Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?

Well, I'm pretty sure it's possible to word this better, but here we go anyway... Lately, reading through some of the posts by YECs, and especially (though not on purpose) Faith, I seemed to notice some sort of vague pattern appearing. Reactions, arguments and ways of thinking that seem to point in some general direction. It's more of a gut feeling and hard to define, but to me it feels like somekind of "signature" that is typical for YEC, or even (fanatically) religious people in general.I was reminded of it again by some of Faith's reactions in the latest thread she started. For example: It struck me that this ('springing up') is still how Faith (instinctively) thinks about abiogenesis. Despite the hundreds or even thousands of posts that have been invested in explaining that the idea of some big, discrete jump from "dead" to "alive" is not at all how abiogenesis is envisioned. All that kind of arguing doesn't seem to really 'stick' for some reason. That is, it might be "understood", but it is not allowed full entrance.I think it has been argued that being susceptible to religion, and everything associated, might just be a matter of brain-wiring. As if a certain type of 'architecture' is burnt into the neural network which makes it very hard, upto almost impossible, to break out of a certain type of thinking/worldview. (not arguing it should be considered a brain disease or something ;-) )I've been thinking about this, and it looks to me like the underlying cause might be a problem with the general concepts of ambiguity, uncertainty and vaguenessI will give a couple of examples below, interpreted from this point of view.At the root, there seems to be somekind of fear. The fear of losing a solid, certain ground under your feet and under everything your worldview is built upon? Maybe it feels to them as if allowing ambiguity and uncertainty into their world, leads to somekind of slippery slope? Give it a finger, and before you know it, it takes an arm and the rest follows? Because these concepts attack absoluteness and certainty. Since evolution is a concept that is filled with ambiguity and fuzzyness of all sorts, it is apparently experienced as a particularly threatening idea.Here are some of the thoughts and reasonings that contributed to my little "hypothesis":- Improbable is often handled as if it means impossible. So if you can argue that something is very improbable, it feels like you have disproved it adequately. Accepting the reality of existing intermediate possibilities seems a real fight. It's either "on" or "off". A maybe is regarded as uncomfortable? I guess because a maybe is fatally in conflict with an omnipotent being?- Mutation has a very strong connotation about it of being detrimental. Or at least there is an almost unstoppable desire to definitively catalogue it as either detrimental or beneficial. It seems impossible to regard it as a completely neutral (random) event without some fixed predetermined associated value. Faith's initial difficulty to understand why mutations have a small, but not impossibly small, chance to lead to immunity of bacteria, was another illustration. I think this was caused by her inability to accept that we are talking about some blind mechanism attacking another blind mechanism.- No matter how often it is explained that any random factors in evolution are always assisted by a decidedly non-random force as natural selection or chemistry laws in case of abiogenesis, YEC almost ALWAYS fall back to the "random rethoric" at some point. They really see a claim of randomness as a weak point that can be used in an attack. As if they can not allow the concept, that anything with a random component could possibly lead to something meaningful, into their thinking. To some progress in a recognizable direction. Teleologic appearance can only be caused by a "real" underlying goal or meaning. In their view, if you can argue that ANY involved supposed mechanism has a random component, you have illustrated that it can not possibly be the whole story.- Essentialism reigns; discrete kinds , which are completely seperated from each other, are a given. That's where it all starts. "Show me an example of a dog evolving into a cat!!" Dogs are dogs, cats are cats. The concepts of something being "more or less dog" or "more or less cat" don't seem to be allowed or thinkable. Gradualism is literally unthinkable! Definitions are absolute and unmovable. Everything should be crammed into its little niche, or otherwise it can not properly "be"? Think about how the term 'bastard' has a negative connotation. Or think about Arian 'purity'...- Behaviour is either "good" or "bad", depending on what the Bible says, and this is not negotiable. There's no room for context (like changing of the times, changing of society etc...). Literal interpretation of the Bible in general is the same issue. Something is absolute, or it "is" not.- Failure to get the words "I don't know" over their lips. Instead, one insists on invoking "God" to avoid this. Strangely, the argument from incredulity is used often, but just to be able to refer to creation or causation by a higher being. The higher being seems to be the safe haven. And "being safe", soothing yourself with the idea of the higher being, is regarded more important than allowing the uncertainty, even if it is only temporary and leads to new knowledge.Thoughts?

I'm having a hard time following your logic. Maybe one of the other Admins could do better but it would help if you really tied the early part with the later. They don't seem really tied together.

---

But where should it go?

It belongs *a little* in a religous forum, but not enough I guess. "Miscellaneous" looks like the only alternative... (?)

We are having issues with long opening posts. The goal here is to create a concise idea that will be easily understood by people who see your post. How about a new title? We could call it Certainty supports evolution.

That would be a title opposite of the intent I think.However, I see your point, it is attempting to give the entire argument in one post. I guess developing it further later would have been better. But do people ever give anyone a chance to do that?This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-07-2005 09:47 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

A rather condescending remark. Poor dears, they can't help it, they're born that way.By this logic, I suppose that being susceptible to atheism is also a matter of brain-wiring, so the two sets of brain wiring cancel each other out.

That was certainly not the best section, lol. As I pointed out a bit later, I don't see this as some brain deficiency or something. More like the differences in how men and women think, for example. I think it has been confirmed that female and male brains DO work differently on average?

One can suppose emotional reasons, and one can suppose emotional reasons why one would be an atheist. But of course your topic is not religion/atheism but creationism/evolution. One can be religious--one can even be a Christian--and accept the scientific evidence for evolution. The only thing you cannot accept is a literal interpretation of Genesis. But if you don't accept Genesis literally, why accept the rest? I have a Jewish friend who has an elaborate theory about how the truth of Genesis can be reconciled with evolutionary theory by interpreting Gen in a symbolic manner. Here, he's having it both ways. I wondered why that mattered, but if Genesis was not TRUE in some sense then the Torah was suspect. Jewish tradition would be suspect. That will not do.That's one point we can make, but there's lots more: for example, that creationism is a political movement not just a religious movement.

Well, I don't really want to focus this on religion and dogma. The thing is, I can't think of other examples. Probably because having a problem with ambiguity, uncertainty and vagueness will almost automatically make someone susceptible to religion. So people like that will inevitably be religious.Let me expand a little on one of the examples that I mentioned, just to get a better idea what I was getting at exactly:Like we saw, Faith had great trouble to imagine how mutations can have beneficial effects, and thus could be preserved by natural selection. My explanation for this goes as follows:In Faith's worldview, the world makes sense and has inherent purpose. Even if she doesn't understand everything, she will take that as a given because the world was created by an omnipotent and benevolent being. This means that everything was created to (perfectly) fullfill a purpose, and this in perfect harmony with everything else that was created. It's like pieces of a puzzle that fit together perfectly, with no margins between the pieces.If you think like that, any small changes (to the shape of the pieces) will almost by definition be detrimental. The pieces of the puzzle might still connect, but at the very least there will be gaps between them. It starts to look ugly. It no longer works as it should.This in contrast with how the puzzle REALLY looks. In reality, mutation and natural selection have 'puzzled together' a puzzle that doesn't contain 1000 pieces that fit perfectly, but 10.000.000 extremely small pieces that manage to keep the puzzle together despite having small gaps between them almost everywhere. The puzzle is "good enough" but not perfect. Actually, it does look perfect if you look at it from sufficient distance. The puzzle was put together by random mutation and natural selection, and it only holds together because the actual sub-units it works with are so small. And here, mutations (small random changes) might actually work in such a way that they fill up gaps between the pieces and make things work better.It's as if in Faith's view, the world is made up of bigger modules, constructed with special purposes and perfected for this(no ambiguity or vagueness). Random small changes can only make things worse.

Genesis, and the Bible as a whole, is a Theological compendium, not a Science or History Text.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't understand your use of the word "perfect." Evolution is mindless accident. Looked at from a human point of view, the transmission of life is prone to occasional error--like birth defects.Life is also set up in such a way that in order to survive, life forms have to feed on other life forms. That's not nice.

I meant that in the sense that creationists and IDers use the "perfection" to argue an intelligent design behind it.

For what it's worth, I have suspected for a very long time that the reason many people embrace religious extremism and dogmatism is because of a great discomfort with ambiguity and uncertainty.It comes down to "I really WANT God to exist and for humans to be specially created, because the alternative is uncomfortable and unsatisfactory. Therefore, I believe God exists."It's about fear, with a liberal dollop of vanity and ego added.Faith more or less confirmed this to be true in a recent thread.