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!

[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.

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.

.

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

While atheists don't say, "I don't know" if anything identified as gods exist. Rather, they state there is no evidence God exists. Yet are unable to make explain the evidence of material reality being sourced from something other than a higher creative power.

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!")

Or, they'll say, you can't prove a negative. Which is a last resort often enough. And hugely false to boot.

[Abigail]

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

God/God/goddess.
Atheists believe there is no evidence those in any identity exist.

They don't know. They simply don't believe they exist. Which in and of itself is not a product of actuality. Rather it is a product of a precept, hope. All that is synonymous with belief.

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

[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.

Tcg

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

Not that I've ever seen. Personally, I, an atheist, believe a lot of stuff.

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

This calls for a quotation or two with links or attributions. What-cha-got?

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.

Okay, but ? ? ? ? ?

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

Pretty much.

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 .

And personally, I don't think it should.

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

So what? Has someone said it does?

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.

Curious, what theories are these? Please share.


.

[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

God/God/goddess.
Atheists believe there is no evidence those in any identity exist.

Wrong yet again. Atheists lack belief in god/gods.

They don't know. They simply don't believe they exist. Which in and of itself is not a product of actuality. Rather it is a product of a precept, hope. All that is synonymous with belief.

It is in fact the exact opposite of belief. It is the lack of belief.

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

It doesn't need to. It is the lack of belief in god/gods.


Tcg

[William]

Ah - the trap of theists explaining to atheists what atheism is, and vice versa - keeps the whole loop system under a pretense that it is a vital, purposeful pursuit...good for lifting balloons with baskets, I suppose...

[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.

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."


.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

Yes that is the "modern" Flewsian definition of atheist, but even so how does such a person differ from the agnostic - surely in each case there is an "absence of belief" in God? if these are indeed the same then why even bother with the silly Flewsian definition, why not just use "agnostic"?

Atheism is ultimately absurd, has no meaning. One can only say "I have a lack of belief in God" and have it carry meaning, if and only if one understands what a belief in God is.

The phrase "I don't believe in" is also meaningless, it is better to speak in terms of propositions, like "I believe God XXX" for example or "I don't believe that God XXX".

The reason many atheists "don't believe in God" is because they likely have no idea what God means, if they misconstrue that meaning then of course the thing they don't believe in, that they call "God" might not be God at all, it might well be something that I too don't believe in!

[The Barbarian]

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.

Should we make a distinction between monoatheists and polyatheists? (WFTH-I)

[brunumb]

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.

Please suggest how one presents evidence of the non-existence of something. Surely non-existence is the default position. Once claims of an existence have been dutifully supported then existence can be acknowledged.

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

As stated many, many times, it is not a belief. It is not merely opposition to religious faith as believers are oft to moan about. If we find your claims untenable, then it is what it is. It does not mean that it is some personal attack on you or your beliefs.

Why do atheists take issue with theists?

The days of atheists being asked to 'shut up and move to the back of the bus' are gone. Having religious beliefs and subsequent way of life forced upon people is no longer acceptable. Even now people are subjected to constant pressure in the work place and in society to conform to the demands of religious dogma. "Have you accepted Jesus?" borders on being verbal abuse. Do you want to keep your job or have us sell you a cake, then you'd better accept Jesus and do what we say. It's not enough that Christians have their beliefs, they need to have everyone one else hold them as well. That is part of why atheists take issue.

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.

Not all atheists say there is no god/God. I for one do not completely dismiss the possibility, but I currently do not believe that there is any such being. That lack of belief does not inform the way I live my life other than the non-participation in the mandatory religious rituals of believers. Rather than debating against God, whatever that actually means, I am trying to get believers to present their best case and convince me that their God exists. If they are so convinced, why not me? And, no, it's not that I choose to reject God because I want to sin and all that nonsense. Belief is not a choice. My brain is simply not convinced by any of the claims regarding gods.

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.

God may not be real but believers in God are real and we must all share the same space. If they did not try to rule over this space using their beliefs as the rule book, then there might be less reason to be concerned with them. On the other hand it seems far less rational to actually hold beliefs that govern one's life on such a flimsy basis as ancient writing by people largely ignorant of the world they inhabited.

[brunumb]

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

Just to be perfectly clear, the Bible consists of claims. It is not evidence. Saying that it backs up one's faith is perfectly ok because religious faith is actually belief in the absence of evidence.