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]

Let's discuss logic.

1. If I know some proposition is true then I will hold a belief in the proposition.

Often provisionally, considering I thought Mary Jones really did love me.

Here I think of Christians who'd declare Truth(tm), then be either unwilling or unable to show it to be true.

2. If I know the proposition is false then I will not hold a belief in the proposition.

Same here. Provisionally.

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

Here I ask the propositiiner to support their proposition.

If they set into making excuses as to why they can't, refusing to support, or toss about insults, I'm far less likely to ever believe anything it is, that propositioner's to proposition.

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

As with so many questions, a simple yes or no ain't sufficient.

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

A case of understanding that just a yes or no ain't always the best way to go just might fill all our bellies.

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

After you...

[JoeyKnothead]

Timely...

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

I think I've had to tell this before, but I know William. I've had many thoughtful and stimulating conversations with William.

You, sir, are no William.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
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.

Consistency of errancy.

A = non

Theism = belief in gods

But hey, at least the diversion's working, we ain't fussing on evilution.

[Jose Fly]

Further evidence of the issue's demise...

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2023/04 ... ndead.html

[boatsnguitars]

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!

I still see a few old guards who try to keep it alive, but it's just sad to see. They seem to have not tried to learn one thing about Evolution in the last 20 years. (There are a few people over at WLC's forum that still cling to ID and Creationism).

But, yes, ID was their last gasp and it failed miserably.

The problem is that they are just laying low, reformulating their approach and we'll see it again. Probably with lots of references to quantum theory, AI, and other new tech - since there will be many gaps for them to shove God into.

[William]

Has it been confirmed that we do not exist within a created thing?

[JoeyKnothead]

Has it been confirmed that we do not exist within a created thing?

Has it been confirmed that we do?

But I get ya. We'd hafta be be pretty smug to think we can't be wrong about something we think we have so right.

I'm definitely a proponent of evolution as a thing. That said, I've only ever observed a change of species once. I'd married this chick, then during the divorce she turned into a monster. That's all the proof I need right there.

I understand why someone might reject evolution, if they concentrate solely on the big picture (molecules to man is a phrase). I, as an amateur, have enough reports I've not confirmed but consider reliable, to think evolution is the way. Of course, the how of evolution should be held to scrutiny.

A created thing?

My best, most honest answer must be, "Beats me" - and that works from both sides of it.

We ain't even got the wimmins figured out, who is so proud to think they have our origins figured out?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #417]

Has it been confirmed that we do not exist within a created thing?

Has it been confirmed that we do?

The answer is "no" on both ideas.

But I get ya. We'd hafta be be pretty smug to think we can't be wrong about something we think we have so right.

Yes - either way, when statements are made implying either position is the correct one, there is often a type of smugness being transmitted.

I'm definitely a proponent of evolution as a thing. That said, I've only ever observed a change of species once. I'd married this chick, then during the divorce she turned into a monster. That's all the proof I need right there.

What is being described there is that the mind is the proponent which propels the expressions - be they angelic, demonic or elsewise...

The mind too, evolves.

I understand why someone might reject evolution, if they concentrate solely on the big picture (molecules to man is a phrase). I, as an amateur, have enough reports I've not confirmed but consider reliable, to think evolution is the way. Of course, the how of evolution should be held to scrutiny.

Evolution is just the means by which the thing is produced. It cannot in itself say that mind is not involved in said process.
That is the folly of many religious mythologies and beliefs. The stories they engage with need to be believed and since the stories often present another layer over the experience of this realty, the method of evolution is rejected, even that it is obviously actually happening and can be poked, prodded and measured...once mind creates the tools to do so.

There is no reason why the process has to have it that the mind is "outside" of the matter.

A created thing?

A mind creating the thing, from within that which is being created.

My best, most honest answer must be, "Beats me" - and that works from both sides of it.

We ain't even got the wimmins figured out, who is so proud to think they have our origins figured out?

The trick is actually to figure oneself out and leave the others to figure their selves out - drop a hint or two along the way - yeah, why not?
But it is enough that we use the time that we each have, at least to figure out who/what we are amongst it all.