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]

Can you provide evidence to substantiate the claim "Creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century"?

I already explained....creationism's complete lack of contributions to science in at least 100 years. If you disagree with that assessment, then provide an example.

I see, you are unaware it seems of the burden of proof reversal fallacy?

You assert X is true, I then ask for evidence, the argument leading to the conclusion that X is true, you refuse and instead claim that X is true until and unless I can show that it is false.

If this is truly how you reason then I am even more confident (Oh and trust me, I'm pretty confident at this point) that you are sorely mistaken in many of your other claims about the world.

Take a look here, I assumed you knew all these already but I may have assumed too much.

You also say that it did, last contribute about a hundred years ago, can you give a few examples of what these contributions were?

Again, pay closer attention. I specifically said "at least a century".

So no examples then? OK.

[Jose Fly]

I see, you are unaware it seems of the burden of proof reversal fallacy?

You assert X is true, I then ask for evidence, the argument leading to the conclusion that X is true, you refuse and instead claim that X is true until and unless I can show that it is false.

If this is truly how you reason then I am even more confident (I trust me, I'm pretty confident at this point) that you are sorely mistaken in many of your other claims about the world.

Dude, you can't be serious. If someone says "X hasn't happened", the rebuttal is to show where X happened.

The claim here is that creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in at least a century. If you really think the burden is on me to prove that, how do you suggest I go about it?

OTOH, I'm confident that most folks understand that if someone disagrees with the claim, then the burden falls on them to show where creationism has contributed to science in the last century.

So no examples then? OK.

Examples of something not happening? Um....yeah "Sherlock", I don't have examples of things that didn't happen.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I see, you are unaware it seems of the burden of proof reversal fallacy?

You assert X is true, I then ask for evidence, the argument leading to the conclusion that X is true, you refuse and instead claim that X is true until and unless I can show that it is false.

If this is truly how you reason then I am even more confident (I trust me, I'm pretty confident at this point) that you are sorely mistaken in many of your other claims about the world.

Dude, you can't be serious. If someone says "X hasn't happened", the rebuttal is to show where X happened.

Right but I'm not rebutting you, I'm asking why you believe what you say, I'm asking for evidence to support your claim, you might be correct but how can I be sure?

Do you go around randomly making up beliefs and convince yourself they are true without evidence being necessary because they are true unless someone rebuts them?

So I am serious Jose, all propositions must be supported by evidence.

If a neutral party asked you why they should believe your claim "Creationism hasn't contributed anything to our scientific understanding of the world in at least a century" what would you say?

No competent person would say "X has not happened" without at least some evidence, some justification, they'd say "I don't think X has happened because I've not seen evidence that it has" this is where you err, you are elevating a subjective belief to the status of an objective claim.

You're making this too easy for me Jose, you really are.

[Jose Fly]

Right but I'm not rebutting you, I'm asking why you believe what you say,

Because I've seen no evidence of creationism contributing to science.

I'm asking for evidence to support your claim, you might be correct but how can I be sure?

Since you're not trying to rebut the claim and just want to be sure, I suggest you go look and see what you find. If you find an example of creationism contributing to our scientific understanding of the world, I'd be extremely interested to see it.

Do you go around randomly making up beliefs and convince yourself they are true without evidence being necessary because they are true unless someone rebuts them?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

So I am serious Jose, all propositions must be supported by evidence.

If a neutral party asked you why they should believe your claim "Creationism hasn't contributed anything to our scientific understanding of the world in at least a century" what would you say?

No competent person would say "X has not happened" without evidence, they'd say "I don't think X has happened because I've not seen evidence that it has" this is where you err, you are elevating a subjective belief to the status of an objective claim.

You're making this too easy for me Jose, you really are.

Let's see if I can put this in terms you might understand. You've claimed that there are no transitional fossils between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods. How did you prove that to be true?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Right but I'm not rebutting you, I'm asking why you believe what you say,

Because I've seen no evidence of creationism contributing to science.

There, that wasn't so hard now was it? See? you simply hold a belief, well we all do, nothing wrong with that, but please don't go around pretending your beliefs are facts.

[Jose Fly]

There, that wasn't so hard now was it? See? you simply hold a belief, well we all do, nothing wrong with that, but please don't go around pretending your beliefs are facts.

Is that the same for your claims about the fossil record.....they're just your beliefs and not fact?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Let's see if I can put this in terms you might understand. You've claimed that there are no transitional fossils between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods. How did you prove that to be true?

Yes I have claimed that, I have personally come to believe that, because despite me and many many others looking, well, precious little has been found.

In fact I now ask myself what would the evidence look like if these animals had not evolved but somehow just "appeared" if that is what actually happened 550 million years ago, then what might we expect as evidence for that?

Well it turns out we'd reasonably expect to see what we do see, the sudden, unannounced, simultaneous presence of a multitude of complex already well differentiated organisms many with mineralized parts with no trace of common ancestry, preceded by more or less billions of years or very simple life in relative stasis.

Now to be clear I never once claimed this could be proven to be true, no proposition about the natural world can be proven to be true - after all this is science were discussing here.

I do think that the evidence of sudden, dramatic emergence is the antithesis of what I'd reasonably expect to find if they had truly evolved, so on that basis I must follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

[Jose Fly]

Let's see if I can put this in terms you might understand. You've claimed that there are no transitional fossils between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods. How did you prove that to be true?

Yes I have claimed that...

...Now to be clear I never once claimed this could be proven to be true, no proposition about the natural world can be proven to be true - after all this is science were discussing here.

Do you agree that your claims about the lack of pre-Cambrian to Cambrian transitionals are nothing more than your beliefs?

[Sherlock Holmes]

There, that wasn't so hard now was it? See? you simply hold a belief, well we all do, nothing wrong with that, but please don't go around pretending your beliefs are facts.

Is that the same for your claims about the fossil record.....they're just your beliefs and not fact?

Understand another difference I can define what I mean by "evidence" for my belief that the Cambrian animals did not evolve.

You've still refused to define how you'd even recognize your claim, you haven't even explained what you mean by "scientifically irrelevant" a phrase you introduced in your OP.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Let's see if I can put this in terms you might understand. You've claimed that there are no transitional fossils between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods. How did you prove that to be true?

Yes I have claimed that...

...Now to be clear I never once claimed this could be proven to be true, no proposition about the natural world can be proven to be true - after all this is science were discussing here.

Do you agree that your claims about the lack of pre-Cambrian to Cambrian transitionals are nothing more than your beliefs?

Only in the sense that it is for all of our beliefs, yours mine and everyone's.