Humans are hardwired to dismiss (coronavirus) facts that don't fit their worldview

Jul 6, 2020
1
0
10
Americans increasingly exist in highly polarized, informationally insulated ideological communities, allowing them to dismiss scientific facts about coronavirus.

Humans are hardwired to dismiss (coronavirus) facts that don't fit their worldview : Read more
" simply one's political persuasion"? Yes, it may look like that and this was a well-constructed article, but, it struck me as a curious defense of people who have jumped on board with a science denier and a politician who has fanned the flames of hate to get elected. Putting it all on tribalism, something that admittedly is in our genes appears to be ignoring that some humans may evolve better than others. Suggesting that the higher educated conservatives tend to be the ones who are less informed and care less about evolution is interesting if that is true. I'd like to see some stats on that. It could mean that the particular colleges they chose to attend didn't teach science as well, or may have had professors who just were as close-minded as their students?
I found this article to be highly questionable. What about cognitive dissonance? He doesn't mention it but many of the people who don't believe the science seem to come from parts of the country and/or families who have been closed-minded and rigid about many issues for a very long time. Isn't it also possible that some Americans have been evolving and thinking outside the box a lot longer than others?
Wonder how if the author or many of your readers have read "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" by Richard Hofstadter?
This article almost sounds like a reactionary defense of a large part of American society that is more easily swayed by a rather simple-minded authoritarian man than by independent thinking. Does the author really believe that progressives, liberals, all or mostly just jump on one side of a team the way Repubs have been doing? In recent history, at least, one of the biggest critiques of Dems is that there it is so difficult to get an agreement, cohesion from them.
And to bring up Russia as an example, a totalitarian regime is, I think, really telling. No country is pure. We all have our groups of closed-minded, irrational partisans. There's no such thing as a purely rational country because none of us are. But, using Russia as an example of anything except for a country ruled by fear, is insulting to one like ours that, at least supposedly, cares about democracy.
 
Jan 30, 2020
3
2
15
Science is truth?!?! Wow. Science is about probability, about providing the best plausible explanation using the best evidence we have. As best we try, there is always more to learn and understand. In my view, it is ridiculous to claim science is truth. I am glad though, that the author pointed out that we ALL engage in motivated reasoning. We all have filters and worldviews. No one is immune.
 
Jul 7, 2020
4
0
10
Awww man, now all th' flat earthers and such (prolitical picks) will come in h'year and mitch and bone and express their denial...oops, sorry, I see some already have...
 
Jul 7, 2020
1
0
10
I am perplexed that anti-science rhetoric is so often aimed at conservatives with nary a word about liberals (although you did nod to that with your reference to the majority liberal nonsensical position on atomic energy). For example, where do you stand on the denial of science in the debate over genders?
 
Jul 7, 2020
1
1
15
Even if carbon dioxide is causing warming, there are any number of questions.
1. Is our climate now at optimum? and what evidence is there to support that assertion?
2. What actions can mitigate the so called problem? Do we bring all of the world back to the stone age?
3. There is some justified concerns about data and modeling? Models prove nothing - they are simply theorizes expressed in mathematical terms. If the theory is wrong, the model will be wrong.
4. These simplified models can not explain the middle age warming or the little ice age. They are ignored.
5. There is good evidence that the Younger/Dryas cooling was caused by extraterrestrial event. Such events are chaotic and are not modeled.
6. Claims made by climate warming supporters tend to ignore facts that might moderate their views. For instance the period from 1929 to 1939 was a very warm period with drought and the Dust Bowl. This was followed by a decade of cooler weather. Why? CO2 does not explain it.
7. Extreme warm events are assumed to be proof of the theory while extreme cool events are dismissed as aberrations. I have seen people use the warm cycle of the Pacific decadal oscillation as proof of global warming, not realizing that this occurs every thirty years or so following a cool period of similar length. Alternate layers of sardine and anchovy scales in the Santa Barbara Channel show that this has been happening for at least 5000 years.

Science doesn't believe. A true scientist will entertain theories and come up with hypothesis realizing that with more information and time these theories will be altered, improved or perhaps proven in error..

So if I were asked if I believed in "Global Warming" I would say no. I can entertain the idea, reserving my right to examine information and perhaps improve the theory or perhaps throw it out - depending on where data led.
As soon as anyone uses the word "believe" I know that they are not scientists and do not understand the scientific method. Belief belongs in religion, not science.
 
Mar 19, 2020
153
16
105
Even if carbon dioxide is causing warming, there are any number of questions.
1. Is our climate now at optimum? and what evidence is there to support that assertion?
2. What actions can mitigate the so called problem? Do we bring all of the world back to the stone age?
3. There is some justified concerns about data and modeling? Models prove nothing - they are simply theorizes expressed in mathematical terms. If the theory is wrong, the model will be wrong.
4. These simplified models can not explain the middle age warming or the little ice age. They are ignored.
5. There is good evidence that the Younger/Dryas cooling was caused by extraterrestrial event. Such events are chaotic and are not modeled.
6. Claims made by climate warming supporters tend to ignore facts that might moderate their views. For instance the period from 1929 to 1939 was a very warm period with drought and the Dust Bowl. This was followed by a decade of cooler weather. Why? CO2 does not explain it.
7. Extreme warm events are assumed to be proof of the theory while extreme cool events are dismissed as aberrations. I have seen people use the warm cycle of the Pacific decadal oscillation as proof of global warming, not realizing that this occurs every thirty years or so following a cool period of similar length. Alternate layers of sardine and anchovy scales in the Santa Barbara Channel show that this has been happening for at least 5000 years.

Science doesn't believe. A true scientist will entertain theories and come up with hypothesis realizing that with more information and time these theories will be altered, improved or perhaps proven in error..

So if I were asked if I believed in "Global Warming" I would say no. I can entertain the idea, reserving my right to examine information and perhaps improve the theory or perhaps throw it out - depending on where data led.
As soon as anyone uses the word "believe" I know that they are not scientists and do not understand the scientific method. Belief belongs in religion, not science.
I would hate to say amen to the last 2 sentences, because I'm an Athiest, but here goes. AMEN.
Ok, now that I got that out of my system, I can now move on to picking this apart, like a crab the tastiest gross thing I have every eaten. For the current global ecosystem, optimal tempuratures are a few degrees cooler than the current average, above that, corals bleach, oxygen shelves rise, and Antarctic Habitats disapear.
No, stone age not nessacary. If we can develop and impement safer and greener ways to produce energy, we don't need to worry as much.
Models alone do not prove anything. They are exactly what you said they were. Next.
Small climate fluctuations will always occur, henceforth middle age warming. The little Ice age I think was caused by krackatoa and 13th century tropical eruptions.
Does this look like normal temperature change:

 

Pax

Jul 8, 2020
1
0
10
First you argue that Fauci must be unaware of the science of denial, then you conclude you'd be surprised if he was. OK, i get you needed a platform for your soapbox, but at the end of the day, understanding the science of denial hasn't done much to improve our lot. Dumb asses like Trump will always politicize their denial because for them the end justifies the means. Less science, less regulation, more profit.
 
Jul 2, 2020
45
1
55
Whether we are hardwired or conditioned by our interests or background etc is open to discussion but it would be reasonably logical to assume that we are unwilling to give up our ideas or things that serve us. This means we hide what is true when it does not serve us or damages us to reveal something.

Even within the standard framework of thesis, anti-thesis and then synthesis this creates great conflict between vested interests such as economic, political and intellectual groups who wish to protect their turf and so try to prove they are right for their own ends.

We can see this with cigarette smoking. Today smoking is generally considered bad for health. Previously various groups argued smoking was or was not damaging to health.

Climate change and Covid-19 have resulted in huge differences of opinion being promoted.

Opinions are not science, unfortunately science has been co-opted by all sides to support their arguments so what is science and opinion has become blurred in the media or in discussions.

The only human subject that seems relatively free from debate is math as the results can be shown immediately and are rapidily repeatable.

With Covid-19 it seems that it is being used by economic, political and intellectual groups to promote their interests.

The various experts around the world all seem to have political agendas. The WHO gave conflicting or problematic messages on Covid-19 as did the Chinese and USA Governments.

I think if we avoid saying who we believe was right or wrong we can accept that views and information were changing and after the event some views were misleading.

Some may say this was deliberate others that this was just circumstances.

The point for me is that with almost any subject there seems to be an unwillingness for any party to admit they were wrong and supply meaningful information that shows why they were wrong and how it happened. This extends any problem and misinformation which wastes time and progress to a solution.

I think this is part of the human condition. We fear our real or imaginary or potential enemies will use what we disclose openly against us so we become economical with the truth.

If we could change and make disclosure and openess a key part of any process we would all progress with greater respect, belief and harmony.

Openess would also produce huge economic, scientific, spiritual and intellectual advancement. Lets move past a desire to protect to a willingness to be open and respectful as quickly as possible
 
Last edited:
Jun 22, 2020
7
0
30
Americans increasingly exist in highly polarized, informationally insulated ideological communities, allowing them to dismiss scientific facts about coronavirus.

Humans are hardwired to dismiss (coronavirus) facts that don't fit their worldview : Read more
Then I guess that goes for both Conservatives AND Liberals as well. Hmmm. How are conservatives to trust the interpretations of scientific data by liberal scientists who are hardwired to interpret the data like they do - according to their chosen worldview. Or perhaps we should say - according to the worldview their brains evolved to believe in.

This kind of evolutionary belief in the end renders knowledge impossible. What does that tell us then about the evolutionary worldview?

"Science denial is notoriously resistant to facts because it isn't about facts in the first place. "

We could just as easily substitute the word "Scientism" for "Science denial" in this quote. Perhaps that explains the strong faith they all seem to have in abiogenesis?
 
Jun 22, 2020
7
0
30
Awww man, now all th' flat earthers and such (prolitical picks) will come in h'year and mitch and bone and express their denial...oops, sorry, I see some already have...
Sir, you are missing the point. If they believe what they do because their brains are hardwired to do it as a result of the worldview their brains evolved to embrace, well, then so did your brain evolve to do the same! LOL!

So whose evolved monkey brain is right? Can any of us really chose what we believe if all of our brains are hardwired? Why is it that these guys only ever apply this problem to people who disagree with them as if their own brains and thinking are totally unaffected by the same problem?

Y'all shoot yourself in the foot with this argument. It's like sawing off the branch you are sitting on and you are applauding yourselves?

I think somebody needs to take a course in the philosophy of science!
 
Mar 19, 2020
153
16
105
Sir, you are missing the point. If they believe what they do because their brains are hardwired to do it as a result of the worldview their brains evolved to embrace, well, then so did your brain evolve to do the same! LOL!

So whose evolved monkey brain is right? Can any of us really chose what we believe if all of our brains are hardwired? Why is it that these guys only ever apply this problem to people who disagree with them as if their own brains and thinking are totally unaffected by the same problem?

Y'all shoot yourself in the foot with this argument. It's like sawing off the branch you are sitting on and you are applauding yourselves?

I think somebody needs to take a course in the philosophy of science!
Then I guess that goes for both Conservatives AND Liberals as well. Hmmm. How are conservatives to trust the interpretations of scientific data by liberal scientists who are hardwired to interpret the data like they do - according to their chosen worldview. Or perhaps we should say - according to the worldview their brains evolved to believe in.

This kind of evolutionary belief in the end renders knowledge impossible. What does that tell us then about the evolutionary worldview?

"Science denial is notoriously resistant to facts because it isn't about facts in the first place. "

We could just as easily substitute the word "Scientism" for "Science denial" in this quote. Perhaps that explains the strong faith they all seem to have in abiogenesis?
Yes, all sides of every arguement interperet data. Facts aren't subjective, opinions are, and it's up to us to apply those facts. That's where we should disagree. Not on the nature of the facts, but what these facts mean. For example, natural selection is a provable fact, but religious politicians will sometimes try to force "alternative theories" for the diversity of life. (coincidentally, usally the christian one) Its always better to change your view on what you learn, liberal or not.
Quick wrong things from the posts above:
1. We don't evolve to have worldviews
2. Scientism isn't a thing
3. Science is not resitant to facts, because it's nature is the pursuit of them
4. Heres the google definition of faith: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something". Science isn't that. I think somebody needs to take a course in the philosophy of science!
5. Thank you for separating Abiogenesis from the theory of evolution, it's going to prevent an entire exchange, but you don't need faith in it. It is a hypothesis on the origin of life, and many parts have been shown to happen. No good scientist has complete confidence in A hypothesis.
 
Jun 22, 2020
7
0
30
Yes, all sides of every arguement interperet data. Facts aren't subjective, opinions are, and it's up to us to apply those facts. That's where we should disagree. Not on the nature of the facts, but what these facts mean. For example, natural selection is a provable fact, but religious politicians will sometimes try to force "alternative theories" for the diversity of life. (coincidentally, usally the christian one) Its always better to change your view on what you learn, liberal or not.
Quick wrong things from the posts above:
1. We don't evolve to have worldviews
2. Scientism isn't a thing
3. Science is not resitant to facts, because it's nature is the pursuit of them
4. Heres the google definition of faith: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something". Science isn't that. I think somebody needs to take a course in the philosophy of science!
5. Thank you for separating Abiogenesis from the theory of evolution, it's going to prevent an entire exchange, but you don't need faith in it. It is a hypothesis on the origin of life, and many parts have been shown to happen. No good scientist has complete confidence in A hypothesis.
You don't get it do you? You think the way you do because of the brain that evolution gave you. You are a slave to the thoughts that the chemical processes in your brain spit out. It makes you think that you actually thought those thoughts, but in science, there is no "you". You are just a machine that is deceived into think you are actually a person.

Both sides interpret the data. Good. We agree there. Sometimes we have some disagreements on what actually is a fact and is not a fact, but things that can be clearly verified using the scientific method can safely be said to be true facts.

You brought up a great example in natural selection. Yes, we can see that natural selection does take place. However, what that means is where we disagree. Evolutionists extrapolate small changes - ie color of a moth, size of a beak, etc. - and claim that natural selection can create anything! That natural selection, combined with various other change mechanisms, can and did take a single cell millennia ago and transform it into everything we see today. That is not a FACT. That is YOUR interpretation of the data through your chosen worldview - or rather the interpretation you make using the worldview that evolved in your brain. It was not YOU who came up with your worldview. It was the brain that evolved in the head of your body and you have no control over the thoughts it spits out or the processes it uses to come up with the thoughts. Your brain does the work and makes "you" think like "you" actually came up with that thought!

Quick wrong things from the posts above:
1. We don't evolve to have worldviews

Scientists use that phrasing all the time. You evolved to do such and such. OK, point taken. Your body never evolves to do anything. It's all pointless random directionless change that sometimes is said to result in helpful things. However, your brain did evolve and the worldview it holds is a result of the particular brain that evolution blessed you with.

2. Scientism isn't a thing

Whatever. Scientism, even if it isn't a thing, does exist. It's when people fall at the feet of anything scientists say and believe it as if it was gospel truth. Science reporters are particularly guilty of this. They never challenge or question the press release or just so story claims in the article. They just regurgitate the new "find" or "claim" as if it is true. Science is held up as the arbiter of truth in spite of the glaring biases and mistakes it makes.

3. Science is not resitant to facts, because it's nature is the pursuit of them

Actually, sometimes it is resistant to facts - facts that are anomalies and don't support it's theories. Any scientist who wants to challenge a theory is always subject to criticism and strong opposition. The originators of the original theory fight hard to protect THEIR theory, whether right or wrong. Sometimes people are driven out of positions because of not supporting a particular theory. For instance, fossils that are out of order in the fossil record are often just ignored.

4. Heres the google definition of faith: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something". Science isn't that. I think somebody needs to take a course in the philosophy of science!

Do scientists have complete trust or confidence in this statement? "There is a fully natural cause for any and all things that we see in nature."

This is methodological naturalism. It lies at the base of all science that is done. Scientists always assume there is a natural cause for everything and will never consider anything else no matter what they find. That is not complete trust or confidence in something? OK, whatever you say.
 
Jun 22, 2020
7
0
30
Humans, I dare say mammals, believe out of a need for surety. I consider John stat bio's final thought a departure point.
And why do you believe this? Because you are hard-wired to believe it?

If we are hard wired to believe what we believe, then we will never really be able to know what is true and false, right and wrong, good or evil, etc. in live. Because we believe what we do simply because we are hard-wired to believe that - to see things in a certain way. Our brains evolved with this particular view of reality not necessarily because it is true, but because it helped us to survive. Some things we believe may be true and others not, but we will never really know.

That's nonsense, so let's talk as if we are not hard-wired to believe things and can evaluate the facts and make our own decisions.

So, why do people/mammals believe things? I think it is interesting that you think that all mammals believe things out of a need for surety. Why do you believe this? What scientific evidence do you have to support that opinion?

I think we're touching more on psychology here than science - unless you have the courage to actually call psychology "science". I'm sure people believe things for a very large number of reasons. So, while a need for surety is probably one of them, I find it hard to generalize and say that is the reason that we and animals believe things.

There are a number of atheists who have admitted that they do not believe in God because they want complete control of what they view as their own (sex) lives. In other words, they don't want to believe in God.

So we all have biases that affect how we interpret the data and what we choose to believe.

Oops! I forgot. I cannot choose to believe in anything. I'm hard-wired to believe what I do because of how my brain evolved to think.
Are you including yourself in this - since you are a human/mammal? Is that the basis for your opinion? I guess you can speak with most authority out of your own experience, but can you safely generalize your reasons for believing to everyone else? Or, if that is not the case for you, how then can you make that statement? You only have direct knowledge of your own experience and yet you claim that everyone else believes things out of a need for surety.

Do you think that some people believe things because they want to believe them?

Or that they believe things because they generally think they are true?

Or because there is evidence to indicate that belief is probably true?

Or because of peer pressure, cultural or family influences, what they were taught in their education, etc?

Personally, I find it rather simplistic to say that people believe things because they have a need for surety, but then maybe the ape brain I evolved with is hard-wired to believe something different than you.
 
Last edited:
Mar 19, 2020
153
16
105
And why do you believe this? Because you are hard-wired to believe it?

If we are hard wired to believe what we believe, then we will never really be able to know what is true and false, right and wrong, good or evil, etc. in live. Because we believe what we do simply because we are hard-wired to believe that - to see things in a certain way. Our brains evolved with this particular view of reality not necessarily because it is true, but because it helped us to survive. Some things we believe may be true and others not, but we will never really know.

That's nonsense, so let's talk as if we are not hard-wired to believe things and can evaluate the facts and make our own decisions.

So, why do people/mammals believe things? I think it is interesting that you think that all mammals believe things out of a need for surety. Why do you believe this? What scientific evidence do you have to support that opinion?

I think we're touching more on psychology here than science - unless you have the courage to actually call psychology "science". I'm sure people believe things for a very large number of reasons. So, while a need for surety is probably one of them, I find it hard to generalize and say that is the reason that we and animals believe things.

There are a number of atheists who have admitted that they do not believe in God because they want complete control of what they view as their own (sex) lives. In other words, they don't want to believe in God.

So we all have biases that affect how we interpret the data and what we choose to believe.

Oops! I forgot. I cannot choose to believe in anything. I'm hard-wired to believe what I do because of how my brain evolved to think.
Are you including yourself in this - since you are a human/mammal? Is that the basis for your opinion? I guess you can speak with most authority out of your own experience, but can you safely generalize your reasons for believing to everyone else? Or, if that is not the case for you, how then can you make that statement? You only have direct knowledge of your own experience and yet you claim that everyone else believes things out of a need for surety.

Do you think that some people believe things because they want to believe them?

Or that they believe things because they generally think they are true?

Or because there is evidence to indicate that belief is probably true?

Or because of peer pressure, cultural or family influences, what they were taught in their education, etc?

Personally, I find it rather simplistic to say that people believe things because they have a need for surety, but then maybe the ape brain I evolved with is hard-wired to believe something different than you.
Ok, you need to relax. It's possible to change your viewpoint. But it's hard to be convinced to change, because of our little bubble of mental safety, if that makes sense to your wrinkly ape cranium :) .
Yes people belive things for reasons. You are overreacting here, like this is saying everything is a lie. No, its saying that people will tend to retain thier views and beliefs.
Shots fired at psych, though. What was the high school teacher mean? It is a science. In my opinion, it is always a good idea to learn about something, before you criticize it. I feel like this is an example, dissmissing the validity of a entire scientific field, because you are confused.
Pump the brakes on that athiest thing. Some people want control of thier lives. Don't assume its thier damn sex life.
 
Jun 22, 2020
7
0
30
"Ok, you need to relax. It's possible to change your viewpoint. But it's hard to be convinced to change, because of our little bubble of mental safety, if that makes sense to your wrinkly ape cranium :) ."


But, if our brains are hardwired for anything, then even the changing of our minds happens because they are hardwired to think in a certain way. I definitely believe that we can change our viewpoint, and I agree that it is sometimes a difficult thing to do depending on what we are talking about, but I'm saying this is not possible if our brains are really hardwired like the article said.



“Yes people belive things for reasons. You are overreacting here, like this is saying everything is a lie. No, its saying that people will tend to retain thier views and beliefs.”


That was my point. There are a large number of reasons that people change their minds/worldviews. However, the person only mentioned one as if it was THE reason. It probably is one of many reasons, but at the same time, it is just conjecture.


“Shots fired at psych, though. What was the high school teacher mean? It is a science. In my opinion, it is always a good idea to learn about something, before you criticize it. I feel like this is an example, dissmissing the validity of a entire scientific field, because you are confused.”

You might find the following write up interesting:

Subrena E. Smith, “Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?” (Biological Theory, 5 Dec 2019). Smith argues that evolutionary psychology does not fulfill the standards for scientific theories, because its “strategies for making inferences about present-day human psychology are methodologically unsound.”

….

Researchers call for new approach to some mental disorders (Washington State University). Let’s end with a shocker. This article says,

Chuck-in-the-Box keeps popping up uninvited.

Some of the most common mental disorders, including depression, anxiety and PTSD, might not be disorders at all, according to a recent paper by Washington State University biological anthropologists.

In the paper, published in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, the researchers propose a new approach to mental illness that would be informed by human evolution, noting that modern psychology, and in particular its use of drugs like antidepressants, has largely failed to reduce the prevalence of mental disorders. For example, the global prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders remained steady at 4.4% and 4% respectively from 1990 to 2010.

The authors also theorize that depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder may be primarily responses to adversity; therefore, only treating the “psychic pain” of these issues with drugs will not solve the underlying problem. Kristen Syme, the first author on the paper and recent WSU Ph.D. graduate, compared it to medicating someone for a broken bone without setting the bone itself.

Now wait a minute. Wasn’t it evolutionary theory that Subrena Smith and Gizmodo challenged for its bad methodology? And now these researchers, admitting that evolutionary psychology has been ineffective for 20 years, want “human evolution” to “inform” better methods? These losers want to lose more patients?

“Mental health research is still very much stuck in a view that comes out of the 19th century, and revived in 1980, of classifying everything by symptoms in the hopes of revealing underlying patterns that would lead to solutions, but it really has not,” said Hagen, a WSU professor of evolutionary anthropology and corresponding author on the paper. “Even though we’re using new measurements, like genetics, biomarkers and imaging, these still haven’t added up to the insights needed to really improve people’s lives.”

So what are they proposing? They admit some “mental illnesses” have a genetic cause or could be due to aging, but they recommend adding more evolutionary nonsense to the very methods that have failed so miserably!

Instead of addressing mental issues by their symptoms, Hagen and Syme propose approaching mental illness by their probable causes. They acknowledge that some psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia are likely genetic and often inherited and others like Alzheimer’s appear connected with aging.

However, the anthropologists argue that some conditions might be a mismatch between modern and ancestral environments such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, also known as ADHD. Hagen pointed out that there is little in our evolutionary history that accounts for children sitting at desks quietly while watching a teacher do math equations at a board.

This is absurd. How could pressures in a cave that humans faced tens or hundreds of thousands of Darwin Years ago have any influence on children in school today? Are the reactions coded in the genes somewhere? Have those genes not caught up with the times? Does it mean that teachers and pupils can’t do anything but act out what mythical ancestors did? And if they are genetic, are they even treatable? Are they ‘disorders’ at all?

And what are they recommending to do about it?* Take kids out of school and make them hunt tigers? Thinking people should, like Ryan at Gizmodo, roll their eyes at such nonsensical conclusions."

From this article: https://crev.info/2020/05/dont-trust-a-secular-shrink/




“Pump the brakes on that athiest thing. Some people want control of thier lives. Don't assume its thier damn sex life.”


I only added the word “sex” in parentheses because some have actually come out and said that very thing. But at any rate, it is clear that the desire to feel like you are in control of your own life creates a bias in our minds that affects how open we humans are to believing in God. Often times, if we WANT to believe in something, it is easier to believe in it. The opposite is true as well. If we DON'T WANT to believe in something, it is much easier for find reasons to reject it. And that goes for anything – religion as well as unverifiable evolutionary “explanations” or just so stories such as abiogenesis, to name just one.
 
Mar 19, 2020
153
16
105
"I only added the word “sex” in parentheses because some have actually come out and said that very thing. But at any rate, it is clear that the desire to feel like you are in control of your own life creates a bias in our minds that affects how open we humans are to believing in God. Often times, if we WANT to believe in something, it is easier to believe in it. The opposite is true as well. If we DON'T WANT to believe in something, it is much easier for find reasons to reject it. And that goes for anything – religion as well as unverifiable evolutionary “explanations” or just so stories such as abiogenesis, to name just one. "
I think you have captured the essence of the article. It is much easier to keep the worldview you want and dismiss everything else instead of considering it.
My high school english teacher would not be inpressed with the narative arc of Abiogenesis. Name one evolutionary explanation that could never be verified to near certainty. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis for theorigin of life. It is not complete, nor is it anywhere near proven, but it fits quite well with what we've discovered in experiments.
I thought this would be interesting:
Unverifiable religious "explanations" or just stories such as Noah's Ark, to name just one.
I would like to see a link for those people saying that, but it is true that people use different paths to arrive at the conclusion "I do not belive in Gods." I arrived at that conclusion because, despite my actually athiest mom's best attepts at keeping her parents happy and give me some sort of safety net organization by pretending to be Christian to me, she also nurtured a love for science and exploration (thanks mom). My mind allowed these to coexist, pretending to still belive bullshit while at the same time trying to fit the square peg of science into the round hole of christianity. I kind of gave up after reading more of the bible and figuring out that this was impossible. My parents even let me switch churches to a more liberal one. (which doesn't make sense, at least the YECs try to do what the bible says) They still made me go even after knowing I was athiest for years, and I eventually became a congragation staple, dispite lying to thier faces. (I could get an emmy for my successful acting) I'm letting my grandfather live in peace not knowing, because I figured I better not lose him now to a heart attack.
By the way, which god are we disscussing? I've been assuming you are a YEC christian.

Here, let me explain that evolutionary psycology hunting tigers thing. My mother has a master's in early childhood education, so I grew up listening to all this stuff. Have you ever heard of fight or flight? I'm 100% sure you have experienced it. Today, we escape by not talking to a person, crying ourselves to sleep, etc. We fight by calling religion 'bullshit' in online forums and fistfights. This is left over from those times when we had serious threats, which were only a few thousand years ago. The person who escaped the sabertoothed tiger in time, or subdued it with pointy sticks, would have more offspring with mutations that produce adrenalin. Adaption to the lower physical stress modern enviroment is slow and probably will never happen except via genetic drift and sexual selection. Because we have a society where (hopefully) the weaker are assisted, we don't genetically adapt. That's why children, who are more genetics and less mentally adapted than adults, have ADHD.
Yes, they are in the genes, No, people can still do things dispite mental disorders and our impulses. Let's say you want a cookie, because sugar tastes good, because those who consumed more energy surrvived, and sugar has lots of energy in it. But it isn't healthy in the modern day, due to the fact that we have shelter and heat and the internet. Do you eat the cookie because of your instincts? Or do you be healthy and not eat the cookie?

Also, I really like "Darwin Years". That would be a great way to explain the lengths of time natural selection takes to work it's magic.

Yes, lots of mental disorders are treatable. Sure, it might not *** it at the bud because we can't change the genetic makeup of a human once they are no longer embryos, but not having the symtoms because you recived therapy or got an antidepressant sure is better than nothing.
 
Jun 22, 2020
7
0
30
“I think you have captured the essence of the article. It is much easier to keep the worldview you want and dismiss everything else instead of considering it.”



But it’s more than that. We are slaves to whatever our brain makes us think. Spin it as you will, but there is simply no way around this in your worldview. We are stuck with the brain evolution blessed us with, so if it doesn’t lead us to change our worldview, then there is no way we can change.


“My high school english teacher would not be inpressed with the narative arc of Abiogenesis. Name one evolutionary explanation that could never be verified to near certainty.”



Are you serious? You don’t know of any? Come on! You are not that gullible are you? Talk about easy believism! You need to be a bit more skeptical of evolutionary hypotheses and things you are taught in high school! You must have amazing faith in the god of Chance - in the power of selection, and random mutation!

First let me suggest that you read this article about 21st century scientists calling for a paradigm shift in evolution. Why? Because there are lots of holes in the current theory. It doesn't muster up! So that view doesn't fit very well with your view of the current state of evolutionary theory. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david-klinghoffer/scientists-confirm-darwinism-broken

Name one evolutionary hypothesis that cannot be verified with near certainty? Wow! The unverifiable hypotheses in Darwin land are too numerous to count. Origin of life, origin of sex, origin of language, origin of consciousness, origin of flight, origin of the moon, Cambrian explosion and the origin of all the various body plans, origin of multi-cellular organisms, origin of metamorphosis, origin of photosynthesis, origin of codes, origin of systems – information processing system of the cell which dwarfs anything humans have ever created, how soft tissue and dna can be preserved in fossil bones for hundreds of million years, etc. You said to pick one. OK, let’s go with origin of flight. One hint that their just so stories about how flight evolved have huge problems is that there are various hypotheses out there – which means simply that they don’t know.



Abiogenesis is a hypothesis for theorigin of life. It is not complete, nor is it anywhere near proven, but it fits quite well with what we've discovered in experiments.



Do you have any idea whatsoever of the complexity of the cell and of life? Here is a very recent article on this subject which explains very well some of the impossibilities OoL scientists have to deal with. This one is on the ribosome. https://crev.info/2020/06/ribosome-origin-baffles-evolutionists/
 
Mar 19, 2020
153
16
105
Why'd it bleep out *** it at the bud? Is it offensive? Its about damn flowers!
The first article is very wrong, “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about [things like] the origin of wings … . But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.” This quote seems quite mined. In, fact I'm contacting Graham Budd for clarification. It doesn't really show any people saying that the theory of evolution was incorrect.

I said could!!! If you can't acept that the scientific method could reach these answers, get off of a science forum.

I can refer you to this book:
A New History of Life: The Radical New Discoveries about the Origins and Evolution of Life on Earth
Book by Joseph Kirschvink and Peter Douglas Ward

You may be able to find it in your local library. It should answer many of the questions above.
Here are my personal explanations for you:
The moon is cosmological, but here goes. Today, all evidence supports the impact theory. An object about the size of mars rammed into the north pole on earth, spewing signifigant debris into earth orbit. The debris either fell bzck to earth or coalescced into the moon.
DNA never is, and soft tissue rarely
Competeing hypotheses are important to nail down exactly what happened. Birds are only a little bit harder than petradactyls, but why they had feathers is easy. How about insects? WHich one are you asking about? We have transitional fossils of archosaurs with skin flap impressions and other transitional petradactyloids. This one's named after Darwin!

Ool scientists, pronounced O-u-l or u-l or ole'

Its on a creationist website, but I'll give it a read.
It seems that the system does not have to be poofed out of nowhere by a sky wizard with an epic beard. (although that beard is magical enough) It is composed of RNA, which can chemically form acording to our experiments.
 
Jun 22, 2020
7
0
30
“Why'd it bleep out *** it at the bud? Is it offensive? Its about damn flowers!”

I have no idea what you are talking about here.


“The first article is very wrong, “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about [things like] the origin of wings … . But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.” This quote seems quite mined. In, fact I'm contacting Graham Budd for clarification. It doesn't really show any people saying that the theory of evolution was incorrect.”


The point is it cannot sufficiently account for what we see. Otherwise there would be no need to call for a paradigm shift concerning evolution. Of course all of these scientists still believe in evolution. Their faith will never waiver because that’s all they can believe in. There are no other options, but the answers just aren’t there.

It would be interesting to know what was left out in that quote so I think it’s great that you contacted Graham Budd for clarification. How did wings originate? That is simply impossible to explain by evolution! The details get glossed over and it is just assumed that it happened. And even if they have a just so story that they claim “explains” it, if you can’t test it, what good is it? A hypothesis that cannot be tested is really useless because no one knows if it is accurate or not.


“I said could!!! If you can't acept that the scientific method could reach these answers, get off of a science forum.”

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here. You said the scientific method could reach what answers? What do you mean by “could”? That it can actually provide answers to these questions? OK, that’s your claim – that it CAN provide these answers. OK, so back up your claim with evidence please. Show me the experiment that has verified these various hypotheses.

For instance, please tell me how can the scientific method can show how flight evolved. And, if you can’t, then please don’t tell me to get off a science forum, sir. Science uses the scientific method to verify hypotheses. If it cannot verify or test a hypothesis, is it still science? I’m not going to accept just so stories about how someone thinks that it MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, IS THOUGHT TO HAVE, POSSIBLY, MAY HAVE, COULD POSSIBLY HAVE, etc. evolved. Kudos to them for having a good imagination, but we all know that a hypothesis is not evidence.


“I can refer you to this book:
A New History of Life: The Radical New Discoveries about the Origins and Evolution of Life on Earth
Book by Joseph Kirschvink and Peter Douglas Ward
You may be able to find it in your local library. It should answer many of the questions above.”

Thanks. I live overseas and may not be able to find it.


"Here are my personal explanations for you:
The moon is cosmological, but here goes. Today, all evidence supports the impact theory. An object about the size of mars rammed into the north pole on earth, spewing signifigant debris into earth orbit. The debris either fell bzck to earth or coalescced into the moon."

Like I said, whenever there are problems to solve in cosmology, they conjure up an impacter that had to come in at just the right angle and just the right speed, etc. I wonder if you are familiar with the problems with the impact theory or do you just swallow it whole as if it is scientific gospel truth?

In an article by the Tokyo Institute of Technology in Phys.org, 22 June 2020 entitled “Scientists provide new explanation for the strange asymmetry of the moon”, the first sentence reads as such: “The Earth‐moon system’s history remains mysterious.”

OK, two questions for you: 1) Are these scientists wrong and you are right?

2) Why is a “NEW” explanation needed if the impact theory has solved the problem?


You said: “DNA never is, and soft tissue rarely”

Wow! I think you are really behind the times here.

DNA never? OK, but Dr. Mary Schweitzer recently wrote this: “Our data support the hypothesis that calcified cartilage is preserved at the molecular level in this Mesozoic material, and suggest that remnants of once-living chondrocytes, including their DNA, may preserve for millions of years.” Do you believe that DNA could be preserved for millions of years? I can understand your skepticism, but if you want to preserve those “Darwin years” you are forced to believe this nonsense – that this DNA was preserved for millions of years! It’s amazing what Darwinists are willing to believe in order to preserve their “theory”. (https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/4/815/5762999)

Soft tissue rarely? Again, you seem to be way behind the times:

In a new study entitled “Biosignatures may reveal a wealth of new data locked inside old fossils”, I found this quote: “Working with Yale paleontologist Derek Briggs and Yale chemist Jason Crawford — both co-authors of the study — Wiemann analyzed the molecular composition of 113 animal fossils dating back 541 million years. It is the largest fossil data set to be analyzed by chemical means.

What they found was an abundance of soft tissues that fossilize into polymers. Recognizing these polymers and the soft tissues they represent MAY HELP researchers determine how various animals relate to each other in evolutionary history.”

First of all, please be sure to always notice the hedging words scientists put in their articles concerning evolution. MAY, COULD POSSIBLY, MIGHT, COULD HAVE, IS THOUGHT TO HAVE, etc. So basically most of what they tell us is unconfirmed – just guesses that may or may not be right. If we look at evolutionary history, you will see how much previous assumptions/hypotheses have been overturned, which leaves little assurance that today’s hypotheses will fare any better.

Secondly, notice that they found “an ABUNDANCE OF SOFT TISSUES that fossilize into polymers.” Now, they have evidence that soft tissues are ABUNDANT.

But you claim they are rare. Hmmm. Who to believe?

In their article, they show a picture of some of the fresh tissue they found and under it, there was this caption: “Microscopic image of decalcified YPM Allosaurus bone: pieces of chemically altered extracellular matrix with preserved bone cells. SOFT TISSUES FOSSILIZE COMMONLY, and they are stabilized through oxidative crosslinking of proteins, lipids, and sugars.”

You are right to expect soft tissues to be rare, but in reality, they are NOT rare. They are common! So better ramp up your faith a bit to be able to believe that soft tissues can be preserved for over 500 million years! Sheesh! And you try to make fun of me for believing in miracles!


“Competeing hypotheses are important to nail down exactly what happened. Birds are only a little bit harder than petradactyls, but why they had feathers is easy.”

Competing hypotheses are important to nail down exactly what happened? I see. But wait a minute! I guess that means the problem is not nailed down - which is exactly what I said. If they really had solved the issue, if they really knew what happened, there would be no need for multiple hypotheses. So the existence of competing hypotheses simply shows that they still do not have answers and they keep thinking up different possible scenarios to try to fill the holes in the current stories. How do we know that any of them are correct? Answer: If we cannot test them, we don’t. So real life example: when it comes to flight there is the arboreal story – tree down idea, the cursorial story – ground up idea, and the WAIR story – wing assisted incline running idea. What silliness!


“why they had feathers is easy.” NO, NO, NO, NO! We don’t need to know WHY they had/have feathers. The reasons for feathers are obvious. Why does a car have a steering wheel? The reasons are obvious, but it doesn’t mean the car evolved. What we need to know is HOW feathers could evolve one little Darwin step at a time. That is what cannot be explained – except with a just so story that no one can test.

If you can read this article and still come away believing that evolving feathers is easy, you get a failing grade in logic!

https://creation.com/the-evolution-of-feathers-a-major-problem-for-darwinism

Here is a brief description of some of the problems that must be solved if a feather is to come into existence by chance mutations over time:

Each feather is a masterpiece of engineering. The center shaft has barbs projecting from each side. Then, smaller barbules protrude from both sides of the barbs. From these barbules, microscopic barbicels project, like tiny hooklets. In some species there are more than a million barbicels in one feather.

The hooks of the barbicels fasten neatly onto the neighboring barbules, and this makes a tightly woven vane, as the entire feather is called. If the barbs get pulled apart, the bird can hook them back together merely by preening or running its beak through the feathers! You can do this yourself.

Consider the chances of this developing naturally. A feather would be of no help for flying until completed. It would be in the way. The design of a feather is truly one of complex precision and defies logic as to how it could have evolved from reptile scales by chance.

Difficult as it may seem, I have faith in your faith. I’m sure your faith is up to the challenge of believing that feathers evolved by accident. Why? Because for committed Darwinists, there is no other answer. Data doesn’t really matter. Whatever exists, you/they already “know” that it evolved, so you/they just accept it and believe it is possible, no matter what.



“How about insects? WHich one are you asking about? “

I don’t think I mentioned insects, but since you asked, sure. Please explain to me how a dragonfly with such a small brain could evolve the ability to fly in such amazing ways that it is the envy of jet fighters! Also, as far back as you go in the fossil record, they are dragonflies. It’s like they hardly evolved at all since they abruptly appeared in the fossil record 300 million years ago. I thought evolution improves things. In light of mutations and the environmental change the must have taken place, how could they stay the same for so many millions of years after just popping into existence?


“We have transitional fossils of archosaurs with skin flap impressions and other transitional petradactyloids. This one's named after Darwin!”


OK, a couple of questions about this assertion: How do you know they are transitional? Did anyone see them evolve from something else into what they are? Did anyone then see them evolve into something else? No, so this is just your hypothesis – your interpretation of the data - your way of explaining what you think happened through your evolutionary paradigm. There might be better explanations.

As for pterosaur evolution: “The pterosaurs were a group of fascinating flying reptiles. They were probably excellent flyers. Pterosaur evolution, however, is especially unconvincing. Numerous ad hoc ghost lineages have to be invented to cover up the discrepancies between the pterosaur fossil record and the predictions of evolutionary theory.”

https://creation.com/review-of-the-pterosaurs-from-deep-time



As far as your article on the ribosome. It was on a website that will not ever consider the possibility of design, but anyway, did you notice the following words peppered throughout the article?

likely, suggest, widely believed, If peptide synthesis arises quickly, …., If reasonable, …., “their importance supports the notion that …”(interpretation), “Thus, consistent with the NOTION of a preceding RNA world, the structure of the PTC SEEMS TO HAVE evolved before the availability of proteins.” (How could it have evolved before the availability of proteins is not explained – it is just asserted!) “It is believed that….”, ad infinitum


It is full of assumptions, beliefs, interpretations, assertions, and hedging words (maybe, if, seems, is believed, etc.) Hmmm. I don’t think you really understand the difficulties of what they are talking about. There are 3 major stories about how the ribosome might possibly have evolved. Again, multiple ideas because they all have problems. The ribosome is irreducibly complex no matter how you approach it.

https://creation.com/ribosomes-and-design
 
Mar 19, 2020
153
16
105
OOOOOOOOhhhh.................
I looked it up. Aparently I heard the expression wrong and typed a racial slur. oops..... I think it's snip it at the bud? I don't know.

"I’m not going to accept just so stories about how someone thinks that it MIGHT HAVE, COULD HAVE, IS THOUGHT TO HAVE, POSSIBLY, MAY HAVE, COULD POSSIBLY HAVE, etc. evolved. Kudos to them for having a good imagination, but we all know that a hypothesis is not evidence."
I belive that this is an arguement from ignorance (I'm not saying your ignorance, more like God-of-the-Gaps)
They say this because science can't be exactly 100 percent. For example, in physics, for physicists to be sure of something, it has to have 99.9999999999 (into the millionths because my keyboard can't really do scientific notation well) % predictive power. For example, Darwin's original hypothesis stated that each step must have a benefit for it to become dominant in a population, so let's knock out 2 birds with one stone and talk about feathers is this example (get it, because birds? ok i'll stop)


Yes creation.com, 'complete absence of evidence for feather evolution'.
"As you can see in that picture, the Citipati is on top of a clutch of eggs, warming it with feathers. If pseudo feathers provied the benefit of warming more eggs, then there is a step with a benefit.This brooding posture is found today only in birds and supports a behavioral link between birds and theropod dinosaurs. The nesting position of Citipati also supports the hypothesis that it and other oviraptorids had feathered forelimbs. With the 'arms' spread along the periphery of the nest, a majority of eggs would not be covered by the animal's body unless an extensive coat of feathers was present."

Nothing evolves purely by chance in a way, it has to have benefits.

Should have read the entire article. The formation of the moon is not at all brought under scruntinty, but the still mysterious the dark side of the moon is different than the light side. Because, as you should know, unless you also don't accept the evidence for moon phases, is in tidal lock.



Yes creation.com, this totally isn't a reason it is transitional species:

The nearest creature that could be an intermediate is Darwinopterus, but this ruins the evolutionary story—it had the advanced brain and the long tail together. Unwin himself admitted elsewhere how unexpected this was:

“But the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms.”
We don't know for sure yet how exactly every bit of life formed, but we do know some of it. Check out Either the first or second video in the Systematic Classification of Life youtube series. We know RNA can replicate on it's own, I don't remeber the name of the experiment, I'll try to find it for you, but the nature of RNA means that it can copy a version of itself by AU and GC bonds.

I have a few questions: Is there a specific version of Creationism you subscribe to? Do you want to pick evolution, cosmology, or abiogenesis? Or just stick to a haphazard smattering, because post size seems to be lengthening.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY