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]

Atheism is a flimsy argument when the atheist is unable to posit a credible counter to the origin of the species and reality that is able to counter the magical thinking of theists.

Atheism is not an argument. It is a product of the failure of theists to demonstrate that their gods are real. Evolution is a credible counter to the magical origin of the diversity of species being poofed into existence over a six day period. Go back a thousand years and consider all the things we didn't know then but we do now. If we don't know exactly how life itself originated that's not making any case for a god alternative.

[brunumb]

Saying what amounts to nuh uh, no proof "God did it", isn't actually a rational counter to the tenets of theism.

But that is really all that is needed. How do the tenets of theism actually establish their truth?

Arguing there would be no atheists if theists could prove their point is more like a punchline rather than a constructive observation.

Call it what you will but it is the simple truth.

[Diagoras]

Atheism is a flimsy argument when the atheist is unable to posit a credible counter to the origin of the species and reality that is able to counter the magical thinking of theists.

<bolding mine>

This is the only post of yours I found that contained any likely reference to the OP topic. Why don't we explore that aspect in a bit more depth, rather than labelling atheists as 'victims' or their beliefs as irrational?

You could, for example, set out a general case for Creationism and give examples where it has proved to be a more reliable predictor of observed divergence among species than any evolutionary theory. I'm sure there are some on this board who would welcome the chance to 'posit a credible counter' to your claims in the Science and Religion sub-forum.

If you're more interested in how atheists think about God, then I'd suggest the 'Questions for a Group' or the 'Questions About a Belief' forums would be more appropriate, and might attract more participants.

[Miles]

Atheism is a flimsy argument when the atheist is unable to posit a credible counter to the origin of the species and reality that is able to counter the magical thinking of theists.

You may want to reread and rephrase this, because as it stands it makes no sense. An inability to do something does not constitute an argument, as you seem to think. It's simply an inability. And, of course, atheism itself is not an argument, but a response to the failure of theists to substantiate their claim that god exists. And FYI, Some atheist claim god does not exist, whereas most say they simply lack belief that god exists. BIG difference.

Saying what amounts to nuh uh, no proof "God did it", isn't actually a rational counter to the tenets of theism.

Why not? If such tenets make the claim that god exists while not giving any "proof" for the claim, what's wrong with saying "no proof God did it"? Now if the tenet does, in fact, offer up evidence for god then it becomes a matter of "convincing evidence," which may be the actual situation. If the atheist remains unconvinced then he's justified in saying there's "no "proof" (convincing evidence) God did it." Is he not?

Arguing there would be no atheists if theists could prove their point is more like a punchline rather than a constructive observation.

But a true punchline nonetheless. And why should it be necessarily constructive in the first place? Are all statements of facts necessarily constructive observations? Of course they're not, so why should "arguing there would be no atheists if theists could prove their point" necessarily be a constructive observations, which, BTW, it may very well be under certain circumstances.



.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Abigail in post #357]

LOL!

MODERATOR COMMENT
Please avoid posting unconstructive one-liners as per the forum Rules (#9).

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Miles]

For readers this is offered to correct the error in the above reply.
There is no such thing as a hard atheist.

The correct term is actually, strong atheist. And it is not true they are a thing of the past.

"Weak and Strong Atheism: History

While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have been in use for some time. In earlier philosophical publications, the terms negative atheism and positive atheism were more common; these terms were used by Antony Flew in 1972, although Jacques Maritain (1953, Chapter 8, p.104) used the phrases in a similar, but strictly Catholic apologist, context as early as 1949.[1]

The strong and weak names did not come into common usage until the early 1990s, their popularization assisted by their common usage in the alt.atheism Usenet group at the time. They are now the most commonly-used terms for the concepts in question, though by a relatively small margin—positive/negative atheism and hard/soft atheism are also common."

source

ALLIADT (A little learning is a dangerous thing) There is no one correct term.

[alexxcJRO]

You lost my interest when you tossed the bogus charge of straw man.

Theists always like to find reasons to ignore relevant points.
You completely ignored my point: "We have the same evidence for all religions: unfalsifiable personal experience, anecdotal testimonial evidence for supposed miracles.
The problem is that religions cannot be all true for they are plagued by numerous mutually exclusive claims.
It is logically impossible for mutually exclusive claims to be all true.
One cannot rationally choose between them for the evidence is the same.
So one has to reject them all.
Also the unfalsifiable personal experience, anecdotal testimonial evidence(plagued by oral transmission, rumor, hearsay) are very weak, unreliable form of evidence considering how frail the human psyche is, how prone it is to all kinds of phycological deficiencies."

You chose to construct a straw man and talk about atheists saying there is zero evidence.
Its a double straw man in fact.
Atheist mostly say that there is zero scientific, empirical evidence for (personal) god or gods. No "no zero evidence of any kind".

For others, the observations I made regarding atheists pertain to atheists who display the aforementioned beliefs or statements they use to sustain their perception of atheism as an atheist.

This is a debate site section where people debate ideas, address arguments and bring contra-arguments. Its not an observations site, preaching sites, ramblings site. Good debate form presupposes addressing someone points, actual arguments and not post irrelevant things.
Q: Have you come here to actually debate or just preach to the choir?

There is no such thing as a hard atheist.

I meant hard atheist as opposed to weak/soft atheist.
Hard is antonym to soft. Strong is antonym to weak.

According to the reality of words and definitions there is such a thing like an hard atheist.
“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_ ... ve_atheism

The correct term is actually, strong atheist. And it is not true they are a thing of the past.

They kind of are.
Modern atheists are mostly described as lacking a belief in god or gods.
There is plenty of evidence in form of testimonial kind on this forum and on the Internet.
Definitions support this.

The two terms, Gnostic and, strong atheist, are mutually exclusive.

Wrong again.
Atheism deals with belief.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.
I am for example an agnostic atheist when it comes to general idea of god.
I don't have knowledge that there is no god or gods.
I don't claim that there is no god or gods.
I don't have the belief that there is no god or gods.
I simply lack a belief in god or gods.

On the other hand, ...

I am an gnostic atheist when it comes to Yahweh-Jesus.
I have knowledge that shows Yahweh-Jesus does not exist.
I claim Yahweh-Jesus does not exist.
I believe that Yahweh-Jesus does not exist.

My stance as agnostic atheist in respect to general idea of god is a passive one. Does not need defending.
My stance as gnostic atheist in respect to Yahweh-Jesus is an active one. It needs defending.
Claims need defending. Lack of ones do not.
In conclusion it follows that am not a strong/hard atheist but a weak/soft atheist.
I don't know about you but from where I stand everything is pretty logical and coherent.

[JoeyKnothead]

This may help you get some insights to that question: Is the world simple or complex?

"Simple", and "complex", are both subjective terms, bound to individual interpretation.

I find much complexity in a snowflake, but boy howdy, compared to a wimmen, they're quite simple.

What about homosexuality? Is the design for loving partnerships confounded by two dudes making googly eyes at one another?

What about the human eye, and its blind spot?

What about women that make the man they love eat them little green peas?

What does "what about" mean?

what
(but I'm proud to see you used it correctly)

about

Dictionaries are great tools for learning the meaning of unfamiliar words and terms.

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?

Cause some folks wanna, or have actually attempted to introduce (the generic) your brand of non-science not only into public classrooms, but into law, medical offices, and even the bedroom.

That hardly answers the question Johnny.

It's Joey, in case that wasn't a typo.

I answered the question. It's up to you how proud ya wanna be of it.

Where you see design, I don't near see "just is", but see a universe that we as a species can explore and discover without the need of a 'designer' that invariably turns out to be the god of one's prejudices.

A 'designer' that upon further examination will be found to hold the same hopes and dreams, and hatreds as its proponents.

"Okay, so tell me about this designer".

"He don't like how you carry on".

We'll find among these -ahem- cdesignpropentists that science is only as valid as it comforts their religious beliefs.

That's why all the fuss.

And to ask "why the fuss" is quite rich coming from you, who has a history of insulting folks simply cause they challenge your claims, disagree, or both.

Let's try to focus on one thing at a time

I offered multiple responses cause that's what I felt required.

But okay.

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, if you actually have a solid reason I'm interested in hearing it.

My position is that if one says this all ain't designed, that's on them to defend.

The inverse should apply as well.

I don't so much propose none of this was designed, as I ask those claiming it was to show they speak truth.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Like I said, that's only true in the same sense people have been "indoctrinated" into a spherical earth that orbits the sun. Again, you're conflating education with indoctrination.

You also make it sound as if scientists are somehow concealing information from the public.

I did not say that anything is being concealed. I said dissent is discouraged, that most people adopt a position based on trust in an authority you seem to agree anyway.

Reality OTOH is the exact opposite....scientists go out of their way to conduct public outreach. My office has a person specifically assigned to that task for example.

I cannot comment on that.

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 discredit in any number of ways, evolution is a "fact" and to question means is deluded (according to Dawkins at least).

Nah, the ridicule comes about when the denialists make absolutely ridiculous arguments and/or engage in repeated and blatant dishonest tactics, e.g., the well known creationist tactic of quote mining.

Well that really isn't true, I mean Dawkins (a "science authority") has written a book that claims I (for example) am suffering from a delusion, a mental illness, that's pretty dismissive, I mean he and I have never even spoken. He and many others also say "evolution is a fact" such statements are fully intended not to add to the scientific strength of an argument but purely to discourage dissent. These opinions on those who are skeptical of evolution are not actually scientific, they are opinions, biased judgements of those who do not share your belief system.

By all means speak of science, but making claims like "this theory is actually a fact" and "if you believe in God you are deluded" are NOT SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS. Such statements, judgements have no place in a scientific discussion and don't even arise except when talking to evolutionists.

You won't accept this I know, you likely truly cannot see what I'm trying to say to you, it will make no sense, it must be gibberish because that's what you've been indoctrinated to believe about evolution skepticism.

EDIT: And to be quite frank, you are among the last people I would ever listen to when it comes to how scientists and science educators do their jobs.

That's the indoctrination messing with you! right there!

[Sherlock Holmes]

This may help you get some insights to that question: Is the world simple or complex?

"Simple", and "complex", are both subjective terms, bound to individual interpretation.

I find much complexity in a snowflake, but boy howdy, compared to a wimmen, they're quite simple.

What about homosexuality? Is the design for loving partnerships confounded by two dudes making googly eyes at one another?

What about the human eye, and its blind spot?

What about women that make the man they love eat them little green peas?

What does "what about" mean?

what
(but I'm proud to see you used it correctly)

about

Dictionaries are great tools for learning the meaning of unfamiliar words and terms.

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?

Cause some folks wanna, or have actually attempted to introduce (the generic) your brand of non-science not only into public classrooms, but into law, medical offices, and even the bedroom.

That hardly answers the question Johnny.

It's Joey, in case that wasn't a typo.

I answered the question. It's up to you how proud ya wanna be of it.

Where you see design, I don't near see "just is", but see a universe that we as a species can explore and discover without the need of a 'designer' that invariably turns out to be the god of one's prejudices.

A 'designer' that upon further examination will be found to hold the same hopes and dreams, and hatreds as its proponents.

"Okay, so tell me about this designer".

"He don't like how you carry on".

We'll find among these -ahem- cdesignpropentists that science is only as valid as it comforts their religious beliefs.

That's why all the fuss.

And to ask "why the fuss" is quite rich coming from you, who has a history of insulting folks simply cause they challenge your claims, disagree, or both.

Let's try to focus on one thing at a time

I offered multiple responses cause that's what I felt required.

But okay.

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, if you actually have a solid reason I'm interested in hearing it.

My position is that if one says this all ain't designed, that's on them to defend.

The inverse should apply as well.

I don't so much propose none of this was designed, as I ask those claiming it was to show they speak truth.

I cannot convince you, just as you cannot convince me, cannot show me evidence that the universe was not created, not designed; we can each only choose which of the two we are to believe.

Nobody ever convinces anyone of anything, we can only convince ourselves after hearing what others have to say. If we become convinced then that is always our own doing, it is our minds reaching that state by their own reasoning, choices, beliefs.

If you do not believe what I say, do not accept what I offer as evidence, then you are as much a part of that as the evidence, your mind, how you think, your fears, your current incomplete knowledge, existing beliefs, assumptions etc. all of these play in, it is never a matter of evidence alone, when will this sink in?