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!

[JoeyKnothead]

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

So, instead of supporting your challenged claims, you continue your tradition of insults and slander at every opportunity. I'm not the least bit surprised.

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

How might I ever become convinced of the veracity of your claims, when you refuse to support em?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

So, instead of supporting your challenged claims, you continue your tradition of insults and slander at every opportunity. I'm not the least bit surprised.

Of course I can support my claims else I'd not have adopted them myself. You think a claim I make is only as valid as you say it is? that I must succeed in getting your buy in? that the truth of something is when you say?

There's a huge difference between me supporting a claim and me getting your acceptance of the claim, you are as prejudiced as me, we each have our biases and existing belief systems.

If you and I have a sufficiently different belief system then it can be impossible for me to offer support that you'll accept as support, what you already choose to believe restricts what else you can believe.

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

How might I ever become convinced of the veracity of your claims, when you refuse to support em?

Which claim?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

So, instead of supporting your challenged claims, you continue your tradition of insults and slander at every opportunity. I'm not the least bit surprised.

Of course I can support my claims else I'd not have adopted them myself. You think a claim I make is only as valid as you say it is? that I must succeed in getting your buy in? that the truth of something is when you say?

There's a huge difference between me supporting a claim and me getting your acceptance of the claim, you are as prejudiced as me, we each have our biases and existing belief systems.

If you and I have a sufficiently different belief system then it can be impossible for me to offer support that you'll accept as support, what you already choose to believe restricts what else you can believe.

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

How might I ever become convinced of the veracity of your claims, when you refuse to support em?

Which claim?

[Diagoras]

From Post #244:

It's self evident that the universe was designed.

Plenty of strong evidence to the contrary exists, however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

To address the wider ‘designed universe’ idea, I’m drawn to this piece by Neil de Grasse Tyson:

https://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson ... orance.php


From Post #248:

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

Have you heard of comparative genomics?

Comparative genomics has revealed high levels of similarity between closely related organisms, such as humans and chimpanzees, and, more surprisingly, similarity between seemingly distantly related organisms, such as humans and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

The concept of phylogenetic trees is especially helpful in learning about how a yeast (in this example) could be deemed in any way ‘related’ to you or me. Similarly, the evolutionary ‘link’ between modern mice and modern bacteria can be sought by tracing their genetic lineage back to a common ancestor – in this case, likely to be a primitive bacteria.

Further food for thought: I have my copy of The Greatest Show On Earth open at page 244, which is within Chapter 8 on embryology. Dawkins goes to some length here to explain the consequences of how a particular species of nematode worm has had its entire genome sequenced, so we

know the exact ‘family history’ of every one of its 558 cell types through embryonic development.

The result of this is that at a molecular level, we can understand how a particular muscle cell is a ‘second cousin’, so to speak, of a pharynx cell. We also see how this cell differentiation occurs through asymmetric cell division.

Now, take a look at this website:

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/why-u ... n-research

And take note of a couple of quotes from it:

Although C. elegans is a relatively simple organism, many of the molecular signals controlling its development are also found in more complex organisms, like humans.

Many of the genes in the C. elegans genome have functional counterparts in humans which makes it an extremely useful model for human diseases.

Once again, we see demonstrable evolutionary links between vastly different species at a genetic and molecular level

[Sherlock Holmes]

From Post #244:

It's self evident that the universe was designed.

Plenty of strong evidence to the contrary exists, however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

To address the wider ‘designed universe’ idea, I’m drawn to this piece by Neil de Grasse Tyson:

https://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson ... orance.php


From Post #248:

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

Have you heard of comparative genomics?

Comparative genomics has revealed high levels of similarity between closely related organisms, such as humans and chimpanzees, and, more surprisingly, similarity between seemingly distantly related organisms, such as humans and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

The concept of phylogenetic trees is especially helpful in learning about how a yeast (in this example) could be deemed in any way ‘related’ to you or me. Similarly, the evolutionary ‘link’ between modern mice and modern bacteria can be sought by tracing their genetic lineage back to a common ancestor – in this case, likely to be a primitive bacteria.

Further food for thought: I have my copy of The Greatest Show On Earth open at page 244, which is within Chapter 8 on embryology. Dawkins goes to some length here to explain the consequences of how a particular species of nematode worm has had its entire genome sequenced, so we

know the exact ‘family history’ of every one of its 558 cell types through embryonic development.

The result of this is that at a molecular level, we can understand how a particular muscle cell is a ‘second cousin’, so to speak, of a pharynx cell. We also see how this cell differentiation occurs through asymmetric cell division.

Now, take a look at this website:

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/why-u ... n-research

And take note of a couple of quotes from it:

Although C. elegans is a relatively simple organism, many of the molecular signals controlling its development are also found in more complex organisms, like humans.

Many of the genes in the C. elegans genome have functional counterparts in humans which makes it an extremely useful model for human diseases.

Once again, we see demonstrable evolutionary links between vastly different species at a genetic and molecular level

The argument from poor design is flawed, seriously flawed as anybody with actual design expertise will attest. The problem it has is that it does not know the goal of God's design, without knowing the goal one cannot assess the design's efficacy, it is impossible evaluate a design absent the requirements, goals. Design defects must be relative to some requirements, if you don't know what those requirements are then you cannot say something is a defect, that's how it works in industry and in software for example. This is why people who do not design things professionally are often not the best judges of the design arguments for God, laws of physics, living cells etc.

[Clownboat]

Is anyone stopping you from learning more about it?

Nope. I find your question to be odd.

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 am not convinced of such a thing and am open to any evidence you deem worthy to put forth.

I think many atheists and evolutionists are worried, perhaps angry is a better term,

Again, I feel you are just projecting the eternal soul damnation stuff that comes along with your religious beliefs on to said people. Seriously, compared to an eternal soul, what would someone that currently feels that the theory of evolution is the best explanation available lose if they were to be convinced that a better mechanism exists? There is no eternal soul on the line to affect their thinking. Surely you realize this?

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 lose me when you mix science and faith. Science is a mechanism, faith is a religious term along the lines of 'believing in things you hope to be true'. Some literally call it the substance of things hoped for. Faith does not enter the mechanism that is science. If it were, it would be to be doing it wrong.

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

That depends.
"Show me a dog". You would likely believe me if I said I had one. I could provide pictures and such of course, but you would probably believe such a claim.
"Show me an invisible dragon". Such a claim, I would think you wouldn't believe without a reason.

Imagine that all civilizations, throughout human history all had unique invisible dragon claims. Imagine that the dragons are in conflict and they cannot all exist. How open must one's mind be to just pick one out of the many available to believe via faith?
I do not have that measure of faith, but I'm still open to evidence.

Do you have a mechanism that you feel better explains the life we see not just now, but also in the fossil record?
Will you answer, disparage my character or other?

[brunumb]

Of course I can support my claims else I'd not have adopted them myself.

That support must be pretty compelling if a former dyed-in-the-wool atheist was converted by it. So, it is very telling that you won't present any of it to unbelievers here. One could be forgiven for thinking that it is really not all that compelling after all and only meaningful to a dyed-in-the-wool believer trying to retrofit a rationale to their conversion.

[brunumb]

The argument from poor design is flawed, seriously flawed as anybody with actual design expertise will attest.

Are these the same intelligent design experts who still haven't figured out the criteria for determining if something is actually designed or not?

[Clownboat]

The argument from poor design is flawed, seriously flawed as anybody with actual design expertise will attest.

There is much we can take from it though. For example. Your god concept I assume can not be shown to exist (as in all other god concepts, I don't mean that people cannot 'believe' in their existence obviously).

However, claims about a god concept can be analyzed.
For example, perhaps a god is claimed to be perfect.
If said god concept it credited with creating humans for example, that god concept can be excluded via an imperfect design.

The problem it has is that it does not know the goal of God's design

Not a problem. If the god is perfect, and it is a goal to both eat and drink, it would not be perfect to create a mechanism that would allow one process to supercede the other resulting in death of the individual.

Sometimes you got to think outside the industry/software box.

[Tcg]

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

That is an issue of philosophy and theology, not science and certainly not evolution.

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.

The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of belief in god/gods.


Tcg