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!

[brunumb]

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.

Material reality is not evidence of anything other that that it exists. No one has yet been able to explain the existence of material reality. Proposing a magical being, or higher creative power that can do anything, is not an explanation. It is nothing more than an invented answer for every question without actually answering anything.

[brunumb]

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

Atheists have nothing to prove. What facts can you present to prove that Loomingfrum does not exist? Atheism only exists due to the failure on the part of theists to make their case. If the existence of God was irrefutably established then atheism would no longer exist.

[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.

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

It's an interesting question. In a certain sense I suppose most everyone could be considered a polyatheist given that there are many gods they lack belief in. But an atheist is one who lacks belief in all gods, not just some and not just one.

I don't know what (WFTH-I) represents so I can't comment on that.

ETA: I know there are polytheists, but are there omnitheists, if that would be the right term, theists who believe in every god they've heard of?

Tcg

[The Barbarian]

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

It's an interesting question. In a certain sense I suppose most everyone could be considered a polyatheist given that there are many gods they lack belief in. But an atheist is one who lacks belief in all gods, not just some and not just one.

I don't know what (WFTH-I) represents so I can't comment on that.

Warning For The Humor-Impaired. Not aimed at you, but sometimes, it's good to be able to point out that the comment was at least partially in jest.

ETA: I know there are polytheists, but are there omnitheists, if that would be the right term, theists who believe in every god they've heard of?

Pantheists, maybe, but I think that's already been taken for something else. Some of the Vedic religions are like that. They accept Jesus as a god but not The God.

[Tcg]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #314]

Ah yes. Well maybe we should consider poly-omni-atheism a thing. (HUTBH)


Tcg

[alexxcJRO]

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.

I would suggest that if you have come on a debate site to learn to address the points in the arguments as presented. To try to avoid constructing straw-mans, to try to avoid talking of irrelevant things. If you have nothing to offer better let crickets do their thing.
Modern atheism mostly entails lack of belief in god or gods. It does not contain anything that tells us something about the source of reality, material reality.
Saying the evidence is extremely weak and not convincing does not equal saying there is zero evidence.
Most atheist admit that there could be for example such a thing as a deist god.
I admit that such a thing like a deist god could exist.

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

Atheism is the inevitable consequence of the failure of theism. That’s it.
No failure of theism no atheism.

Why do atheists take issue with theists?

The religious phenomena entails indoctrination, brainwashing of young impressionable minds, superstition, faith in things one does not have evidence for("faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”), can make good people do evil, malevolent things (mass killing of the women as witches in the medieval times; condoning slavery with Bible support for 400 years; intolerance against gays, sexually promiscuous people; misogyny; mistreatments of women and children) and so on.

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

Most modern atheists will not insist on such a thing because they simply lack a belief in god or gods.
Q: If you lack a belief in Alien Life are you insisting there is no such thing as Alien Life?

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.

We are debating against illogical, unsupported claims and ideas.

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

Saying I lack a belief in god or gods is not saying no god or gods are existent.
Existence of a god or gods is not per say irrational.
It may be that there is such a thing as a god or gods exist.
I and modern atheists alike are just simply unconvinced.
Off course most god concepts are irrational, illogical and simply silly. Take Yahweh-Jesus.
Such a being(Yahweh-Jesus) simply does not exists, cannot exist. The concept its irrational, illogical, downright comical-a satire.

I debate ideas because I like the mental exercise just like I like doing sports.
One needs a "sharp" mind in a "sharp" body so to speak.
I have debate both Flat Earthers, Holocaust deniers, Conspiratorial ides like 9/11->Inside Job, Moon Landing is Fake, Reptilians have infiltrated positions of power, Illuminati and many such nonsense.

Q: Why do you have come here to debate?

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

Again modern atheist are akin to “lacking a belief in god or gods” type.
Gnostic/hard atheist are a thing of the past.
You will hardly see an atheist claim: There is no god or gods or I know there is no god or gods.

[JoeyKnothead]

The universe was designed, it is filled with beautifully designed structures, with symmetries and inter dependencies and so on, everything we design shares that trait, so the universe is filled with the kinds of patterns that I'd except if it had been designed.

What, then, of ugly structures? Asymmetries? Independence?

What about homosexuality? Is the design for loving partnerships confounded by two dudes making googly eyes at one another?

What about the human eye, and its blind spot?

What about women that make the man they love eat them little green peas?

Therefore I regard that as evidence...

I do preciate your presenting what you consider evidence for your challenged claim/s. That's really all I ask.

My disagreement means less to me than a claimant, in debate, who comes to preach.

Therefore I regard that as evidence that it was designed, I find it odd to believe that something as sophisticated as the universe can look designed but is not actually designed, that strikes me as an unreasonable degree of coincidence, refusing to accept what is obvious because it conflicts with some crazy belief that everything just is!

I reject the "just is" angle, considering how doggedly folks're trying to figure out the whys.

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, I mean what's the issue? why all the fuss?

Cause some folks wanna, or have actually attempted to introduce (the generic) your brand of non-science not only into public classrooms, but into law, medical offices, and even the bedroom.

Where you see design, I don't near see "just is", but see a universe that we as a species can explore and discover without the need of a 'designer' that invariably turns out to be the god of one's prejudices.

A 'designer' that upon further examination will be found to hold the same hopes and dreams, and hatreds as its proponents.

"Okay, so tell me about this designer".

"He don't like how you carry on".

We'll find among these -ahem- cdesignpropentists that science is only as valid as it comforts their religious beliefs.

That's why all the fuss.

And to ask "why the fuss" is quite rich coming from you, who has a history of insulting folks simply cause they challenge your claims, disagree, or both.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The universe was designed, it is filled with beautifully designed structures, with symmetries and inter dependencies and so on, everything we design shares that trait, so the universe is filled with the kinds of patterns that I'd except if it had been designed.

What, then, of ugly structures? Asymmetries? Independence?

This may help you get some insights to that question: Is the world simple or complex?

What about homosexuality? Is the design for loving partnerships confounded by two dudes making googly eyes at one another?

What about the human eye, and its blind spot?

What about women that make the man they love eat them little green peas?

What does "what about" mean?

Therefore I regard that as evidence...

I do preciate your presenting what you consider evidence for your challenged claim/s. That's really all I ask.

My disagreement means less to me than a claimant, in debate, who comes to preach.

Therefore I regard that as evidence that it was designed, I find it odd to believe that something as sophisticated as the universe can look designed but is not actually designed, that strikes me as an unreasonable degree of coincidence, refusing to accept what is obvious because it conflicts with some crazy belief that everything just is!

I reject the "just is" angle, considering how doggedly folks're trying to figure out the whys.

I see no reason to favor a not-designed interpretation of the evidence over a designed interpretation, I mean what's the issue? why all the fuss?

Cause some folks wanna, or have actually attempted to introduce (the generic) your brand of non-science not only into public classrooms, but into law, medical offices, and even the bedroom.

That hardly answers the question Johnny.

Where you see design, I don't near see "just is", but see a universe that we as a species can explore and discover without the need of a 'designer' that invariably turns out to be the god of one's prejudices.

A 'designer' that upon further examination will be found to hold the same hopes and dreams, and hatreds as its proponents.

"Okay, so tell me about this designer".

"He don't like how you carry on".

We'll find among these -ahem- cdesignpropentists that science is only as valid as it comforts their religious beliefs.

That's why all the fuss.

And to ask "why the fuss" is quite rich coming from you, who has a history of insulting folks simply cause they challenge your claims, disagree, or both.

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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Why do you think written accounts are not evidence? you must read newspapers, you must read history books, of course the Bible is evidence, all human writing is evidence of something.

So right off the bat you spout utter absurdities, completely easily falsified make believe.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Material reality is not evidence of anything other that that it exists.

That is a "claim" as you call such statements. It is also not a scientific claim but a philosophical claim, a belief.

Do you have a scientific argument, theory that leads to the conclusion "Material reality is not evidence of anything other that that it exists"? Of course you do not.

Here you are speaking of the value and necessity of "evidence" yet making statements that have no supporting evidence!

No one has yet been able to explain the existence of material reality.

Of course they have, God created material reality, that's the explanation and the same explanation almost all significant scientists accepted before and during the scientific revolution.

Proposing a magical being, or higher creative power that can do anything, is not an explanation.

What makes you think that?

It is nothing more than an invented answer for every question without actually answering anything.

All explanations are invention.