Don't Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder

Don't Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking HarderThis article appeared today on NPR and is worth a gander.The article was written by Tania Lombrozo-(who) is a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. She writes about psychology, cognitive science and philosophy, with occasional forays into parenting and veganism.After reading the article and considering what I got out of it, all I could say was that it caused me to think harder.My favorite sentence?

quote:

---

Evolution isn't controversial for scientific reasons, but it is controversial, in part, for psychological reasons.

---

Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

The words 'I could have told you that' spring to mind.Surely it can't be a surprise to find (the 3rd conclusion that she finds compelling) that if you're brought up in a culture of belief and anti-science, you're likely to think in the same way?

My take on this is that the analysis described that needs to be done to accept a non-supernatural world is harder to do than to not accept a non-supernatural world.So when there is no compelling reason to go to the trouble to do this analysis (such as the cultural point raised or needing to do some academic research) one will carry on not accepting an intuitive version of the world.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

I think the author had it right when she described the cultural factors involved in acceptance of evolution:

quote:

---

For decades we've known that beliefs about evolution are well-predicted by demographic factors, such as religious upbringing and political affiliation. There's also enormous variation in the acceptance of evolution across different countries, all of which suggests an important role for cultural input in driving beliefs about evolution. A child raised by Buddhists in California is much more likely to accept evolution than one raised by evangelical Protestants in Kansas. (Emphasis in original)

---

However, when she starts exploring the psychological factors and "cognitive styles" that contribute to the degree of acceptance of evolution, she even points out the weakness of her own approach:

quote:

---

These factors are typically taken to hold for all humans, not only those who reject evolution. But this naturally raises a question about what differentiates those individuals who do accept evolution from those who do not. In other words, if the California Buddhist and the Kansas Protestant share the same cognitive mechanisms, what accounts for their differing views on evolution?

---

I guess it depends on how convincing you find this sort of 21st-century phrenology. I think there's much more to be said for the way that certain communities relate to knowledge, especially knowledge that's as counter-intuitive as that which supports the theory of evolution. The problems of public education, and the reluctance of school systems to emphasize evolution by natural selection in biology curricula, provide a vast amount of soil for misunderstanding to thrive even among people who affirm the validity of species evolution.Politically, the right wing obviously has a vested interest in de-emphasizing a theory that unsettles its religious constituents. However, the specter of Social Darwinism is just as disturbing to progressives. Economically, there's a lot of money to be made in the textbook trade, and the cottage industry of anti-Darwinist literature and film can be just as lucrative as the one that put money in the pockets of celebrity debater/authors like Dawkins.Which brings me to one last cultural factor that's a stumbling block to the acceptance of species evolution: the way Darwinism has become a totem of anti-religious activism. It's a little disingenuous of us to tout the Christianity-crushing power of evolution by natural selection on one hand (and put Darwin-fish bumper stickers on our cars to taunt the fundies), then turn around and act astonished when people continue to express doubt about the construct on religious grounds.Edited by MrHambre, : Typo.

Except that Social Darwinism is offensive BS that pretends a relation with science. Unless you are in a discussion with someone with an anti-science bent, there is no reason to let go of evolutionary theory just to dismiss Social Darwinism.On the other hand, the religious right largely forgoes any reconciliation of their views with science.

Let me fix that for you.On the other hand, the religious right largely forgoes any reconciliation of their views with reality.It's not just science, it is economics, language, politics, health care, anything that in anyway conflicts with their beliefs.

I don't dispute that. However, the line cuts both ways. I think claiming that Darwinism is synonymous with atheism, or that evolution by natural selection is inherently anti-religious, is a form of pseudoscience too. Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

I agree, but creationists insist on both.

Fixed it for you.

They believe we all are in a war. They don't trust human wisdom--alone---as the engine with which to move forward in scientific, cultural, and anthropological progress. They are afraid to see reality as evidenced. They can't handle observable truth, just as many scientific humanists cant handle religious dogma.

More nonsense.No one has a problem "handling" religious dogma, they just acknowledge that it is nothing but dogma. What demons? Is there, has there ever been, any evidence that a demon even exists? Yet not a single one has ever been able to provide any evidence that there is any resource other than "Human wisdom".

Since both agree to the same things then there is no problem.BTW, that's "Gnu". Gotta keep up with the culture.

These articles are nothing but filth!!It doesn't surprise me that evolutionists resort to negative stereotyping of creationists. It is something that they have become very good at. It is more or less the only weapon they have in their arsenal. They certainly don't have science on their side.In any event, belief in Christ is a religion. So is believing in evolution. Both group must have faith. Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.My great-great-great-great grandfather (his name was Common Sense) had faith, and he believed in creation. And based on the Holy Bible and that unwavering belief he made several startling predictions.He predicted that animals will produce after their own kind. He predicted that a canine will give birth only to a canine--never to a porcupine, monkey, or any other animal; that a feline will give birth to a feline; and, that a coelacanth will only come from another coelacanth. He wrote in his own words that a coelacanth will never morph into something other than what it is.Furthermore, he predicted that cockroaches will produce only cockroaches, and that crocodiles will produce only crocodiles. He said that his descendants could verify his predictions by a process called science. In this case, he called it "operational/observable science."My 4greatgrandfather, Mr. Common Sense, accepted, as fact, that all animals were created six thousand years ago, and that there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all air breathing birds and land animals.Mr. Common Sense was certain that the global flood, which covered the entire earth, would have quickly buried billions of organisms, and that this event would have left millions of fossils that would be discovered in time.He predicted that the flood would have sorted and deposited the plants and animals by buoyancy , density, habitat, and mobility. He firmly believed that trilobites, crabs, some fish and bottom dwelling animals would be found in the lower layers of sediment.My 4gg, Mr. Sense, wrote in his journal that amphibians, reptiles and some mammals would be found in the succeeding layers. He asserted that birds, humans, and the more intelligent and mobile animals would seek higher ground and become the last to perish. Not being covered quickly with sediment, he believed that they would leave few fossils. He (I believe more from prophecy that prediction) stated that more than 400 mammals would be found in the same rock strata as dinosaurs. Wow!!! Talking about insight.Based upon his understanding of the nature of humanity, as revealed within the pages of that wonderful Book, the Bible, he predicted that people would gradually come to accept a process called "evolution." And, that they would intentionally distort and misrepresent the fossils in order to achieve their goal. I don't know how he knew this, but that man had it going for him.I am sad to say that my 4gg was right when he predicted that dishonest men would subvert the fossils and the story that the fossils told.Common Sense (and, I don't know how he could have known this--but he did) wrote with all capital letters in his journal that unscrupulous men would devise a system of dating the fossils by the rocks they were found in. And by dating the rocks by the fossils that were found in them. He called it "circular reasoning" at its most extreme. It was, according to him, absurd, and against true science.He was furious that this trickery (or, I can't quite make it out. it could be quackery) went against (pardon the pun) common sense; reliability; integrity; but most of all science, especially "operational science."Common Sense wrote that the only point that everyone will be able to agree on is that all these fossils died. We do not know whether any of them had reproduced or not. And, he was absolutely right in saying that if any of them did, there is no reason to believe they were capable of doing what animals today can't do; and that is to produce offsprings that are not of their own kind.Wow, this is some exciting stuff, but I have promised to take my lovely wife to dinner. I know everyone is as excited as I am to see how much insight and foresight my g44, Common Sense, had. He was a remarkable man, but I must put his journal up for tonight.I will publish some more of his journal at a later date.

If it is of the same quality as the above, don't bother.It has all been dealt with before. Try a little research here:An Index to Creationist Claims

Oh yeah, I forgot to add:My 4gg said that one day discussion groups would be started about this very topic. He also said that people who know very little about creation would post meaningless links. It was his opinion that they would be incapable of typing their own words.He wrote in his journal that these unscrupulous people would be incapable (because the light of truth would scramble their brains) of putting anything in their own words (I think he said that it would be difficult for them to get pass, duh--Yes, that's it. He said they were stuck on the word "duh," whatever that means.I don't understand how he knew, but he said these lazy people would post links because they did not understand what they were posting themselves. People never answer these easy questions themselves. Because they can't.I hope nobody does that on here.