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!

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #255]

Actually, a lot of design that doesn't make sense in a present day species can be found to make rational sense when compared with its evolutionary ancestors. The giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example.

The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.

The 'goal' or 'requirement' of the nerve (i.e. its function) can be determined very clearly - there's no mystery about it. We're not scratching our heads, here.

You might also like to respond to the other point I raised in my post: modern day bacteria and mice do share a common ancestor.

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

You just refuse to support em under the harsh glare of criticism.

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.

As huge as the difference twixt honor and dishonor.

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.

How can we know there's a difference of belief if you refuse to support your claims?

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

Which claim?

Does it really matter now?

I dare say, if you had as much evidence for your claims as you do excuses for not supporting em, we'd all be mightily impressed.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

You just refuse to support em under the harsh glare of criticism.

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.

As huge as the difference twixt honor and dishonor.

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.

How can we know there's a difference of belief if you refuse to support your claims?

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

Which claim?

Does it really matter now?

I dare say, if you had as much evidence for your claims as you do excuses for not supporting em, we'd all be mightily impressed.

The universe was designed, it is filled with beautifully designed structures, with symmetries and inter dependencies and so on, everything we design shares that trait, so the universe is filled with the kinds of patterns that I'd except if it had been designed.

Therefore I regard that as evidence that it was designed, I find it odd to believe that something as sophisticated as the universe can look designed but is not actually designed, that strikes me as an unreasonable degree of coincidence, refusing to accept what is obvious because it conflicts with some crazy belief that everything just is!

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, I mean what's the issue? why all the fuss?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #255]

Actually, a lot of design that doesn't make sense in a present day species can be found to make rational sense when compared with its evolutionary ancestors. The giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example.

The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.

The 'goal' or 'requirement' of the nerve (i.e. its function) can be determined very clearly - there's no mystery about it. We're not scratching our heads, here.

You might also like to respond to the other point I raised in my post: modern day bacteria and mice do share a common ancestor.

Let's play a parlor game shall we? are these two related? If you found these fossilized for example would you presume they shared some of their genome? all of it? half of it? none of it perhaps? might one be descended from the other? come on all you evolution experts, lets get some answers please.



State "yes" or "no" and the reasoning behind your answer.

[JoeyKnothead]

The universe was designed, it is filled with beautifully designed structures, with symmetries and inter dependencies and so on, everything we design shares that trait, so the universe is filled with the kinds of patterns that I'd except if it had been designed.

Please present this designer for cross examination.

Therefore I regard that as evidence that it was designed,

I prefer to have this aledged designer present their drawings, prints, and any permits pulled during the course of construction.

I find it odd to believe that something as sophisticated as the universe can look designed but is not actually designed, that strikes me as an unreasonable degree of coincidence, refusing to accept what is obvious because it conflicts with some crazy belief that everything just is!

As if "God did it" is so much better

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, I mean what's the issue? why all the fuss?

Your posts are solid proof you see no reason.

The fuss, for me, is to think you might vote.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The universe was designed, it is filled with beautifully designed structures, with symmetries and inter dependencies and so on, everything we design shares that trait, so the universe is filled with the kinds of patterns that I'd except if it had been designed.

Please present this designer for cross examination.

Ridiculous reasonoing, so typical of atheists who are out of their depth. If I cannot identify the painter of a painting does that mean the picture was not actually painted at all? that it just arose out of thin air?

By that incredibly bad argument, this was not painted:

Well? was that painted or wasn't it? cat got y'all's tongue?

Therefore I regard that as evidence that it was designed,

I prefer to have this aledged designer present their drawings, prints, and any permits pulled during the course of construction.

Who cares what you prefer.

I find it odd to believe that something as sophisticated as the universe can look designed but is not actually designed, that strikes me as an unreasonable degree of coincidence, refusing to accept what is obvious because it conflicts with some crazy belief that everything just is!

As if "God did it" is so much better

See above.

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, I mean what's the issue? why all the fuss?

Your posts are solid proof you see no reason.

The fuss, for me, is to think you might vote.

Thankfully one's right to participate in a democracy isn't based on one's personal beliefs, perhaps you'd be happier in Russia? or China?

[Diagoras]

Let's play a parlor game shall we? are these two related? If you found these fossilized for example would you presume they shared some of their genome? all of it? half of it? none of it perhaps? might one be descended from the other? come on all you evolution experts, lets get some answers please.

State "yes" or "no" and the reasoning behind your answer.

Yes. The two animals are related. The skeletal structures are homologous, with recognisably similar parts (skull, ribs, etc) in the same relative position and similar proportion. It's not clear from the photos how closely the two 'beasts' are in size to each other, so I can't make any assumptions there.

Similarly, I have no other information, such as the results from radiometric dating, which would go a long way to determining the likelihood of one being descended from the other.

These could be two modern-day animals, vastly different in size. They could both be extinct species, from possibly as early as around 300mya (when tetrapod land animals appeared in the fossil record), or maybe much more recently, like 100,000 years ago. No way of knowing from a photograph.

However, if I found both of them fossilised, and took the trouble to date them correctly (from careful observation of their location as well as radiometric analysis) - and somehow had access to the vast database of accumulated knowledge from palaeontologists around the world, then I'd be able to 'fit' them into the family tree of life with some degree of certainty. From there, I could then speculate on the percentage of their shared genome, but absent all that, I can't give you any answer other than to rule out 'zero shared genes' as an answer.

They certainly look closely related, but any scientist worthy of the name isn't going to presume anything until they've accumulated data to prove or falsify any testable hypothesis.

[JoeyKnothead]

The universe was designed, it is filled with beautifully designed structures, with symmetries and inter dependencies and so on, everything we design shares that trait, so the universe is filled with the kinds of patterns that I'd except if it had been designed.

Please present this designer for cross examination.

Ridiculous reasonoing, so typical of atheists who are out of their depth. If I cannot identify the painter of a painting does that mean the picture was not actually painted at all? that it just arose out of thin air?

Did this designer of yours appear out of thin air?

By that incredibly bad argument, this was not painted:



Well? was that painted or wasn't it? cat got y'all's tongue?

As it appears on my computer screen, I have no way to confirm if it's painted.

Therefore I regard that as evidence that it was designed,

I prefer to have this aledged designer present their drawings, prints, and any permits pulled during the course of construction.

Who cares what you prefer.

You're not the first Christian to come to these debates spouting claims you can't support.

Mine is an effort to show how little support you can provide for your claims.

I care.

I find it odd to believe that something as sophisticated as the universe can look designed but is not actually designed, that strikes me as an unreasonable degree of coincidence, refusing to accept what is obvious because it conflicts with some crazy belief that everything just is!

As if "God did it" is so much better

See above.

See above, you can't show your claims of a designer approach h within a light year of the truth, and can only proffer excuses for such failures.

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, I mean what's the issue? why all the fuss?

Your posts are solid proof you see no reason.

The fuss, for me, is to think you might vote.

Thankfully one's right to participate in a democracy isn't based on one's personal beliefs, perhaps you'd be happier in Russia? or China?

I'd be happier knowing religious zealots weren't trying to impose their goofy, outlandish, unsupportable religious claims onto others.

As an Army veteran, I find such "why not live elsewhere" arguments are only ever offered by folks with the most profoundly ignorant understanding of the principles that make America so great.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Let's play a parlor game shall we? are these two related? If you found these fossilized for example would you presume they shared some of their genome? all of it? half of it? none of it perhaps? might one be descended from the other? come on all you evolution experts, lets get some answers please.

State "yes" or "no" and the reasoning behind your answer.

Yes. The two animals are related. The skeletal structures are homologous, with recognisably similar parts (skull, ribs, etc) in the same relative position and similar proportion. It's not clear from the photos how closely the two 'beasts' are in size to each other, so I can't make any assumptions there.

Similarly, I have no other information, such as the results from radiometric dating, which would go a long way to determining the likelihood of one being descended from the other.

These could be two modern-day animals, vastly different in size. They could both be extinct species, from possibly as early as around 300mya (when tetrapod land animals appeared in the fossil record), or maybe much more recently, like 100,000 years ago. No way of knowing from a photograph.

However, if I found both of them fossilised, and took the trouble to date them correctly (from careful observation of their location as well as radiometric analysis) - and somehow had access to the vast database of accumulated knowledge from palaeontologists around the world, then I'd be able to 'fit' them into the family tree of life with some degree of certainty. From there, I could then speculate on the percentage of their shared genome, but absent all that, I can't give you any answer other than to rule out 'zero shared genes' as an answer.

They certainly look closely related, but any scientist worthy of the name isn't going to presume anything until they've accumulated data to prove or falsify any testable hypothesis.

Well they're not closely related, one is a Wolf and the other is a Thylacine (a marsupial, became extinct in 1930s) their coding DNA is not even slightly similar, we are told they "probably" had a common ancestor about 160 MYA and the similarity is purely down to "convergent evolution" another made up term.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The universe was designed, it is filled with beautifully designed structures, with symmetries and inter dependencies and so on, everything we design shares that trait, so the universe is filled with the kinds of patterns that I'd except if it had been designed.

Please present this designer for cross examination.

Ridiculous reasonoing, so typical of atheists who are out of their depth. If I cannot identify the painter of a painting does that mean the picture was not actually painted at all? that it just arose out of thin air?

Did this designer of yours appear out of thin air?

By that incredibly bad argument, this was not painted:



Well? was that painted or wasn't it? cat got y'all's tongue?

As it appears on my computer screen, I have no way to confirm if it's painted.

Therefore I regard that as evidence that it was designed,

I prefer to have this aledged designer present their drawings, prints, and any permits pulled during the course of construction.

Who cares what you prefer.

You're not the first Christian to come to these debates spouting claims you can't support.

Mine is an effort to show how little support you can provide for your claims.

I care.

I find it odd to believe that something as sophisticated as the universe can look designed but is not actually designed, that strikes me as an unreasonable degree of coincidence, refusing to accept what is obvious because it conflicts with some crazy belief that everything just is!

As if "God did it" is so much better

See above.

See above, you can't show your claims of a designer approach h within a light year of the truth, and can only proffer excuses for such failures.

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, I mean what's the issue? why all the fuss?

Your posts are solid proof you see no reason.

The fuss, for me, is to think you might vote.

Thankfully one's right to participate in a democracy isn't based on one's personal beliefs, perhaps you'd be happier in Russia? or China?

I'd be happier knowing religious zealots weren't trying to impose their goofy, outlandish, unsupportable religious claims onto others.

As an Army veteran, I find such "why not live elsewhere" arguments are only ever offered by folks with the most profoundly ignorant understanding of the principles that make America so great.

Can a painting exist without us having any knowledge or trace of who painted it?

You'll avoid answering as you often do, but we both know the answer is yes, of course a designed thing can be recognized without us seeing or knowing anything about the designer.

You're entire positions is a sham.