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]

Right so most people do hold beliefs as a result of being indoctrinated by some authority with a claim to expertise, a claim to special knowledge and insights that the public by and large do not posses.

They've been indoctrinated to accept - on trust - the claims made by others, self professed experts who alone have the insights and knowledge to understand it all.

Like I said, that's only true in the same sense people have been "indoctrinated" into a spherical earth that orbits the sun. Again, you're conflating education with indoctrination.

You also make it sound as if scientists are somehow concealing information from the public. Reality OTOH is the exact opposite....scientists go out of their way to conduct public outreach. My office has a person specifically assigned to that task for example.

This is how the Catholic church oversaw the "truth" in Galileo's time, they were the authority, the "priestly class" who alone had the insights and expertise to decide matters of truth.

The priestly class of "evolution experts" today is the same, dissent is very heavily discouraged, those who dare are subject to ridicule and are discredit in any number of ways, evolution is a "fact" and to question means is deluded (according to Dawkins at least).

Nah, the ridicule comes about when the denialists make absolutely ridiculous arguments and/or engage in repeated and blatant dishonest tactics, e.g., the well known creationist tactic of quote mining.

EDIT: And to be quite frank, you are among the last people I would ever listen to when it comes to how scientists and science educators do their jobs.

[brunumb]

Everyone of us is "indoctrinated from birth" I mean look at how the majority of the public believe evolution yet know next to nothing about it, about genetics, fossils, paleontology and so on. Talk to "Joe Average" and they know almost nothing yet steadfastly support evolution, what else can explain this but indoctrination?

Unlike religious belief, the theory of evolution is not inculcated in people from birth. Most people first encounter it in the relevant science classes, or possibly when it is mocked from the pulpit during praise Jesus sessions. While it is encouraging to see that the majority of the public believe evolution, surveys of the religious suggest that they reject it based on the priority of their religious beliefs rather than through any consideration of the evidence supporting it. I question your claim that "Joe Average" knows almost nothing about it yet steadfastly supports evolution. Got some data on that?

[brunumb]

The presence of the universe is convincing evidence that God exists, there I have presented it, it is convincing, now what?

Wow. That speaks of a very low threshold for being convinced. How does one go from saying the universe exists to therefore God exists? Without that, your conclusion is essentially a non sequitur. You could just as easily say that the presence of pink sparkles is convincing evidence that unicorns exist.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #343]

Yes I know and I gave a definition of Akluptism, why are you not an akluptist? or are you an akluptist?

I suppose I would be an "akluptist" because I lack belief in the existence of Klupts, although Googling the word indicates that in Latvia it is a verb:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/klupt

When it comes to gods like the many that humans have invented, I have a similar lack of belief in their existence and by definitoin would be an atheist. But these gods are defined in some way and given characteristics, abilities, etc. (often very amazing ones) and claimed to exist as real entities (unlike Klupts as far as I know).

Well convincing to me is what matters to me when it comes to establishing my beliefs and this is the same with you I assume?

You asked for convincing evidence and I have done what you asked, what more do you want from me?

Exactly. My earlier comment was that I have not seen any convincing (to me, obviously) evidence that gods of any kind exist. If I decided to talk a stroll to Damascus one day and had Paul's experience maybe I'd take that as evidence (although more likely I'd expect a stroke or siezure of some sort if I was the only member of the group to have the experience). Just seeing that the universe exists is not convincing to me, despite the fact that we don't know all of the mechanisms behind it. I have more faith that science will continually learn more and more about it than that a god being will finally reveal itself and take the credit. But if that were to happen, I'd no longer be an atheist.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #349]

So what is it you do not hold a belief in? and how do you decide if something proffered as evidence for God is or is not actually evidence?

I don't hold the belief that any god exists. If something is proffered as evidence for God then I test that claim against my existing beliefs (e.g. laws of logic and physics) to determine the likelihood of that claim falsifying my existing beliefs.

To date, none of the claims I've seen being made have done that. Joining this forum was a way to explore different worldviews and invite further claims, so I don't consider myself to be 'close-minded'.

For this reason, I can assert that the statement by DrNoGods on atheism carries more meaning than your statement on 'akluptism'.

Only if you and he mean exactly the very same identical thing by "God".

Not necessarily. From the context of our post history across many threads, I'd claim that we impart a similar enough meaning to the word 'god' as to be understandable to each other.

And more importantly, his statement conveys more meaning to me than yours does - it's still subjective, even if it's 'perfectly clear'.

[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.

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.

You lost my interest when you tossed the bogus charge of straw man.

For others, the observations I made regarding atheists pertain to atheists who display the aforementioned beliefs or statements they use to sustain their perception of atheism as an atheist.

For readers this is offered to correct the error in the above reply.
There is no such thing as a hard atheist.

The correct term is actually, strong atheist. And it is not true they are a thing of the past.
Further and lastly, Gnostics are not strong atheists nor atheist.

The two terms, Gnostic and, strong atheist, are mutually exclusive.

[Abigail]

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.

LOL!

[Abigail]

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.

Atheism is an invention. And amid those atheists who blame theists for their "lack" of belief, that is an example of a victim profile. Or, playing the victim.

For someone to claim atheists exist due to theists failing to prove their point is not just laughable, it is irrational.

[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.

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.

Your Animus for the religious is noted. And your claims about mandatory religious whatever , and force, is nonsense.
When a person conforms because they're not strong enough to choose not to participate in whatever you imagine is made compulsory by the religious, it is the conformists responsibility. Not anyone else's.

Your version of atheism is that afforded a victim mentality.

Atheism is a flimsy argument when the atheist is unable to posit a credible counter to the origin of the species and reality that is able to counter the magical thinking of theists.

Saying what amounts to nuh uh, no proof "God did it", isn't actually a rational counter to the tenets of theism.
Arguing there would be no atheists if theists could prove their point is more like a punchline rather than a constructive observation.

[brunumb]

Atheism is an invention. And amid those atheists who blame theists for their "lack" of belief, that is an example of a victim profile. Or, playing the victim.

Atheism is a response to an invention, gods. You want to believe in gods? Fine. I just don't buy it. Hence atheism. Nowhere near as complicated and muddled as theism.