There isn't a shred of scientific evidence for creationism

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
There isn't a shred of scientific evidence for creationism

Yet we repeatedly see apologists try to imply there is. The propaganda movement that has tried to re-brand creationism as 'intelligent design' has even set up their own journals to pretend they are getting scientific ideas peer reviewed. It's all lies and propaganda of course, to try and undermine the scientific fact of species evolution. Anyone ever heard of project Steve?

"Project Steve
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"

The statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

The list of 'Steves'

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Sheldon's picture
Here's a couple of statements

Here's a couple of statements from the USA's elite National Academy of Sciences
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution. However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

© PhotoDisc In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
No problems with any of that

No problems with any of that Sheldon. The more *Americans write here thought the more I sit back with jaw dropping surprise that such a shambling rambling corrupt load of crap spouters as the 'christian lobby' have gotten so much influence in your daily lives.

We are fighting the same influences in our politics over here with the Australian Christian Lobby ( Fascist backward nutters) and others in government. But there is no enormous groundswell of support for these pricks despite their optimism or blind faith that their beliefs are mainstream, every time their ideas come up for legislation they are roundly defeated by a healthy majority.

So what is going on in the US? It is equally multicutural as Australia, equally large with room for all, so how do these nutters get in your schools and legislature?

Edited: *"you" removed for clarity

Sheldon's picture
I'm from the UK not the US,

I'm from the UK not the US, but yes the creationist lobby and religion in general does seem to wield far more influence in the US than other western democracies. Though the UK has it's problems as well of course.

mykcob4's picture
Well put Sheldon.

Well put Sheldon.

MCDennis's picture
thanks for sharing

thanks for sharing

LogicFTW's picture
Very well said Sheldon.

Very well said Sheldon.

Unfortunately groups with an agenda to push that is contrary to extremely robust scientific findings, have long ago discovered that creating an alternative "disinformation" campaign is highly effective as a vast majority of people lack the tools or time to properly investigate the true authenticity of presented material. Throw in a few PHD's, a few lots of big rarely used words, written grammatically correct research papers, that lean heavily on vague terms and a thick morass of confusing hard to follow wording that reads like greek to anyone including the people that write it, and voila people looking to affirm their biases and share their unfounded biases has an escape route, something to point to. Then attack the very robust true scientific findings putting real scientists on the defense.

Possibly the most famous example that I think we can all agree on is the tobacco industry convincing people for decades cigarettes do not kill and sicken despite overwhelming evidence. And paved the way where the industry still manages to be allow sales of a highly addictive slow working poison that only negatively affects everyone both in 2nd hand smoke and the enormous burden of caring for those that are sickened by cigarettes.

Other examples: Climate change, evolution. In the real work, non agenda based, scientific findings there is no doubt or disagreement that the base of the scientific findings are accurate from people that spend their lives studying and doing real world testing on these subjects.

algebe's picture
@LogicForTW: alternative

@LogicForTW: alternative "disinformation" campaign

They emphasize words that mean the exact opposite of what they're really campaigning for. Opposition to gay marriage is a campaign for freedom of speech. Discrimination against anyone who isn't Christian is packaged as tolerance. And of course, creationists are really campaigners for open-mindedness in school curricula. They lie on a scale that would have embarrassed the tobacco industry.

You mentioned the Australian Christian Lobby before. I had a look at their website. It's full of angst about gays, porn, and sex education, but not a word about the enormous damage caused by pedophile clergy in every denomination from the Catholics to the Sallies. I guess the concept of putting your own house in order is a bit foreign to Crosskissers.

I did find this on their website:
It's time to stand together to stop those exploiting sexuality, stealing people's dignity and self-worth

So maybe we'll see these bigots picketing in front of churches for protection of children from priests. But I doubt it.

Sheldon's picture
All very true sadly, I got to

All very true sadly, I got to the point a while ago when every time a religious apologists dishonestly started to spout their creationist bilge, I'd ask for a link to news stories falsifying evolution and granting the Nobel prize for biology to the scientist who'd falsified it. In the mean time I expressed puzzle that no news channel seemed to have picked up the paradigm shifting story?

It works as well, you cut out pages of dishonest creatard guff, and go straight to their ludicrous conspiracy theories about science, you're done at that point.

LogicFTW's picture
Hah nice, I will have to

Hah nice, I will have to bring that up the next time an apologist spouts off.

xenoview's picture
Even if evolution could be

Even if evolution could be proven false , it doesn't prove a god created anything. Creationist have failed to prove any god is real, or that it created anything.

Sheldon's picture
Correct. I'd just rather cut

Correct. I'd just rather cut straight to the part where they have no evidence, and avoid their embarrassing cliched creationist objections to scientific facts.

Sapporo's picture
The creation of something

The creation of something from nothing in a closed system is not provable.

bigbill's picture
Well I was created in the

Well I was created in the image of God. So therefore GOD is the Creator. are you really going to sit there and tell me this all came from nothing into something .Common I thought you had more sense then that. Where did Man And Women come from? If you can or anybody else on this op forum satisfactorily convince me you know how with all there differences that man and women came into being then maybe then I`ll change my thinking.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
*sigh* your are now making a

*sigh* your are now making a claim. You must prove your claim.

The onus of proof is on you to prove that you are 'made' in the image of your god.

How many times must you read that before it finally sinks in?

(Edited for brevity)

bigbill's picture
In the torah the first book

In the torah the first book of the bible explicitly states that God made man from the dust of the ground Then woman followed and God saw at first that man was alone and so he formed woman. Simple as that; Why do you atheist have to make what is so simple to outright hard and complex .I t is right there in Genesis the whole creation story. As for you Mate Sheldon you are ignorant and at times arrogant. That`s why great Britain has the kind of problems it does, Is because Liberals like you. Who is destroying what was once a great Country into shreds. Internally your descending into chaos.

Sapporo's picture
The Torah is false. i was the

The Torah is false. I was the one that created man. Simple as that.

bigbill's picture
You are smoking some strange

You are smoking some strange stuff, You better get with it or else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sapporo's picture
You were made in the image of

You were made in the image of myself.

bigbill's picture
I laugh out LOUD when you

I laugh out LOUD when you people on this forum go off on tangents and don`t try to address the subject at hand. By the way you look like a failed comedian here.

Sapporo's picture
I have already addressed the

I have already addressed the subject, as have others. You have not demonstrated how something can come from nothing, nor have you demonstrated that "god" tells you the truth.

bigbill's picture
God is outside time he got

God is outside time he got involved by making man and women I refer you to the book of Genesis; As for knowing Gods truth I just refer to the number one best seller in history "THE BIBLE". Jesus is truth since he is part of the trinity 3 distinct persons and ONE GOD I say that Jesus who is GOD is total TRUTH. He is objective moral TRUTH.

Sapporo's picture
Nothing can be both inside

Nothing can be both inside and outside a closed system.

An objectively moral being would not inflict eternal torture.

Sheldon's picture
What objective evidence have

What objective evidence have you for a transcendent deity? Hitchens's razor is poised here.

"he got involved by making man and women I refer you to the book of Genesis; "

That's a claim not an explanation, I don't care what Genesis says, it is demonstrably false,, and no objective evidence can be demonstrated for any of it.

"As for knowing Gods truth I just refer to the number one best seller in history "THE BIBLE". "

It was banned for centuries by the Christian church, anyone trying to own copy or even read it outside of the church was murdered as a heretic. You're also using argumentum ad populum again, a bare appeal to numbers, it's logically fallacious, look it up if you doubt me.

The rest of your post was just a collection of incoherent claims, any objective evidence?

LogicFTW's picture
I refer you..

I refer you..
I just refer...
I say...

Oh phew, thought you maybe were thinking this was more than just your opinion. Okay someone is spouting their uninformed opinion, everyone move along now.

algebe's picture
@faith in god: Internally

@faith in god: Internally your descending into chaos.

But to be fair, the Brits have never elected a Donald Trump. I think the closest we came was King George IV (aka Prinny, Georgey Porgey, "your fat friend"), but he wasn't elected and had no real power.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Well if you want to talk one

Well if you want to talk one version of the Torah, you are right, Adam's first wife Lillith was created, like Adam from dust according to that story. She was cast out from eden because she kept complaining about Adams hygiene, sexual performance and bone idleness. Its a good story.
Eve was allegedly cloned from Adams rib when he started missing Lillith.

So even at the beginning you have inexplicable contradictions and unsurprisingly you muck up your stories.

For your information the Tories (GOP wannabees) that have totally fucked the UK. As usual the dense, right wing privileged brain challenged hooray Henrys have pursued their ideology to the point of returning Britain to the worst sort of poverty and "little Englandism". They have also managed to destroy the United Kingdom with Scotland well on the way to part company this century, Wales is on the same route. Northern Ireland absorbed into the greater EEC when Brexit happens.

So you see AB/FIG (whatever) you are exposing your yarping ignorance...oh wait...just like those whose ideals you espouse.

Hollis Evon Ramsey's picture
it says so right here;

it says so right here; therefore, it's true ... did you really have the unfounded arrogance to present that drivel as proof of anything? and to use a Creationist "argument," if your deity made men from dust, then why is there still dust?

having both the ignorance and arrogance to apply those terms to Sheldon -- who did a really nice job of explaining "scientific theory" as opposed to Mike Pencian "just-a-theory" -- is demonstrable evidence of the notorious Dunning-Kruger effect in action; see you are guilty of holding your untrained thinking on a higher level than the scrupulously trained thinking of a rational scientific mind. that is arrogance ABOUT ignorance. your "arguments" do not follow logical rules of order; i suspect that your -- again -- arrogance holds you immune from human-imposed rules, once deities are interjected. how convenient for you. but as a Wayans brother used to say: "Homey don't play that."

the use of unproven, unprovable existence is often resorted to in theological debates. however, that leaves you absent a firm foundation upon which to build the structure of your claim. your base has the consistency of quicksand. as the physicist Richard Feynman said, "Give me questions I cannot answer, not answers I cannot question."

to see these theories in action, view the documentary, JUDGMENT DAY: INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL, here: as a "god-fearing" advocate, however, i expect nothing set forth therein to influence your thinking; you have been overcome by a bias so strong that it successfully, spontaneously rejects "mere" words as pablum. the resulting intransigence is, unfortunately, fatal.

such is my diagnosis.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Hollis ( forever be revered

@ Hollis ( forever be revered)
Holy Mother of L Ron. *I stand in my seat clapping and whistling as if the outsiders just won the College Bowl"

Mykcob, we should forget the profanity, this lady just managed a grand "fuck you, idiot" without one swearword. I am going to settle back, attach meself to the coattails and watch this lady burn some out breezy, you are going down boy...

We really need that 10,000 likes button....

Hollis Evon Ramsey's picture
thanks for the flowers, as my

thanks for the flowers, as my late husband used to say in return for a compliment. believers don't have any respect for language except as a weapon. i know my words won't reach him/her; it saddens me, but the insults to Sheldon and to atheists, in general, were not to be tolerated. i took it upon myself to insert a figurative bar of soap into his/her mouth. if only it were that simple in every case ...

Tin-Man's picture
@Miss Hollis

@Miss Hollis

Hope you don't mind, but I'm taking notes from you. Your use of written language to cut, slice, chop and eviscerate is almost surgical. Does a man's heart good to see such fine skills in action. *BIG GRIN*


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.