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, theist Christians back up their faith with scripture that informs them that God exists.

Yes I know, Christian "knowledge" being taking things on faith. And faith being the excuse for believing something when you lack sufficient evidence for it. If there was sufficient evidence there would be no need for faith.

What constitutes sufficiency? and of course you need faith, one needs faith that the evidence justifies the belief.

It always amuses me how the self professed "scientifically educated" frequently make philosophical claims in the belief they are making scientific claims.

Really, science has taken some steps backwards if people are starting to think as you seem to be.

While atheists don't say, "I don't know" if anything identified as gods exist.

Most do.

Rather, they state there is no evidence God exists.

"No convincing evidence."

Yet are unable to make explain the evidence of material reality being sourced from something other than a higher creative power.

So what? Who says that a higher creative power has to be the only other option? This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Often enough some will retort, the onus isn't on the atheist to prove a negative. While they'll none the less insist on one. ("There is no God!")

If they do claim "There is no God!" then they have indeed created such an obligation, which is why it's far more reasonable to hold that "I have yet to be convinced."


.

One can never be convinced of some truths when the path to that is unreachable given one's prevailing beliefs. If you believe there is no God, if you believe there's no evidence for God, then clearly whatever you see can never convince you.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Because atheism cannot prove its contention with sustainable fact(s).

Atheists have nothing to prove.

Of course they do, they have to prove that they could and would recognize evidence for God if they ever did encounter it, they have to prove that they do anything more than just say "Nah, that's not evidence" all the time. I mean prove that you have a rigorous process for deciding if something is or is not evidence for God?

If you cannot show that, prove that, then you entire position is vacuous - as I've said many times, atheism is vacuous, it really is, it is not a position but the entire absence of one.

What facts can you present to prove that Loomingfrum does not exist?

Who here argued that it does exist?

Atheism only exists due to the failure on the part of theists to make their case.

This is where you and many other come off the rails. Many theists make a case, take for example Lane Craig or Prof. John Lennox, they state their case and I and many others agree.

That you choose to not agree does not serve as some objective definition that a "case has not been made" the atheist is the least qualified to comment on God since they have no definition of what it is they don't believe in and therefore they have no criteria for evaluating proffered evidence for God.

If the existence of God was irrefutably established then atheism would no longer exist.

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.

Snap out of it, its taking you nowhere, it is blocking you from perceiving deep truths about the universe and yourself.

[Jose Fly]

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

FYI, I'm asking this question out of genuine curiosity rather than as an attempt to debate.....

If everything in the universe is designed, and if evolution is false and evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate "new information" or "increase complexity", do you then believe the parasite that causes malaria (Plasmodium spp.) and it's complex life cycle were designed?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

FYI, I'm asking this question out of genuine curiosity rather than as an attempt to debate.....

If everything in the universe is designed, and if evolution is false and evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate "new information" or "increase complexity", do you then believe the parasite that causes malaria (Plasmodium spp.) and it's complex life cycle were designed?

Yes. I should elaborate I guess too.

There is scriptural evidence, that is indications (I say that given that I regard scripture as containing fundamental truths, I understand that you do not, so indulge me here) that the creation was once perfect and has since undergone changes resulting in what we see. Such changes might well have led to diseases and parasites and viruses, this is speculation and I understand may sound ridiculous to you, but the point I'm making is the scripture itself does seem to indicate this.

[Jose Fly]

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

FYI, I'm asking this question out of genuine curiosity rather than as an attempt to debate.....

If everything in the universe is designed, and if evolution is false and evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate "new information" or "increase complexity", do you then believe the parasite that causes malaria (Plasmodium spp.) and it's complex life cycle were designed?

Yes. I should elaborate I guess too.

There is scriptural evidence (I say that given that I regard scripture as containing fundamental truths, I understand that you do not, so indulge me here) that the creation was once perfect and has since undergone changes resulting in what we see.

Can you clarify though? I've seen creationists give that sort of "it changed after the fall" answer before but that kind of dodges the main point. How did the parasite develop this extremely complex life history and all the associated biochemical pathways and such? Were those things designed after the fall? Did they evolve? Or did they come about via some other means?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

FYI, I'm asking this question out of genuine curiosity rather than as an attempt to debate.....

If everything in the universe is designed, and if evolution is false and evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate "new information" or "increase complexity", do you then believe the parasite that causes malaria (Plasmodium spp.) and it's complex life cycle were designed?

Yes. I should elaborate I guess too.

There is scriptural evidence (I say that given that I regard scripture as containing fundamental truths, I understand that you do not, so indulge me here) that the creation was once perfect and has since undergone changes resulting in what we see.

Can you clarify though? I've seen creationists give that sort of "it changed after the fall" answer before but that kind of dodges the main point. How did the parasite develop this extremely complex life history and all the associated biochemical pathways and such? Were those things designed after the fall? Did they evolve? Or did they come about via some other means?

I honestly don't know, I can only superficially speculate. Humans may have had a natural immunity and this has since degraded as we've spread around the globe, again this is pure speculation.

Consider:

The world's most widespread type of human malaria is caused by Plasmodium vivax, a single-celled parasite transmitted by mosquitoes. Although less deadly than other strains, P. vivax malaria remains a disruptive disease: It infected some 16 million people across the globe in 2013. Yet across much of sub-Saharan Africa, P. vivax accounts for fewer than 5% of all reported malaria cases. That's because about 99% of Africans living here have a variant of a gene called DARC, which shuts off a particular protein receptor on the surface of red blood cells that the parasite needs to gain entry.

From here.

[Jose Fly]

Can you clarify though? I've seen creationists give that sort of "it changed after the fall" answer before but that kind of dodges the main point. How did the parasite develop this extremely complex life history and all the associated biochemical pathways and such? Were those things designed after the fall? Did they evolve? Or did they come about via some other means?

I honestly don't know, I can only superficially speculate.

Okay. Your honesty is appreciated.

It's an interesting question, and is related to why, in his book The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe had to admit that if his arguments were correct, God must have deliberately designed the drug-resistant Plasmodium variants. That's always struck me as a very bizarre place to land.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Can you clarify though? I've seen creationists give that sort of "it changed after the fall" answer before but that kind of dodges the main point. How did the parasite develop this extremely complex life history and all the associated biochemical pathways and such? Were those things designed after the fall? Did they evolve? Or did they come about via some other means?

I honestly don't know, I can only superficially speculate.

Okay. Your honesty is appreciated.

It's an interesting question, and is related to why, in his book The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe had to admit that if his arguments were correct, God must have deliberately designed the drug-resistant Plasmodium variants. That's always struck me as a very bizarre place to land.

You'd likely understand Behe's book far better than I, I think I have the book too but not actually read it!

I won't pretend that taking a position like mine (God created the universe and life and so on) doesn't raise profound, puzzling questions, I totally accept that point.

When I began to abandon atheism I'd already started to realize that many things I had previously believed were - in the cold light of day - all based on some set of assumptions, often unacknowledged, subluminal assumptions. My change of attitude did not take place over night.

An initial phase I went through was to listen more to others, just hear them out and not judge their words by what I'd assumed all my life, I realized that often, some of the "religious" people I disagreed with were quite intelligent and that it was our assumptions that led to differences not so much the quality of our education or intellectual skills.

A later phase was to interrupt atheists (this is when I was still atheist) sometimes and say something like "Well that isn't strictly true" or "Well in all fairness to him we don't know for certain that science shows that" and so on. I just started to be what I felt was more honest, less aggressive an atheist I guess, more willing, more comfortable with the fact that we didn't know this or that for certain.

This was over many years too, just a slow, gradual adjustment to how I defined myself, how I rooted my own views of reality.

[Miles]

No, theist Christians back up their faith with scripture that informs them that God exists.

Yes I know, Christian "knowledge" being taking things on faith. And faith being the excuse for believing something when you lack sufficient evidence for it. If there was sufficient evidence there would be no need for faith.

What constitutes sufficiency?

The condition or quality of being adequate or sufficient that it would be perverse not to hold something to be in accordance with a need.


How many times is the god of Abraham said to be a god of love, yet the hate he also harbors is ignored. (Not saying all of his hate is unjustified, only that it's simply ignored.)

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

It always amuses me how the self professed "scientifically educated" frequently make philosophical claims in the belief they are making scientific claims.

Really, science has taken some steps backwards if people are starting to think as you seem to be.

Thing is, science is well known for not holding onto such "steps backwards" but looks to correct them, unlike religion, which goes to great lengths to either ignore them or explain them away no matter how perverse or silly the effort.

While atheists don't say, "I don't know" if anything identified as gods exist.

Most do.

Rather, they state there is no evidence God exists.

"No convincing evidence."

Yet are unable to make explain the evidence of material reality being sourced from something other than a higher creative power.

So what? Who says that a higher creative power has to be the only other option? This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Often enough some will retort, the onus isn't on the atheist to prove a negative. While they'll none the less insist on one. ("There is no God!")

If they do claim "There is no God!" then they have indeed created such an obligation, which is why it's far more reasonable to hold that "I have yet to be convinced."


.

One can never be convinced of some truths when the path to that is unreachable given one's prevailing beliefs. If you believe there is no God, if you believe there's no evidence for God, then clearly whatever you see can never convince you.

Not at all. All that's necessary to convince someone of a truth is to present convincing evidence for it. In the case of the existence for god obviously many people have a very low threshold of evidence---they may believe there's a god simply because of the beauty they see in nature (typically disregarding the ugliness it also contains), whereas others may require far more reasonable evidence---the claims for it cannot be contradictory, irrational, or based on emotional needs. They cannot be based on a supposed divine communication, which itself can never be verified.



.

[brunumb]

All that's necessary to convince someone of a truth is to present convincing evidence for it. In the case of the existence for god obviously many people have a very low threshold of evidence---they may believe there's a god simply because of the beauty they see in nature (typically disregarding the ugliness it also contains), whereas others may require far more reasonable evidence---the claims for it cannot be contradictory, irrational, or based on emotional needs. They cannot be based on a supposed divine communication, which itself can never be verified.

Somehow it seems that only Christians are able to be genuinely convinced of the existence of their God. When one questions the evidence that convinced them and argues that it is not convincing, magical excuses emerge like the necessity of being possessed by the alleged Holy Spirit. This in itself has no supporting evidence and it becomes something of a turtles-all-the-way-down chase. In the end one is confronted with....... faith. One has to wonder how it is possible to be thoroughly convinced by the alleged evidence for God, lead the life of a devout Christian for possibly decades and then come to the realisation that it was all wrong. Same evidence, different outcome. Oh, you were never really a Christian to begin with, even though you accepted the very evidence you now consider inadequate. Maybe the answer lies in how the belief was acquired in the first place.

When one considers that the vast majority of believers have their belief in god(s) inculcated through indoctrination from birth, the arguments usually presented later merely sound like attempted rationalisations. Something like the beauty of the universe was not one of the arguments that actually convinced them to begin with. It is part of the later retrofitting of whatever could possibly be regarded as evidence to shore up an already held belief. If a non-believer is not convinced by it, then that it is not surprising because it was not really part of the process that convinced the believer either.