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!

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #322]

Atheism doesn't exist, it is a vacuity, an empty, illogical, irrational, self contradictory act of self deception. I mish-mash of pseudo science and pseudo philosophy.

I'm sure I've never seen a more jumbled and meaningless definition of atheism, and following a claim that it doesn't exist makes it also completely illogical.

I used to be an atheist, I know of what I speak. You have no more knowledge of atheism than I do.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of gods, for whatever reason, simple as that. It is none of the gibberish your erroneous definition includes.

It is meaningless to say that though, consider: "Akluptism is the lack of belief in the existence of Klupts", now explain why your statement about what atheism is carries any more meaning than that sentence? If you cannot then - as I said - atheism is vacuous, a meaningless position masquerading as an intellectual one.

Produce some convincing evidence that gods exist and you'll have defeated all of the atheists and proven them wrong. Until then, we have a case to argue and you have not won the debate.

The presence of the universe is convincing evidence that God exists, there I have presented it, it is convincing, now what?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #341]

I used to be an atheist, I know of what I speak. You have no more knowledge of atheism than I do.

The issue is the definition of the word atheism. Your personal interpretation about what atheism entails or means to different people is a completely different subject.

... now explain why your statement about what atheism is ...

Again, I gave a definition of the word atheism ... not some treatise on the philosophy of it or what it may mean to different people.

The presence of the universe is convincing evidence that God exists, there I have presented it, it is convincing, now what?

Convincing to you maybe, but not to me and many other people. A natural explanation for everything that we know exists is definitely on the table, despite your hand-waving arguments to the contrary.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #341]

I used to be an atheist, I know of what I speak. You have no more knowledge of atheism than I do.

The issue is the definition of the word atheism. Your personal interpretation about what atheism entails or means to different people is a completely different subject.

I think a more pressing issue the complete lack of meaning in the definition of atheism, it has no meaning just as my analogous sentence has no meaning. You can't counter this so I take it you agree.

... now explain why your statement about what atheism is ...

Again, I gave a definition of the word atheism ... not some treatise on the philosophy of it or what it may mean to different people.

Yes I know and I gave a definition of Akluptism, why are you not an akluptist? or are you an akluptist?

The presence of the universe is convincing evidence that God exists, there I have presented it, it is convincing, now what?

Convincing to you maybe, but not to me and many other people. A natural explanation for everything that we know exists is definitely on the table, despite your hand-waving arguments to the contrary.

Well convincing to me is what matters to me when it comes to establishing my beliefs and this is the same with you I assume?

You asked for convincing evidence and I have done what you asked, what more do you want from me?

If I show evidence to two people and one accepts it and the other rejects, then what? is the evidence convincing or not?

Clearly the important point is that there is no such thing as absolutely convincing evidence, so what you ask for does not exist. Deciding if evidence is "convincing" is entirely subjective, one cannot objectify it, try as you might, argue as you might, you'll discover I am telling you the truth and perhaps the truth will set you free.

[Jose Fly]

Everyone of us is "indoctrinated from birth" I mean look at how the majority of the public believe evolution yet know next to nothing about it, about genetics, fossils, paleontology and so on. Talk to "Joe Average" and they know almost nothing yet steadfastly support evolution, what else can explain this but indoctrination?

Um....really? You know of no other explanation than "indoctrination"? Or are you conflating education with indoctrination?

The public has been "indoctrinated" in evolution only in the same sense that they have been "indoctrinated" in a spherical earth.

[Diagoras]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of gods, for whatever reason, simple as that. It is none of the gibberish your erroneous definition includes.

It is meaningless to say that though, consider: "Akluptism is the lack of belief in the existence of Klupts", now explain why your statement about what atheism is carries any more meaning than that sentence? If you cannot then - as I said - atheism is vacuous, a meaningless position masquerading as an intellectual one.

I generally understand what a person means when they use the word 'god' in a sentence. I know nothing at all about what you mean when you use the word 'Klupt' in a sentence.

For this reason, I can assert that the statement by DrNoGods on atheism carries more meaning than your statement on 'akluptism'.

[Miles]

Faith is simply trust, you have faith, you trust claims like "The sun will rise tomorrow" or "because every time I did X in the past X will always occur in the future".

And I agree, so why bother with the word "faith" at all? Why not simply say "I trust that Jesus is my lord and master"? Because, as I see it, "faith" has secured an implication of unquestionable truth. If you say "I have faith that Jesus rose from the dead" the implication is that you have absolutely no doubt that this is true, when, in fact, no such certainty is warranted. Whereas if you say "I trust that Jesus rose from the dead" there remains the uncertainty of truth that always accompanies "trust." So yes, faith is a form of trust, but a trust that's taken to be unquestionably, but undeservedly, valid.


,

[Sherlock Holmes]

Everyone of us is "indoctrinated from birth" I mean look at how the majority of the public believe evolution yet know next to nothing about it, about genetics, fossils, paleontology and so on. Talk to "Joe Average" and they know almost nothing yet steadfastly support evolution, what else can explain this but indoctrination?

Um....really? You know of no other explanation than "indoctrination"? Or are you conflating education with indoctrination?

The public has been "indoctrinated" in evolution only in the same sense that they have been "indoctrinated" in a spherical earth.

I wasn't arguing the truth or falsity of their belief, only the fact that the majority hold that belief not based on an informed in depth consideration of all the factors that are involved, they accept what they've been told.

[Jose Fly]

Everyone of us is "indoctrinated from birth" I mean look at how the majority of the public believe evolution yet know next to nothing about it, about genetics, fossils, paleontology and so on. Talk to "Joe Average" and they know almost nothing yet steadfastly support evolution, what else can explain this but indoctrination?

Um....really? You know of no other explanation than "indoctrination"? Or are you conflating education with indoctrination?

The public has been "indoctrinated" in evolution only in the same sense that they have been "indoctrinated" in a spherical earth.

I wasn't arguing the truth or falsity of their belief, only the fact that the majority hold that belief not based on an informed in depth consideration of all the factors that are involved, they accept what they've been told.

Which is true of most things, especially those related to science.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of gods, for whatever reason, simple as that. It is none of the gibberish your erroneous definition includes.

It is meaningless to say that though, consider: "Akluptism is the lack of belief in the existence of Klupts", now explain why your statement about what atheism is carries any more meaning than that sentence? If you cannot then - as I said - atheism is vacuous, a meaningless position masquerading as an intellectual one.

I generally understand what a person means when they use the word 'god' in a sentence. I know nothing at all about what you mean when you use the word 'Klupt' in a sentence.

So what is it you do not hold a belief in? and how do you decide if something proffered as evidence for God is or is not actually evidence?

For this reason, I can assert that the statement by DrNoGods on atheism carries more meaning than your statement on 'akluptism'.

Only if you and he mean exactly the very same identical thing by "God".

[Sherlock Holmes]

Everyone of us is "indoctrinated from birth" I mean look at how the majority of the public believe evolution yet know next to nothing about it, about genetics, fossils, paleontology and so on. Talk to "Joe Average" and they know almost nothing yet steadfastly support evolution, what else can explain this but indoctrination?

Um....really? You know of no other explanation than "indoctrination"? Or are you conflating education with indoctrination?

The public has been "indoctrinated" in evolution only in the same sense that they have been "indoctrinated" in a spherical earth.

I wasn't arguing the truth or falsity of their belief, only the fact that the majority hold that belief not based on an informed in depth consideration of all the factors that are involved, they accept what they've been told.

Which is true of most things, especially those related to science.

Right so most people do hold beliefs as a result of being indoctrinated by some authority with a claim to expertise, a claim to special knowledge and insights that the public by and large do not posses.

They've been indoctrinated to accept - on trust - the claims made by others, self professed experts who alone have the insights and knowledge to understand it all.

This is how the Catholic church oversaw the "truth" in Galileo's time, they were the authority, the "priestly class" who alone had the insights and expertise to decide matters of truth.

The priestly class of "evolution experts" today is the same, dissent is very heavily discouraged, those who dare are subject to ridicule and are discredited or even openly attacked on a personal basis in any number of ways, evolution is a "fact" and to question it means that one is deluded (according to Dawkins at least).