Is "scientific creationism" on the way out?

[pitabread]

A couple decades ago, it was quite common to see creationists using purported scientific arguments in favor of creationism (esp. YECism).

You don't see that much any more, at least around these parts. I find it interesting that some creationists seem to have completely eschewed trying to make any scientific arguments, arguing that creationism is outside of the realm of science (which is certainly true insofar as anything supernatural goes).

So is the time of trying to convince people that creationism has a real scientific basis gone?

 

[essentialsaltes]

YEC as a scientific topic has been dead for a long time. The somewhat more subtle OEC Intelligent Design has also been a failure. In the Wedge Document, they set out that they would have all these scientific papers published and they never managed to deliver.

It's been very interesting. Maybe I'm colored by my own experience, but I think a lot of nontheists here came initially for the science/creationism forums. And then many of us drifted over in the politics section. Now that 'alternative facts', delusional theories, and disregard for expert advice have become commonplace in the political forums, I think this has now been reflected back into the science forums. Nobody cares what the boffins think, or what the facts show, so there's no point trying to make antievolutionism scientifically respectable. Here, watch this YouTube video about the flat earth.

 

[Brightmoon]

Well aside from the occasional creationists trying the Information con game without understanding what information is, most of the others just seem completely ignorant of even middle school science

 

[Occams Barber]

A couple decades ago, it was quite common to see creationists using purported scientific arguments in favor of creationism (esp. YECism).

You don't see that much any more, at least around these parts. I find it interesting that some creationists seem to have completely eschewed trying to make any scientific arguments, arguing that creationism is outside of the realm of science (which is certainly true insofar as anything supernatural goes).

So is the time of trying to convince people that creationism has a real scientific basis gone?

Is it likely that the ID/Creationist groups strongly overlap with the pro-Trump crowd?

If this right, it may be that they (the pro-Trumpers) have been far too distracted desperately arguing Trump's electoral invincibility to bother with getting into creationist/evolution discussions.

OB

 

[Brightmoon]

Creationists numbers have been dropping for decades . It’s not just this election. Honestly Jurassic Park ( the book and the movies) helped mainstream science a lot. One reason there’s been a drop has been that silly insistence on the Flintstones being a sort of history . You also get a sort of super fast evolution with some versions of the “kinds” story .

 

[Gene2memE]

A couple decades ago, it was quite common to see creationists using purported scientific arguments in favor of creationism (esp. YECism).

You don't see that much any more, at least around these parts. I find it interesting that some creationists seem to have completely eschewed trying to make any scientific arguments, arguing that creationism is outside of the realm of science (which is certainly true insofar as anything supernatural goes).

So is the time of trying to convince people that creationism has a real scientific basis gone?

I feel like the overlap of people on the Venn diagram those who have significant scientific qualifications on one side and accept a literal account of creation on the other is getting smaller and smaller.

I can think of a some contributory factors for this:

The general shift in the US away from young earth creationism, particularly in the younger demographics. The 'scientific creationists' of note tend to be in their 60s and 70s now.

The failure of creationists in the previous ~30 years to get creationism into classrooms.

The strengthening of defense mechanisms within the scientific community as a response to the various waves of scientific creationism movements starting in the 1960s.

Christian biblical literalists opting for degrees outside of STEM fields, and thus not seriously attempting to defend creationism on a scientific basis.


What I do worry about is the 'undergrounding' of the movement - a shift out of the public eye and into the realm of the homeschooling and private Christian education. An ever larger section of the US Protestant community seems to be firewalling itself off from the rest of reality, into its own quiet happy place.

 

[d taylor]

God will always have a small remnant, who will believe His word (Bible) and believe His true creation. And to those who believe in the true creation, as they try and witness, also understand.

Like receiving Eternal Life, very few will believe In the true creation, as many will not trust in The Messiah for Gods gift of Eternal Life. But to have a large majority in belief, is not required for the truths of God to be true.

 

[d taylor]

Since the fall of Adam (and of mankind) sinful mankind has easily been attracted to believe in the lie, lies. Much more so than to seek out the truth, there was only 8 left to enter the ark.

 

[Strathos]

Creationists numbers have been dropping for decades . It’s not just this election. Honestly Jurassic Park ( the book and the movies) helped mainstream science a lot. One reason there’s been a drop has been that silly insistence on the Flintstones being a sort of history . You also get a sort of super fast evolution with some versions of the “kinds” story .

Not that that movie was particularly scientifically accurate...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God will always have a small remnant, who will believe His word (Bible) and believe His true creation. And to those who believe in the true creation, as they try and witness, also understand.

Like receiving Eternal Life, very few will believe In the true creation, as many will not trust in The Messiah for Gods gift of Eternal Life. But to have a large majority in belief, is not required for the truths of God to be true.

Nice words, but have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Brightmoon]

Not that that movie was particularly scientifically accurate...

Little kids don’t care they just love dinosaurs . Paleontologists numbers went up due to that movie and book sparking initial interest in one or more of the sciences . I remember my youngest son being hooked on an expensive magazine that had dinosaurs as the subject. Even I was surprised at how many different dinosaurs there were .

 

[Strathos]

Little kids don’t care they just love dinosaurs . Paleontologists numbers went up due to that movie and book sparking initial interest in one or more of the sciences . I remember my youngest son being hooked on an expensive magazine that had dinosaurs as the subject. Even I was surprised at how many different dinosaurs there were .

Well we have probably only discovered a small fraction of them. And a lot of them probably looked and sounded a lot different than we imagine.

 

[Job 33:6]

A couple decades ago, it was quite common to see creationists using purported scientific arguments in favor of creationism (esp. YECism).

You don't see that much any more, at least around these parts. I find it interesting that some creationists seem to have completely eschewed trying to make any scientific arguments, arguing that creationism is outside of the realm of science (which is certainly true insofar as anything supernatural goes).

So is the time of trying to convince people that creationism has a real scientific basis gone?

I don't think it's gone, but I would agree that it's on its way out.

Years ago there were far more Creationists on other forums that I've been around as well. Those golden days appear to be gone.

Polls appear to suggest the same.

 

[hedrick]

There has been a slow decline, but it’s not that large. 40% of Americans Believe in Creationism

 

[Speedwell]

There has been a slow decline, but it’s not that large. 40% of Americans Believe in Creationism

And most of those are fighting it out on the political front. I expect they think if they can get Donald in for another term they will be able to just legislate Creationism into the schools and they won't have to pretend it's science any more.

 

[pitabread]

There has been a slow decline, but it’s not that large. 40% of Americans Believe in Creationism

Demographically speaking, they are posed for more substantial decline. The younger generations haven't flocked to creationism the same way as past generations. As the Boomers pass on, those numbers will keep going down.

Likewise, teaching of creationism is down in U.S. schools over the past decade.

 

[d taylor]

Nice words, but have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Well in a way (which i left to much unsaid) people like ken ham (answers in Genesis) and others, more than likely are causing a drop in Biblical creation believers. By not believing and teaching the complete creation given in the Bible. They they take Adam and place Him in sciences created creation and not the creation God created in the Bible.

So trying to make the Bible align with science, using sciences creation will always cause a problem for a Biblical creationist. And as ken ham has demonstrated in debates, a foolish creationist. That can only cause or raise doubt in many, especially believers.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well in a way (which i left to much unsaid) people like ken ham (answers in Genesis) and others, more than likely are causing a drop in Biblical creation believers. By not believing and teaching the complete creation given in the Bible. They they take Adam and place Him in sciences created creation and not the creation God created in the Bible.

So trying to make the Bible align with science, using sciences creation will always cause a problem for a Biblical creationist. And as ken ham has demonstrated in debates, a foolish creationist. That can only cause or raise doubt in many, especially believers.

You know... I can actually agree with that.

 

[Occams Barber]

I just remembered a thread I started back in September which showed the current (2019) state of creationist/evolution based education compared to 2007.

I've pasted the OP below.

OB

********************************************************​

Creationism Losing Ground in Education

In 2019 the National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) commissioned a survey of US public high school biology teachers. The survey duplicated a similar survey conducted in 2007 and was designed to assess shifts in the teaching of evolution, in US public schools, in the intervening 12 years.

As part of both surveys participant teachers were assigned to four categories based on responses to a number of questions, on attitudes to evolution/creationism. These questions were taken from standard Gallup surveys.

The categories were (bolded titles are my shorthand way of identifying each group):

• ‘Evolutionists’ - Those who emphasised to their students that evolution is established, fact- based science and did not include pro-creation messages in their teaching
• ‘Creationists’ - Exclusively pro-creationist teachers who agreed that they emphasized creationism as a “valid scientific alternative” to their students
• ‘Avoiders’ - Those who avoided endorsing evolution or creationism
• ‘Mixers’ - Those who endorsed both evolution and creationism

In 2007 ‘Evolutionists’ were 51% of the group. By 2019 this had increased to 67%.

Most of this increase came from a reduction in the ‘Mixer’ category from 23% down to 12 %

‘Avoiders’ decreased from 18% to 15% while ‘Creationists’ fell from 8.6% to 5.6%.

The survey also looked at time devoted to teaching evolution. In 2007, the average number of hours devoted to teaching evolution was 9.8 hours, with human evolution in particular receiving 4.1 hours. In 2019, the average number of hours devoted to teaching evolution was up to 12.4 hours, a rise of 25 percent, with human evolution in particular receiving 7.7 hours, a rise of 90 percent.

Part of the explanation for the shift involves the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), the model set of state science education standards introduced in 2013, and adopted in twenty states so far. Evolution features prominently in the NGSS, which include “Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity” as a core idea of the life sciences. A number of other states have adopted standards based on the NGSS.

Sources:
Article
Evolution Education: What a Difference a Dozen Years Makes! | Skeptical Inquirer
Original Research Paper
Teaching evolution in U.S. public schools: a continuing challenge

 

[Occams Barber]

This Gallup graph shows the trends in evolution/creation based belief since 1983.
Creationist type belief (the grey line) has been remarkably consistent for almost 40 years.

Acceptance of non-theistic evolution (dark green line) has been growing but very, very slowly.

(note that the graph refers specifically to human evolution)

40% of Americans Believe in Creationism (gallup.com)

OB