. Why would anyone be worried if one of the many god concepts were shown to be true? I shouldn't say 'anyone' as obviously those that believe in competing god conceps might have something to worry about. Someone just following where the evidence leads though... nothing to fear.

It is you sir that has a dog in this fight. Show me a god, I am very interested and am not afraid.

Is anyone stopping you from learning more about it? If you've convinced yourself that everything you see is "natural" (whatever that really means to you) then surely there's no point in discussing any of this?

I think many atheists and evolutionists are worried, perhaps angry is a better term, no other branch of science elicits so much fury, no other branch of science refers to its theories as "fact", no other branch of science rises to defend the faith against any and all critics.

You say "Show me a god" but that requires you to have an open mind surely?