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]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #389]

You will not find any example of your usage of "atheist" in any publication prior to 1976 - prove me wrong why don't you?

What justification do you have for ignoring things since 1976? That is 46 years ago and thousands of brand new words have appeared since then, with some older words having their definitions modified along the way. Merriam-Webster define atheism as:

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
2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

This is not a denial of gods, simply a lack of belief that they exist. Wikipedia (ie. whoever wrote the article) has this to say at the start:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. So they use your definition only as a minority position. The article continues ...

Etymology
The Greek word αθεοι (atheoi), as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:12[65] on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46. It is usually translated into English as "[those who are] without God".[a]

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[13]

The term atheist (from the French athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[67] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[68] and again in 1571.[69] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[70]

The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[71] and appears in English about 1587.[72] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[73][74]

Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[75] theist in 1662,[76] deism in 1675,[77] and theism in 1678.[78]

Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700 due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[79]

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the 16th and 17th centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[16]

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.

In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[45]

There is no denial of the existence of gods there ... just a lack of belief that they do exist. Cherry picking pre-1976 definitions or uses does not invalidate any post-1976 definitions or societies' alterations of the word (specifically, how atheists themselves define it today). Lack of belief in the existence of gods is the broadest definition of an atheist. I don't claim that gods do not exist, only that I don't believe that they do (for lack of any evidence that is convincing to me personally). Therefore, I'm an atheist under this most common and broad definition today.

Nothing in your post is at odds with what I said. Once again, you will not find any example of your usage of "atheist" in any publication prior to 1976 - prove me wrong why don't you?

Nor do I "ignore" things since 1976, I am just telling you it is not the established definition, it is not the proper definition, furthermore it serves no purpose when one can simply refer to themselves as an agnostic, a term already available, not knowing if "God exists" is true or false is exactly the same as "I do not hold a belief that God exists".

Consider "Is John still working at Smither's engine factory"?

1. I do not hold a belief that John is nor do I hold a belief that John isn't.
2. I don't know.

I would use the latter, why would anyone use the former? which one would you use?

Then explain why the one-sided definition? why is a "modern" atheist not defined as "One who does not hold a belief that God does not exist" or "One who does not hold a belief that God does exist or does not exist"?

Seriously this entire militant atheism is utter foolishness masquerading as intellectual, people just don't respect truth any more.

[Difflugia]

You will not find any example of your usage of "atheist" in any publication prior to 1976 - prove me wrong why don't you?

From a speech given by Charles Bradlaugh, 112 years before 1976 (source):

I wish, before concluding, to point out to you that in the position I have taken up I do not stand here to prove that there is no God. If I should undertake to prove such a proposition, I should deserve the ill words of the oft-quoted psalmist applied to those who say there is no God. I do not say there is no God, but I am an Atheist without God.

Since there were apparently a number of religious commentators that felt the need to tell people what an atheist really was, his daughter reaffirmed his stance in her 1908 biography, Charles Bradlaugh: A Record of His Life and Work (Internet Archive):

There is just one passage in Mr Bradlaugh’s opening speech which is given fairly fully, and which it is desirable to repeat here, for in it he lays down his position as an Atheist, a position to which he adhered until his last hour.

“He did not deny that there was ‘a God,’ because to deny that which was unknown was as absurd as to affirm it. As an Atheist he denied the God of the Bible, of the Koran, of the Vedas, but he could not deny that of which he had no knowledge.”

This statement Mr Bradlaugh made, in varying words, over and over again, and yet over and over again religious writers and speakers have described, and probably they always will describe, the Atheist as “one who denies God.”

I suppose that's technically two examples. Both publications are about the same person, though, so I'll just call it one.

Of course you'll have to do something that very few do these days and that is stop relying 100% on the web as your only source of knowledge. I happen to have a reasonable library of perhaps a thousand books and so I am not bound to the web.

Perhaps you need a thousand and one.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #389]

You will not find any example of your usage of "atheist" in any publication prior to 1976 - prove me wrong why don't you?

What justification do you have for ignoring things since 1976? That is 46 years ago and thousands of brand new words have appeared since then, with some older words having their definitions modified along the way. Merriam-Webster define atheism as:

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
2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

This is not a denial of gods, simply a lack of belief that they exist. Wikipedia (ie. whoever wrote the article) has this to say at the start:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. So they use your definition only as a minority position. The article continues ...

Etymology
The Greek word αθεοι (atheoi), as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:12[65] on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46. It is usually translated into English as "[those who are] without God".[a]

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[13]

The term atheist (from the French athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[67] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[68] and again in 1571.[69] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[70]

The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[71] and appears in English about 1587.[72] An earlier work, from about 1534, used the term atheonism.[73][74]

Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[75] theist in 1662,[76] deism in 1675,[77] and theism in 1678.[78]

Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700 due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[79]

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the 16th and 17th centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[16]

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.

In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".[45]

There is no denial of the existence of gods there ... just a lack of belief that they do exist. Cherry picking pre-1976 definitions or uses does not invalidate any post-1976 definitions or societies' alterations of the word (specifically, how atheists themselves define it today). Lack of belief in the existence of gods is the broadest definition of an atheist. I don't claim that gods do not exist, only that I don't believe that they do (for lack of any evidence that is convincing to me personally). Therefore, I'm an atheist under this most common and broad definition today.

Nothing in your post is at odds with what I said. Once again, you will not find any example of your usage of "atheist" in any publication prior to 1976 - prove me wrong why don't you?

Nor do I "ignore" things since 1976, I am just telling you it is not the established definition, it is not the proper definition, furthermore it serves no purpose when one can simply refer to themselves as an agnostic, a term already available, not knowing if "God exists" is true or false is exactly the same as "I do not hold a belief that God exists".

Consider "Is John still working at Smither's engine factory"?

1. I do not hold a belief that John is nor do I hold a belief that John isn't.
2. I don't know.

I would use the latter, why would anyone use the former? which one would you use?

Then explain why the one-sided definition? why is a "modern" atheist not defined as "One who does not hold a belief that God does not exist" or "One who does not hold a belief that God does exist or does not exist"?

Seriously this entire militant atheism is utter foolishness masquerading as intellectual, people just don't respect truth any more.

Q: Are you doing a Putin on us with the world atheism? Do you have fantasies of the good old days where the word meant only denial of gods, disbelief in the existence of gods?

Sir the meaning of words change, evolved over time.
Fighting over the meaning of the worlds is pointless.

Gay originally meant 'carefree', 'cheerful', or 'bright and showy' before it became what we know today as ‘homosexual’.
The evolution of the meaning of the word is quite interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

Mirror:
Once again, you will not find any example of your usage of "gay" in any publication prior to ~1934 - prove me wrong why don't you?
Seriously this entire militant gayism is utter foolishness masquerading as intellectual, people just don't respect truth any more.
So ridiculous.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #391]

Consider "Is John still working at Smither's engine factory"?

1. I do not hold a belief that John is nor do I hold a belief that John isn't.
2. I don't know.

Consider #3:

3. I've visited Smither's engine factory daily for the past 30 years and never encountered an employee named John, therefore I'm convinced that no one named John is working there.

This is different from I don't know, which might be the correct response if I'd never been to the engine factory or had any knowledge of it. Atheism's modern, broad definition (despite your objection) is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. This is stronger than "I don't know", or "I don't care" ... it is a much more firm position that doesn't go all the way to a claim that gods positively do not exist (a narrower subset of atheists).

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #391]

Consider "Is John still working at Smither's engine factory"?

1. I do not hold a belief that John is nor do I hold a belief that John isn't.
2. I don't know.

Consider #3:

3. I've visited Smither's engine factory daily for the past 30 years and never encountered an employee named John, therefore I'm convinced that no one named John is working there.

This is different from I don't know, which might be the correct response if I'd never been to the engine factory or had any knowledge of it. Atheism's modern, broad definition (despite your objection) is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. This is stronger than "I don't know", or "I don't care" ... it is a much more firm position that doesn't go all the way to a claim that gods positively do not exist (a narrower subset of atheists).

You never answered the question. If you truly did not know would you answer 1. or 2.? I was not asking about what you were convinced of or not.

Besides (see red emphasis) that argument amounts to the argument "There is no John" classic atheism, so if you do assert "There is no God" then I'm happy with you referring to yourself as an "atheist".

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #395]

You never answered the question. If you truly did not know would you answer 1. or 2.? I was not asking about what you were convinced of or not.

But the whole issue with being an atheist isn't "I don't know." It is not being convinced leading to the the position "I don't believe." You don't seem to appreciate that these are two very different things. I don't believe that the Loch Ness Monster exists because there's never been a legitimate sighting, there would have to be multiple individuals in order to procreate, it would have to be an incredible hiding expert given all the attempts to find it (much like gods in that regard), etc. I'm convinced for these reasons and others that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. Saying I don't know if it exists or not is much less committal. It is a position without reasons to lean one way or the other.

Besides (see red emphasis) that argument amounts to the argument "There is no John" classic atheism, so if you do assert "There is no God" then I'm happy with you referring to yourself as an "atheist".

No. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods (broad definition), not a denial of gods or a claim that they do not exist. I don't believe that gods exist for the same reasons I don't believe the Loch Ness Moster exists (or Bigfoot, or Leprechauns, etc.) ... the absence of any evidence to convince me otherwise. If the Loch Ness Monster is suddenly discovered, I'd believe it exists, but I'm 99.999...% convinced it does not for legitimate reasons far beyond "I don't know."

[Sherlock Holmes]

You will not find any example of your usage of "atheist" in any publication prior to 1976 - prove me wrong why don't you?

From a speech given by Charles Bradlaugh, 112 years before 1976 (source):

I wish, before concluding, to point out to you that in the position I have taken up I do not stand here to prove that there is no God. If I should undertake to prove such a proposition, I should deserve the ill words of the oft-quoted psalmist applied to those who say there is no God. I do not say there is no God, but I am an Atheist without God.

Since there were apparently a number of religious commentators that felt the need to tell people what an atheist really was, his daughter reaffirmed his stance in her 1908 biography, Charles Bradlaugh: A Record of His Life and Work (Internet Archive):

There is just one passage in Mr Bradlaugh’s opening speech which is given fairly fully, and which it is desirable to repeat here, for in it he lays down his position as an Atheist, a position to which he adhered until his last hour.

“He did not deny that there was ‘a God,’ because to deny that which was unknown was as absurd as to affirm it. As an Atheist he denied the God of the Bible, of the Koran, of the Vedas, but he could not deny that of which he had no knowledge.”

This statement Mr Bradlaugh made, in varying words, over and over again, and yet over and over again religious writers and speakers have described, and probably they always will describe, the Atheist as “one who denies God.”

I suppose that's technically two examples. Both publications are about the same person, though, so I'll just call it one.

Of course you'll have to do something that very few do these days and that is stop relying 100% on the web as your only source of knowledge. I happen to have a reasonable library of perhaps a thousand books and so I am not bound to the web.

Perhaps you need a thousand and one.

The very text you quoted contains "As an Atheist he denied the God of the Bible, of the Koran, of the Vedas" that is he was specific about what it was he was atheist (denier of) with respect to. Nowhere will you find a publication stating that atheism means "I do not hold a belief in God" as representing atheism, so care to try again?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #395]

You never answered the question. If you truly did not know would you answer 1. or 2.? I was not asking about what you were convinced of or not.

But the whole issue with being an atheist isn't "I don't know." It is not being convinced leading to the the position "I don't believe." You don't seem to appreciate that these are two very different things.

1. If I know some proposition is true then I will hold a belief in the proposition.
2. If I know the proposition is false then I will not hold a belief in the proposition.
3. If I do not know whether the proposition is true or false then I will not hold a belief in the proposition.

Now since you do not hold a belief in the proposition you must conform to either 2. or 3.

Since you do not affirm "there is no God" (2.) your position must be 3. and so it is logically equivalent to I don't know, i.e. you are an agnostic - sorry but you are!

You can only "not hold a belief" if either you now the claim is false or you do not know if the claim is true or false, is there another possible combination here that I've missed?

I don't believe that the Loch Ness Monster exists because there's never been a legitimate sighting, there would have to be multiple individuals in order to procreate, it would have to be an incredible hiding expert given all the attempts to find it (much like gods in that regard), etc. I'm convinced for these reasons and others that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. Saying I don't know if it exists or not is much less committal. It is a position without reasons to lean one way or the other.

Besides (see red emphasis) that argument amounts to the argument "There is no John" classic atheism, so if you do assert "There is no God" then I'm happy with you referring to yourself as an "atheist".

No. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods (broad definition), not a denial of gods or a claim that they do not exist. I don't believe that gods exist for the same reasons I don't believe the Loch Ness Moster exists (or Bigfoot, or Leprechauns, etc.) ... the absence of any evidence to convince me otherwise. If the Loch Ness Monster is suddenly discovered, I'd believe it exists, but I'm 99.999...% convinced it does not for legitimate reasons far beyond "I don't know."

Once again one can only "lack a belief" in X if either one knows X is false or one does not know if X is true or false.

See? I told you, all of you, that this stunningly ridiculous "definition" of atheism is vacuous, the Emperor's new clothes haughtiness masquerading as erudition.

[JoeyKnothead]

Seriously this entire militant atheism is utter foolishness masquerading as intellectual, people just don't respect truth any more.

Of course we respect truth.

We just don't respect your claim to know it.

[JoeyKnothead]

So our resident theist, so thoroughly trounced in the evolution debate, now must declare only his definitions are valid.

Lol

In language, the meanings of words shift and change like the winds. It's as if these meanings evolve. This is why dictionaries must be updated from time to time.


But our resident theist ain't got him one, so here we go - "You gotta use the definition I say ya gotta use!"

I'm an atheist cause I don't believe gods exist.

I'm an agnostic cause there might just be a teapot up there orbiting around somewhere.