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!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Abigail in post #284]

The delusion that atheism is lack of belief can't be overcome by reason.

But it can be overcome by the very definition of the word atheism ... the lack of belief in the existence of deities (gods). How is accepting the standard definition of a word delusional? Not accepting it would seem more delusional ... especially when no alternate definition is offered.

[alexxcJRO]

The delusion that atheism is lack of belief can't be overcome by reason.

Atheists believe there is no evidence anything referred to as God is sustained by credible proof it exists in order to be called God.

While everything that exists has no contrary evidence to the God theory. Save for the posited theories proposed by the sciences that have no evidence for causal reality.

Or to make it easier to understand, no evidence as to what caused everything that exists to come into being.

1. There is no delusion.
Atheism can mean also a lack of belief conforms atheists testimonials and definitions of the word.
Definition of atheism
1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism


2. Q: Do you lack a belief in Allah, Brahma, reincarnation, Joseph Smith miracle, Sathya Say Baba miracles?
Q: If yes, are you not an atheist in respect to the above conform the definition from above?

3. 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.

Let’s hope crickets don’t show themselves.

[Clownboat]

I would disagree. Also, science has yet to prove or even provide a credible theory that identifies the source for material reality and existence.

There is nothing wrong with saying, I don't know.
If that is uncomfortable to you, then seek a religion to provide you with answers to these unknowns. It seems to be why all civilizations throughout humans history invented such answers after all.
Why are we here?
What happens after we die?

If not knowing is uncomfortable, see religions.

Yes, unfortunately atheists are unable to prove anything not called by a three letter word is the source or cause for existence.

Atheists lack a belief in all the available god concepts. Just like you, they just go one god concept further. You're more atheist then you think.

Religions are there for those that need them. Those that need a place to go when they die, or those that don't want to put in the work to figure out things we say "I don't know to". Putting in the work to understand is hard. Picking a religion and having answers provided requires no work and little thought.

The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of belief in god/gods.

Atheists don't realize that is a faith in itself.

What! Are you truly unaware if uncorns exist? Do you really employ faith to not believe in them? No faith is require in order to not hold a belief. When trying to hold a belief outside of evidence or reason, that is where faith comes in.
Faith is required to believe in false things. Want to believe in Bigfoot or Nessy? You'll need faith.
Want to believe that sun will rise (so to speak) tomorrow? No need to employ faith as we have past examples that assure us that the sun will rise. Same with why my car will start. No faith as I have reason to believe it will start.

While many seem to occupy their time with debating about something they first insist isn't there.

I have been set free from my beliefs. I hold out hope that others will be set free as well. When I joined this site, I was still trying to maintain my beliefs by the way.

[Abigail]

The only thing atheists have in common is the lack of belief in god/gods.

Atheists don't realize that is a faith in itself.

I always love the "lack of belief is faith argument." We don't realize it is a faith for the very simple reason that it isn't.


Tcg

Agnosticism isn't faith. Atheism, the assertion that one knows there are no gods, is pretty close to faith. But few atheists are really asserting this. Richard Dawkins, for example, says he can't be sure that there isn't a god. He just says he has no evidence for one.

Agnosticism isn't atheism.

[Abigail]

The delusion that atheism is lack of belief can't be overcome by reason.

Atheists believe there is no evidence anything referred to as God is sustained by credible proof it exists in order to be called God.

While everything that exists has no contrary evidence to the God theory. Save for the posited theories proposed by the sciences that have no evidence for causal reality.

Or to make it easier to understand, no evidence as to what caused everything that exists to come into being.

1. There is no delusion.
Atheism can mean also a lack of belief conforms atheists testimonials and definitions of the word.
Definition of atheism
1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism


2. Q: Do you lack a belief in Allah, Brahma, reincarnation, Joseph Smith miracle, Sathya Say Baba miracles?
Q: If yes, are you not an atheist in respect to the above conform the definition from above?

3. 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.

Let’s hope crickets don’t show themselves.

I would suggest that just as the anti-theist, atheist, contends there is no evidence for the existence of deity, there too is no evidence the atheist can provide that supplants faith in deific action is the source of/for material reality.

Which is why atheism is grounded in a belief that merely contends against religious faith.

Why do atheists take issue with theists? When the atheist first insists there is no such thing as God that exists?
They are then debating against something, God, they first insist is not there. Only to actually take issue, and express intolerance, for religious thinkers who are.

If God isn't real why pay attention to a topic or subject that would then qualify as irrational?

Atheists debate a negative. And insist they are more rational than theists.

[The Barbarian]

Agnosticism isn't faith. Atheism, the assertion that one knows there are no gods, is pretty close to faith. But few atheists are really asserting this. Richard Dawkins, for example, says he can't be sure that there isn't a god. He just says he has no evidence for one.

Agnosticism isn't atheism.

So Richard Dawkins is not an atheist?

I get the argument that it's reasonable to accept God on faith, but that there's a major logical issue with denying God on faith. But what about the guys who say "I don't believe in God, because I see no evidence for Him?"

[Tcg]

I would suggest that just as the anti-theist, atheist, contends there is no evidence for the existence of deity, there too is no evidence the atheist can provide that supplants faith in deific action is the source of/for material reality.

You can suggest that, but it isn't accurate. Atheists lack belief in god/gods. Their reasons for doing so vary. Atheists need not provide any evidence that supplants faith. Faith is the problem believers must deal with.


Tcg

[Miles]

I would suggest that just as the anti-theist, atheist, contends there is no evidence for the existence of deity, there too is no evidence the atheist can provide that supplants faith in deific action is the source of/for material reality.

Exactly what is "supplanting faith in deific action is the source of/for material reality"?

Which is why atheism is grounded in a belief that merely contends against religious faith.

No. Atheism is grounded in the lack of convincing evidence that god exists.

Why do atheists take issue with theists?

Because theists have yet to "prove" their contention (present convincing evidence) that god exists.

When the atheist first insists there is no such thing as God that exists?

While some atheists do contend that god does not exist, most simply lack belief that he does. Huge difference.

They are then debating against something, God, they first insist is not there. Only to actually take issue, and express intolerance, for religious thinkers who are.

Among those atheists who say god does not exist, perhaps they are, but so what? Christians are well known for taking issue with, and expressing intolerance toward unbelievers, even to the extent that they're directed to do away with them.

2 Chronicles 15:13
But that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

Matthew 10:34
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Romans 13:4
For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Luke 19:27
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

If God isn't real why pay attention to a topic or subject that would then qualify as irrational?

Because the "believer mind set" is the basis for creating prejudicial policies, both culturally and governmentally, that favor themselves and not the rest of society. Christians have never been known for sharing the playing field with others. In a sense it's their way or the highway. "X should be banned because the Bible says so." "Y should be allowed be cause it's in keeping with the wishes of god."

Atheists debate a negative. And insist they are more rational than theists.

And they are more rational, at least those who consider atheism as a lack of belief. They say "I don't know" whereas the theist says "I know," but fails to back up this knowledge.

.

[Abigail]

I would suggest that just as the anti-theist, atheist, contends there is no evidence for the existence of deity, there too is no evidence the atheist can provide that supplants faith in deific action is the source of/for material reality.

Tcg

Theists don't accept their belief is a problem. Though it can appear some atheists have a problem with theists holding to belief.

While AA excerpts serve to reiterate atheism is a delusion when an atheist insists those definitions make their belief superior to theists.

And it is a belief. Synonymous with
philosophy,precept,. conviction, assurance, etc ..
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/belief

Because atheism is not
You can suggest that, but it isn't accurate. Atheists lack belief in god/gods. Their reasons for doing so vary. Atheists need not provide any evidence that supplants faith. Faith is the problem believers must deal with.

Sure, atheism is abscense of belief in deity.
Because the atheist doesn't believe anything labeled God exists.

An aversion to the idea of belief doesn't negate the reality that atheism cannot posit for a fact there is no God, or higher power, responsible for all that exists .

In fact, science of course doesn't presume to know what is responsible for all that exists.

While the theories that presume to posit an answer are in actuality the sciences seeking out a higher power that would necessarily be the source for all that exists.

Ironic really.

[Tcg]

Because the atheist doesn't believe anything labeled God exists.

Wrong again. Atheists lack belief that god/gods exist. It not just one special god you label God.


Tcg