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!

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I happen to have a reasonable library of perhaps a thousand books and so I am not bound to the web.

We're left to ponder how many crayons it took to complete em all.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #398]

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.

I thought logic was your specialty? Let's try the Loch Ness Monster again. I can't claim with 100% certainty that it does not exist (ie. that I know it does not). So that option is eliminated. Your other option is that I "don't know" if Nessie exists or not, which is no opinion either way. The option you're missing is one that allows a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence along with other possible reasons for not believing (ie. is there a biological basis for it, could such a creature survive in that Loch, etc.).

You're claiming either 100% certainty of nonexistence, or no opinion either way (0% certainty), and ignoring everything in between. If I'm 99.999% certain that Nessie does not exist (for whatever reasons), then it isn't either of your two options in the quote above. It is a reasoned-based opinion that leans far closer to 100% than 0%, but doesn't get to 100%.

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.

Is calling it "stunningly ridiculous" supposed to convince someone that the accepted and most common, broad definition of atheism is wrong? I'm afraid your definition is the one that is at odds with the consensus ... just look up the word in any dictionary.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #398]

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.

I thought logic was your specialty? Let's try the Loch Ness Monster again. I can't claim with 100% certainty that it does not exist (ie. that I know it does not). So that option is eliminated. Your other option is that I "don't know" if Nessie exists or not, which is no opinion either way. The option you're missing is one that allows a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence along with other possible reasons for not believing (ie. is there a biological basis for it, could such a creature survive in that Loch, etc.).

You're claiming either 100% certainty of nonexistence, or no opinion either way (0% certainty), and ignoring everything in between. If I'm 99.999% certain that Nessie does not exist (for whatever reasons), then it isn't either of your two options in the quote above. It is a reasoned-based opinion that leans far closer to 100% than 0%, but doesn't get to 100%.

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.

Is calling it "stunningly ridiculous" supposed to convince someone that the accepted and most common, broad definition of atheism is wrong? I'm afraid your definition is the one that is at odds with the consensus ... just look up the word in any dictionary.

Let's discuss logic.

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.

Do you agree with these three statements? yes or no.

Do you want to add a case that I might have missed? yes or no.

Answer the questions and we'll move to the next step.

[JoeyKnothead]

Timely...

[Sherlock Holmes]

Timely...

Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.
Creation is making things exist.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #403]

Let's discuss logic.

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.

Do you agree with these three statements? yes or no.

Do you want to add a case that I might have missed? yes or no.

Answer the questions and we'll move to the next step.

Why dance around the issue? As far as I can tell your basic point is that atheism is not a lack of belief in gods, but rather a claim that gods positively do not exist. That is the crux of it, correct? A simple dictionary lookup of the word can answer that question so there's really no point in debating it. Here are 3 statements.

1. If I know that gods exist then I will believe in the existence of gods.

2. If I know that gods do not exist then I will not believe in the existence of gods (and may claim that they do not exist because I somehow know this).

3. If I am 99% covinced that gods do not exist, but not 100%, then I lack a belief in the existence of gods but since I'm not 100% certain I cannot claim that they do not exist.

#3 does not fit your scenario but is perfectly logical, and fits the definition of an atheist. You're trying to force either 100% certainty, or 0% ("I don't know") and ignoring anything in between. You can't just willy nilly redefine the word atheist to suit your arguments.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #403]

Let's discuss logic.

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.

Do you agree with these three statements? yes or no.

Do you want to add a case that I might have missed? yes or no.

Answer the questions and we'll move to the next step.

Why dance around the issue? As far as I can tell your basic point is that atheism is not a lack of belief in gods, but rather a claim that gods positively do not exist. That is the crux of it, correct?

My contentions are 1. is that proper definition of atheism (the one we should all be using here for example) is "one who asserts there are no Gods" or some such. and 2. The "modern" definition is vacuous, has no meaning, a contrived way of saying "I don't know" and so should be abandoned in serious discussions.

A simple dictionary lookup of the word can answer that question so there's really no point in debating it. Here are 3 statements.

1. If I know that gods exist then I will believe in the existence of gods.

2. If I know that gods do not exist then I will not believe in the existence of gods (and may claim that they do not exist because I somehow know this).

3. If I am 99% covinced that gods do not exist, but not 100%, then I lack a belief in the existence of gods but since I'm not 100% certain I cannot claim that they do not exist.

#3 does not fit your scenario but is perfectly logical, and fits the definition of an atheist. You're trying to force either 100% certainty, or 0% ("I don't know") and ignoring anything in between. You can't just willy nilly redefine the word atheist to suit your arguments.

So 3. is simply "I don't know" which is to be an agnostic. Certainty would be represented as "100% convinced" (whatever that means) anything less than 100% means uncertainty yes? if you are uncertain then obviously you don't know.

We are discussing binary questions, things do exist or they don't, we do hold a belief in God or we do not, I mean your 99% example is the same surely as holding 1% of a belief in God? if so then you do not have an "absence of belief" in God at all because absence would be represented as 0%.

Can you hold 1% belief? if you can is that honestly to be described as an absence of belief?

My advice is to avoid this mess, it is smoke and mirrors loved by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, not for serious thinkers like us.

[Difflugia]

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?

Now you're grasping at straws. If you're indeed making the argument in good faith, I'm sure that in a careful rereading you will recognize the distinction between what he believed "as an Atheist" and what he thought defined him as atheist: "I do not say there is no God, but I am an Atheist without God."

I'm also guessing that you didn't actually check an old dictionary. I can't prove it because there are so many dictionaries, but the two main nineteenth-century dictionary traditions, Webster's and Oxford, each had two definitions for "atheism," the first or more common of which was for denial or disbelief, but the alternate was "godlessness."

Additionally, as freethought was popular during the late 19^th century, it doesn't take much searching to come up with more examples.

(1870 Source):

Some religious persons charge Atheists with denying the existence of a God. But no Atheist of any position who has written or spoken upon this subject, so far as I am aware, ever was guilty of such folly; for to deny, would imply that you knew there was no God--which would be equivalent in presumption to saying there is one. Thomas Cooper, in his "Purgatory of Suicides," said:—

"I do not say—there is no God;
But this I say—I know not."

(1855 Source):

The theory of Secularism is a form, not of dogmatic, but of sceptical, Atheism; it is dogmatic only in denying the sufficiency of the evidence for the being and perfections of God. It does not deny, it only does not believe, His existence.

On a related note, we once again find ourselves in the position where you are making assertions without presenting any concrete support for them, but instead, offer specious excuses for discounting the evidence supplied by your opponents.

[brunumb]

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

If you do not hold a belief in the proposition that gods do exist, then you are not a theist. You are a non-theist, or .........atheist.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #407]

The "modern" definition is vacuous, has no meaning, a contrived way of saying "I don't know" and so should be abandoned in serious discussions.

You're still missing the fundamental concept that this isn't a binary definition, but you want to insist that it is for some reason. Convinced to 99% certainty (or whatever high percentage you want to use ... I used 99.999% earlier but the number isn't the point) is NOT the same as "I dont' know." I don't know implies no knowledge or opinion, 100% certain implies being absolutely sure, but these are not the only two options so it isn't binary.

So 3. is simply "I don't know" which is to be an agnostic.

No it isn't. It is based on some knowledge, not none, and that knowledge supports a very strong leaning to one end of the spectrum rather than the other. There are true agnostics who don't bother to form an opinion, don't care, think it is unknowable so why bother trying, etc. But an atheist is someone who does have an opinion, usually an informed one, and has decided that gods most likely do not exist (ie. they lack belief that they do). They are not in the category of "I don't know", but in the category of having weighed the evidence available and decided that gods likely do not exist. "I don't know" could not hold such a position.