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]

No there isn't but the question of how to potentially recognize something as having been designed came up if I recall.

So the question that I ask is "could this structure have been designed?", as to by what or who that's not something I've asked yet.

A bit like SETI where they ask "could this radio signal have been designed" (or in their parlance is this radio signal artificial).

Like SETI, ID is concerned with identifying ways that we could - in principle - establish whether some structure is artificial or not, not so much the nature of the source of the design of the structure.

And I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "possible." Is it possible that rainbows were designed? Or even some rainbows?

You're arguing that for some meaning of "possible," it's possible that an intelligent designer is responsible for at least something biological, but it's not possible that leprechauns are responsible for rainbows.

There must be a difference, so what is it?

I did not use the term "possible" in my above reply to you, has this not clarified things?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Now this is where ID creationism's rubber meets the road, so to speak.

Have ID creationists identified something specific from the biological realm as "designed" and explained in scientific terms how they reached that conclusion? The only attempts at that I've seen were Behe's initial arguments about systems and structures that he claimed were "irreducibly complex", but as those were quickly shot down he changed his criteria for IC from "needs all its parts to function" to something about the "number of unselected steps" and a ridiculous demand for what basically amounts to a video tape of something evolving millions of years ago.

So perhaps SH can take a stab at it? Can you point to something in biology that you've determined to have been "designed" and walk us through the methodology you employed to reach that conclusion?

Well are you agreeing then, that asking the question "how can we establish if these structures were designed or not" is a legitimate question to ask?

It seems you do because now you want to talk about exactly what would characterize a designed structure, it seems also that you might be of the opinion that there is no way to recognize a designed thing, that design can never be inferred under any circumstances, is that what you believe?

[Jose Fly]

Well are you agreeing then, that asking the question "how can we establish if these structures were designed or not" is a legitimate question to ask?

It seems you do because now you want to talk about exactly what would characterize a designed structure, it seems also that you might be of the opinion that there is no way to recognize a designed thing, that design can never be inferred under any circumstances, is that what you believe?

So first of all, that's an obvious "no" (you haven't identified something in biology as "designed").

Second, I don't know why you persist in this persecution complex where you think people are prohibiting creationists from asking questions, doing research, or whatever. So let me make this absolutely clear.....ask whatever questions you want, do whatever research you want, start whatever journals you want....no one will stop you.

Finally, since you're the one making claims about "design", it falls on you to say what "a designed structure" is and how we would recognize one. Until you do so, your statement is correct....there is no way to recognize a "designed thing" (because you've not offered any means by which we can differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things).

[Difflugia]

I did not use the term "possible" in my above reply to you, has this not clarified things?

No. You wrote this:

So the question that I ask is "could this structure have been designed?", as to by what or who that's not something I've asked yet.

Is asking if the structure could have been designed different than asking if it's possible that it was designed? If so, what's the difference? If not, then you still haven't answered my question:

And I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "possible." Is it possible that rainbows were designed? Or even some rainbows?

You're arguing that for some meaning of "possible," it's possible that an intelligent designer is responsible for at least something biological, but it's not possible that leprechauns are responsible for rainbows.

There must be a difference, so what is it?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well are you agreeing then, that asking the question "how can we establish if these structures were designed or not" is a legitimate question to ask?

It seems you do because now you want to talk about exactly what would characterize a designed structure, it seems also that you might be of the opinion that there is no way to recognize a designed thing, that design can never be inferred under any circumstances, is that what you believe?

So first of all, that's an obvious "no" (you haven't identified something in biology as "designed").

Seriously? so in your world, asking is there a way to recognize if an extra terrestrial radio signal is artificial, is not a legitimate thing to ask unless we've already identified an extra terrestrial signal that's artificial?

That's an odd position to adopt, the SETI folks likely wouldn't agree with your reasoning, but hey you're entitled to your view I suppose.

Second, I don't know why you persist in this persecution complex where you think people are prohibiting creationists from asking questions, doing research, or whatever. So let me make this absolutely clear.....ask whatever questions you want, do whatever research you want, start whatever journals you want....no one will stop you.

Very kind of you, thanks!

Finally, since you're the one making claims about "design", it falls on you to say what "a designed structure" is and how we would recognize one. Until you do so, your statement is correct....there is no way to recognize a "designed thing" (because you've not offered any means by which we can differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things).

Sure I admitted as much, all I was seeking was opinions on whether its a legitimate question to ask "is there way" that's all I wanted to get opinions on, your position is that it is not a legitimate question to ask unless we've already got the answer, which is a weird way for a scientist to speak.

[Jose Fly]

Seriously? so in your world, asking is there a way to recognize if an extra terrestrial radio signal is artificial, is not a legitimate thing to ask unless we've already identified an extra terrestrial signal that's artificial?

That's an odd position to adopt, the SETI folks likely wouldn't agree with your reasoning, but hey you're entitled to your view I suppose.

Man, you're reading comprehension is really poor. How you got that from what I wrote is baffling.

Sure I admitted as much, all I was seeking was opinions on whether its a legitimate question to ask "is there way" that's all I wanted to get opinions on, your position is that it is not a legitimate question to ask unless we've already got the answer, which is a weird way for a scientist to speak.

Why do you care whether people think it's a legitimate question? If you think it's worth asking, then ask. If you think it's worth following up on, then follow up. If you think it's worth researching, the research it.

You give the impression that you think creationists need permission and approval before they can ask questions and investigate their beliefs. Weird.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I did not use the term "possible" in my above reply to you, has this not clarified things?

No. You wrote this:

So the question that I ask is "could this structure have been designed?", as to by what or who that's not something I've asked yet.

Is asking if the structure could have been designed different than asking if it's possible that it was designed? If so, what's the difference? If not, then you still haven't answered my question:

Lets do an experiment:

Could this radio signal have been designed?
Is it possible this radio signal was designed?

I suppose in a formal sense there's a difference, the latter could be construed as implying that artificial signals are known to exist and do we have an example of one, but equally it could carry a different meaning, but I'd need to ask an expert on English grammar.

The latter could be either of these I suppose:

Is it possible for radio signals to be designed and is this an example of one?

Is it possible we have an example of a radio signal that was designed?

This is why I stopped using "possible" above, to avoid this ambiguity.

And I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "possible." Is it possible that rainbows were designed? Or even some rainbows?

You're arguing that for some meaning of "possible," it's possible that an intelligent designer is responsible for at least something biological, but it's not possible that leprechauns are responsible for rainbows.

There must be a difference, so what is it?

[/quote]

Have I now answered that question?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Seriously? so in your world, asking is there a way to recognize if an extra terrestrial radio signal is artificial, is not a legitimate thing to ask unless we've already identified an extra terrestrial signal that's artificial?

That's an odd position to adopt, the SETI folks likely wouldn't agree with your reasoning, but hey you're entitled to your view I suppose.

Man, you're reading comprehension is really poor. How you got that from what I wrote is baffling.

That's another insult Jose, not that you care.

Holmes: Well are you agreeing then, that asking the question "how can we establish if these structures were designed or not" is a legitimate question to ask?
Jose: So first of all, that's an obvious "no" (you haven't identified something in biology as "designed").

You answered "no" to the question and justified that answer on the basis we had no example of a biological designed thing.

That is the same as saying we should only ask questions once we have answers to them.

[Difflugia]

Have I now answered that question?

No.

I suppose in a formal sense there's a difference, the latter could be construed as implying that artificial signals are known to exist and do we have an example of one, but equally it could carry a different meaning, but I'd need to ask an expert on English grammar.

You've just switched the ambiguity from one word to a different phrase. I'm asking you what you mean, not some grammarian or other arbiter of truth.

Could leprechauns be responsible for rainbows?

Could an intelligent designer be responsible for ERV sequences?

If your answers are different, what are the reasons for the difference?

[Jose Fly]

Holmes: Well are you agreeing then, that asking the question "how can we establish if these structures were designed or not" is a legitimate question to ask?
Jose: So first of all, that's an obvious "no" (you haven't identified something in biology as "designed").

You answered "no" to the question and justified that answer on the basis we had no example of a biological designed thing.

That is the same as saying we should only ask questions once we have answers to them.

Dude, you really need to do a better job of keeping track of the discussions you're in. The "First of all that's a no" thing was in response to you not really answering my original question about whether you could point to something in biology that you've determined to be "designed".

I also have to wonder what you mean by "legitimate question"? Not only do I not understand why you care so much about whether other people think a question is "legitimate", I don't understand what you mean by it. What's an "illegitimate question"?

Again, if you want to ask questions, ask all you want to your heart's content. Odds are, 99.9999% of people won't notice or care.