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!

[Jose Fly]

You've still refused to define how you'd even recognize your claim

Pay closer attention. Again, if no one can provide an example of creationism contributing to our scientific understanding of the world, that supports my claim. Also, I went to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and searched for any papers published there in the last 100 years that even mentions "God" and "creation" and got "No Results". I did the same at other journals and got the same results (some outlets had results that were blog entries, news articles, or letters, but no papers). Also I've worked in biology for over 25 years and I've not seen anything, past or present, that came from creationism.

All of that supports my claim.

you haven't even explained what you mean by "scientifically irrelevant" a phrase you introduced in your OP.

Pay closer attention. Again, "contributing to our scientific understanding of the world". If you can't grasp what that means, I can't help you.

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

It's always fascinating to see creationists slide towards solipsism when desperate.

So when you stated "The fossil record nowhere exhibits examples of continuity", we can view that as just your belief, correct?

[Sherlock Holmes]

You've still refused to define how you'd even recognize your claim

Pay closer attention. Again, if no one can provide an example of creationism contributing to our scientific understanding of the world, that supports my claim.

OK, well here's one "creation gave us a mind that allows us to do science", I'd say that was somewhat relevant, there !! your claim is hereby shown to be false, a refutation has been presented!

Also, I went to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and searched for any papers published there in the last 100 years that even mentions "God" and "creation" and got "No Results". I did the same at other journals and got the same results (some outlets had results that were blog entries, news articles, or letters, but no papers). Also I've worked in biology for over 25 years and I've not seen anything, past or present, that came from creationism.

OK we're getting somewhere now, so your own personal definition of "scientifically relevant" is if the term "God" or "creation" appears in carefully selected journals and books, so tell me why did you choose only journals and books that don't mention "God" and "creationism"? isn't that a bit no true scotsmany?...

All of that supports my claim.

About as well as any variant of the No True Scotsman arguments supports its claim (hint - it doesn't support it one iota)

you haven't even explained what you mean by "scientifically irrelevant" a phrase you introduced in your OP.

Pay closer attention. Again, "contributing to our scientific understanding of the world". If you can't grasp what that means, I can't help you.

Well understanding what caused the world, the universe, to exist is surely contributing to our understanding? understanding that our minds which can understand science, were created is surely contributing? could science even exist without human minds and their innate ability to comprehend mathematics?

Try doing science without using your mind......(oh the temptation!)

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

It's always fascinating to see creationists slide towards solipsism when desperate.

Strawman - I never mentioned solipsism and ad hominem - your imputation that I am "desperate".

So when you stated "The fossil record nowhere exhibits examples of continuity", we can view that as just your belief, correct?

You insult me and then expect to just continue? Very well, yes, just as we can view your claims "Creationism has no scientific relevance" as just your belief, yes.

[Jose Fly]

OK here's one "creation gave us a mind that allows us to do science", I'd say that was somewhat relevant, there !! your claim is hereby shown to be false, a refutation has been presented!

Oh my.....seriously? You really, truly, honestly think that an empty assertion like that 1) constitutes a contribution to science, and 2) was first asserted within the last 100 years? Really?

Wow.

OK we're getting somewhere now, so your own personal definition of "scientifically relevant" is if the term "God" or "creation" appears in various journals and books

It's one way to check to see if creationism has contributed to our scientific understanding of the world. If it has, it should show up in the scientific journals.

so tell me why did you choose only journals and books that don't mention "God" and "creationism"?

Huh? You're not making sense.

Well understanding what caused the world, the universe, to exist is surely contributing to our understanding? understanding that our minds which can understand science, were created is surely contributing? could science even exist without human minds and their innate ability to comprehend mathematics?

Try doing science without using your mind......

Wow. I'm speechless at how ridiculous this is.

Strawman - I never mentioned solipsism and ad hominem - your imputation that I am "desperate".

FYI, one doesn't have to specifically say the word "solipsism" to be guilty of invoking it And again, your thin-skin is noted.

So when you stated "The fossil record nowhere exhibits examples of continuity", we can view that as just your belief, correct?

You insult me and then expect to just continue? Very well, yes, just as we can view your claims "Creationism has no scientific relevance" as just your belief, yes.

Glad we cleared that up. I'll be sure to keep this in mind for future reference.

[Sherlock Holmes]

There are so many errant points in your post, I'll focus only on the one below.

OK here's one "creation gave us a mind that allows us to do science", I'd say that was somewhat relevant, there !! your claim is hereby shown to be false, a refutation has been presented!

Oh my.....seriously? You really, truly, honestly think that an empty assertion like that 1) constitutes a contribution to science, and 2) was first asserted within the last 100 years? Really?

Wow.

OK we're getting somewhere now, so your own personal definition of "scientifically relevant" is if the term "God" or "creation" appears in various journals and books

It's one way to check to see if creationism has contributed to our scientific understanding of the world. If it has, it should show up in the scientific journals.

No, not if your definition of "scientific journal" is a journal that does not ever mention "God" or "creation". In that case your investigation tells you nothing, absolutely nothing, other than your idea of science is a discipline that excludes God or creation as a relevant concept.

Full disclosure - paraphrase coming up, not Jose's words, all mine!

"Can we search for 'God' or 'creation' in the science journals please?"
"OK sure, but which journals Jose?"
"All of those that don't contain 'God' or 'creation'.
"OK, looking now..."
"Well, did you find anything?"
"No, actually not a single thing came back".
"Man, I knew it, I just knew it, wait until I tell Holmes, this'll teach him"

See? No True Scotsman.

[Jose Fly]

No, not if your definition of "scientific journal" is a journal that does not ever mention "God" or "creation". In that case your investigation tells you nothing, absolutely nothing, other than your idea of science is a discipline that excludes God or creation as a relevant concept.

See? No True Scotsman.

Again....just.....wow.

Also, I thought you'd agreed earlier that gods cannot be scientifically investigated or tested, yet here you're saying that concept is my idea of science.

You're scrambling dude. Time for you to invoke the first rule of holes.

EDIT: After considering this specific sub-topic (whether creationism has contributed to science in the last century) and the way you've responded to it, I've decided to put it in the "too stupid to argue about" category. If you have actual, concrete examples then post them. Otherwise it's time to get this thread back on topic.

The "evolution v creationism" debate is effectively dead, and has been relegated to "something some folks argue about online", with little to no practical relevance in science or public education.

[brunumb]

Well understanding what caused the world, the universe, to exist is surely contributing to our understanding? understanding that our minds which can understand science, were created is surely contributing? could science even exist without human minds and their innate ability to comprehend mathematics?

You might have a point there if you can demonstrate that our minds were created.

As for creationism in general contributing anything to science, one would first have to remove any creation event from the realm of the supernatural to give it any consideration at all.

[brunumb]

There are so many errant points in your post, I'll focus only on the one below.

A common creationist tactic. Ignore most of the arguments given, pick on what one considers the weakest, attack that and then assume victory over the whole lot.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #22]

Well understanding what caused the world, the universe, to exist is surely contributing to our understanding? understanding that our minds which can understand science, were created is surely contributing? could science even exist without human minds and their innate ability to comprehend mathematics?

What makes you think you "understand" what caused the universe to exist? Or that our minds were created? These are simply ideas in your head, unproven by anyone, and they contribute nothing whatsoever to science. The last sentence is obvious since it is humans who conduct science, so obviously a mind capable of that endeavor would have to exist in the first place. To have the creation ideas represent any contribution to science you'd have to back them up with evidence that they are correct ... and you've done nothing of the sort (nor has anyone else).

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #22]

Well understanding what caused the world, the universe, to exist is surely contributing to our understanding? understanding that our minds which can understand science, were created is surely contributing? could science even exist without human minds and their innate ability to comprehend mathematics?

What makes you think you "understand" what caused the universe to exist? Or that our minds were created?

I'm happy to answer those question all you need to do is ask.

These are simply ideas in your head, unproven by anyone, and they contribute nothing whatsoever to science.

Hold on, I haven't answered them yet and you are already dismissing me!

The last sentence is obvious since it is humans who conduct science, so obviously a mind capable of that endeavor would have to exist in the first place.

To have the creation ideas represent any contribution to science you'd have to back them up with evidence that they are correct ... and you've done nothing of the sort (nor has anyone else).

How can you argue that when I haven't yet answered the questions you asked?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well understanding what caused the world, the universe, to exist is surely contributing to our understanding? understanding that our minds which can understand science, were created is surely contributing? could science even exist without human minds and their innate ability to comprehend mathematics?

You might have a point there if you can demonstrate that our minds were created.

What would it take to convince you? we might as well establish that criteria before we start.

As for creationism in general contributing anything to science, one would first have to remove any creation event from the realm of the supernatural to give it any consideration at all.

Remember that "creationism" is a set of beliefs that some people have, beliefs that many of us can defend and justify, these beliefs reflect certain expectations we have about reality, like order, predictability, understandability, symmetry, laws and mathematical structure.

Many scientists who work with this aspect of science (with theoretical physicist being the closest to this level) expect these things, and some of those scientists regard these facets of nature as revealing something even deeper.

So anyone pursuing science on the assumption that it can be understood, that there is order, law, predictability, and so on, indirectly assumes a reason for these things being as they are, some - like me - are not afraid to label that "creationism".