Comments on: The root of all anti-evolutionism http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/ Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Jacqueline http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17894 Jacqueline Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:29:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17894 I'd like to suggest that evaluating the whys and wherefore's of a religious belief system you will find that the logic operates on the level of memes rather than considered analysis. Mormons, Catholics and other religions are concerned with having lots of followers, so they adopt the values: 1)Discouraging birth control and encouraging large families. 2)Encouraging women to marry young 3)Discouraging doubt or critical thinking. "The thinking has been done" is a Mormon admonition. And that, the discouragement of critical thinking (the tree of knowledge) and promoting unquestioning belief as a virtue (in order to keep order) is the mechanism that causes the divide between science and religion. Another aspect of both religions is the business model which is universal and biological...stemming from the Y chromosome's battle with mitochondrial DNA. (see Adam's Curse.) In Catholicism, the adoption of a policy of non-reproducing priests is sometimes explained by the desire to not burden the Church with the care of widows and orphans of priests and in keeping the efforts of the priests more focused on the business of the Church. What a left-hander will tell you is that dichotomies are more a reflection of the way the left hemisphere of the brain works----a mental foible. The right hemisphere is much more fluid, less structured, less rigid---and more vulnerable. I’d like to suggest that evaluating the whys and wherefore’s of a religious belief system you will find that the logic operates on the level of memes rather than considered analysis.
Mormons, Catholics and other religions are concerned with having lots of followers, so they adopt the values:
1)Discouraging birth control and encouraging large families.
2)Encouraging women to marry young
3)Discouraging doubt or critical thinking. “The thinking has been done” is a Mormon admonition.
And that, the discouragement of critical thinking (the tree of knowledge) and promoting unquestioning belief as a virtue (in order to keep order) is the mechanism that causes the divide between science and religion.
Another aspect of both religions is the business model which is universal and biological…stemming from the Y chromosome’s battle with mitochondrial DNA. (see Adam’s Curse.)
In Catholicism, the adoption of a policy of non-reproducing priests is sometimes explained by the desire to not burden the Church with the care of widows and orphans of priests and in keeping the efforts of the priests more focused on the business of the Church.
What a left-hander will tell you is that dichotomies are more a reflection of the way the left hemisphere of the brain works—-a mental foible. The right hemisphere is much more fluid, less structured, less rigid—and more vulnerable.

]]> By: John Emerson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17893 John Emerson Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:58:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17893 Woooooooooooeeeeeeeeee!!!! Woooooooooooeeeeeeeeee!!!!

]]> By: Geotopia http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17892 Geotopia Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:14:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17892 @Razib (you don't need to let this comment through): You are a gracious host and I'll admit your first response did resonate a bit more close minded than you actually appear. The literal debate over Creationism v Darwinism seems an adjunct to your hypothesis which is more an exploration for that which influences one mindset over another. Of course, the topic is provocative and the debate endless. My skepticism over Darwin's theory isn't that it's heretical or flies in the face of some fragile religious belief, but that based on the known body of observations, it seems as premature as the declaration of Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion - worthy of exploration, but not quite ready for prime time. In addition to the strong demographic trends in your analysis, I'm also interested in how individuals allow their existing theological or academic investment influence their acceptance of Darwinism or Creationism. By investment, I am referring to years in seminary school or doctrinal studies in science, or being raised in a religious family or being subject to the opinion or review of peer scientists. I think the results would be interesting or even surprising. @Razib (you don’t need to let this comment through):
You are a gracious host and I’ll admit your first response did resonate a bit more close minded than you actually appear. The literal debate over Creationism v Darwinism seems an adjunct to your hypothesis which is more an exploration for that which influences one mindset over another. Of course, the topic is provocative and the debate endless.
My skepticism over Darwin’s theory isn’t that it’s heretical or flies in the face of some fragile religious belief, but that based on the known body of observations, it seems as premature as the declaration of Pons & Fleischmann’s cold fusion – worthy of exploration, but not quite ready for prime time.
In addition to the strong demographic trends in your analysis, I’m also interested in how individuals allow their existing theological or academic investment influence their acceptance of Darwinism or Creationism. By investment, I am referring to years in seminary school or doctrinal studies in science, or being raised in a religious family or being subject to the opinion or review of peer scientists. I think the results would be interesting or even surprising.

]]> By: Seth R. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17891 Seth R. Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:06:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17891 I think HiveRadical makes a good point in comment #2. It really depends on how the survey questions were crafted. Did the survey treat divine cause and natural cause as two separate categories? If it did, the results are going to be skewed. I think HiveRadical makes a good point in comment #2.
It really depends on how the survey questions were crafted. Did the survey treat divine cause and natural cause as two separate categories?
If it did, the results are going to be skewed.

]]> By: razib http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17890 razib Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:46:46 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17890 i'm not objective at all. but since i let your first comment through, i might as well let all of them. i’m not objective at all. but since i let your first comment through, i might as well let all of them.

]]> By: Geotopia http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17889 Geotopia Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:29:28 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17889 @ IST: Checked out your examples and my gosh, you really have strain to squeeze out even a bit of evidentiary poop in support of Darwin's theory of speciation through evolution. However, the petri dish experiment is an interesting experiment for the case of intelligent design, because rather than prove spontaneous speciation, it only proves the effect of sentient interference unless the folks in the lab coats conducted the experiments without their cerebellums intact. I think you need to ponder on the broader implications of Heizenberg as to why laboratory observations will fail to ever explain NATURAL selection. In this case, the contaminant in the experiment is conductor of the experiment. Sure, he's proven that genetic code can be realigned, perhaps even that it's sustainable, but he's done so through manipulation (emphasis on MANipulation, latin for hand or by the hand) which is the basis of the theory of intelligent design. Doesn't take a huge stretch to wrap your mind around that. I won't even go into the false parallel that your citation might attempt to draw between a single cell life form and more complex organisms. As for the lizards, delightful. A species adapted to its environment. Darwin's notebook was full of cute drawings. When there's rock solid evidence that this lizard can no longer mate with the rest of it's species (i.e. it's actually a new species - don't try to pawn off a species predisposed BY PREFERENCE not to mate within it's own population), drop me a line, because all that has been observed is genetic drift. Assuming the scientists working on this are true to their creed, they should be examining the reversibility of genetic drift and report on that. The next step is to take it back to its original environment through another 20-40 year span and see if the physical traits in the subsequent generations reverse and then we can explore genetic TIDES, an alternative theory to that of a unidirectional drift. The value of the experiment would be the discovery that we can reverse undesirable genetic trends, something worth sinking our teeth into. Final word, please read more fastidious before commenting or attributing my words. I didn't say "conjecture = theory", I said "conjecturAL theory", relegating Darwinism as a theory purely of conjecture, that it isn't yet worthy of even the title of "Theory" because it is as immature as a baby discovering his fingers or toes for the first time, a whimsical discovery but not of much use until dexterity develops through some rigorous development. I may some day be convinced of Darwinism, but at present, it's still a half baked theory and those that presently subscribe may do so in faith, but spare us the smoke and mirrors of a "Billion Years" or the cute single celled lab experiments. At present, genetic biology would probably advance more quickly if some ditched the Darwinian relic or at least had the courage to break the lock step of the movement. @Razib, if you post my comments, I've underestimated your objectivity and I do apologize. I'm an engineer and not a scientist, but I understand the scientific theory and I'm also aware of classical religious fanaticism. If my religious views can't withstand the rigors of the scientific method and the demands of empirical observation, then certainly I should not spare my scientific view of the world of the same. I have no horse (or mule - an evolutionist joke there;) in the race, but I don't think I'm out of place demanding the same of those entrusted with advancing the sciences. @ IST:
Checked out your examples and my gosh, you really have strain to squeeze out even a bit of evidentiary poop in support of Darwin’s theory of speciation through evolution.
However, the petri dish experiment is an interesting experiment for the case of intelligent design, because rather than prove spontaneous speciation, it only proves the effect of sentient interference unless the folks in the lab coats conducted the experiments without their cerebellums intact. I think you need to ponder on the broader implications of Heizenberg as to why laboratory observations will fail to ever explain NATURAL selection. In this case, the contaminant in the experiment is conductor of the experiment. Sure, he’s proven that genetic code can be realigned, perhaps even that it’s sustainable, but he’s done so through manipulation (emphasis on MANipulation, latin for hand or by the hand) which is the basis of the theory of intelligent design. Doesn’t take a huge stretch to wrap your mind around that. I won’t even go into the false parallel that your citation might attempt to draw between a single cell life form and more complex organisms.
As for the lizards, delightful. A species adapted to its environment. Darwin’s notebook was full of cute drawings. When there’s rock solid evidence that this lizard can no longer mate with the rest of it’s species (i.e. it’s actually a new species – don’t try to pawn off a species predisposed BY PREFERENCE not to mate within it’s own population), drop me a line, because all that has been observed is genetic drift. Assuming the scientists working on this are true to their creed, they should be examining the reversibility of genetic drift and report on that. The next step is to take it back to its original environment through another 20-40 year span and see if the physical traits in the subsequent generations reverse and then we can explore genetic TIDES, an alternative theory to that of a unidirectional drift. The value of the experiment would be the discovery that we can reverse undesirable genetic trends, something worth sinking our teeth into.
Final word, please read more fastidious before commenting or attributing my words. I didn’t say “conjecture = theory”, I said “conjecturAL theory”, relegating Darwinism as a theory purely of conjecture, that it isn’t yet worthy of even the title of “Theory” because it is as immature as a baby discovering his fingers or toes for the first time, a whimsical discovery but not of much use until dexterity develops through some rigorous development. I may some day be convinced of Darwinism, but at present, it’s still a half baked theory and those that presently subscribe may do so in faith, but spare us the smoke and mirrors of a “Billion Years” or the cute single celled lab experiments. At present, genetic biology would probably advance more quickly if some ditched the Darwinian relic or at least had the courage to break the lock step of the movement.
@Razib, if you post my comments, I’ve underestimated your objectivity and I do apologize. I’m an engineer and not a scientist, but I understand the scientific theory and I’m also aware of classical religious fanaticism. If my religious views can’t withstand the rigors of the scientific method and the demands of empirical observation, then certainly I should not spare my scientific view of the world of the same. I have no horse (or mule – an evolutionist joke there;) in the race, but I don’t think I’m out of place demanding the same of those entrusted with advancing the sciences.

]]> By: razib http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17888 razib Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:34:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17888 i hope the retards get more creative and funny soon. the last two have been way too serious and coherently unfunny in their tardation. i hope the retards get more creative and funny soon. the last two have been way too serious and coherently unfunny in their tardation.

]]> By: Fred E Barrett http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17887 Fred E Barrett Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:06:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17887 As I have read some of the comments above it I have concluded that some are just to smart for their own good. Being smart by the way does not indicate intelligence. I do feel that evolution is a part of the make up of creation that even the most educated may not understand. We do evolve from an infant to an adult and to a senior and we do adapt to all conditions around us or we die from them. I personally have very little faith in such studies as that above simply because one can design it to reveal their own agenda. The Darwin theory has never to my knowledge been proven, but it has evolved over time but it still remains a theory or hypothesis no matter how one looks at it. In my opinion the mistake that the educated makes is to reject anything that is outside the bounds they have set for themselves based on the traditions they have accepted and or rejected likewise many of the Christian have made the same mistake. If one were to seek out the word of God and invest as much time in the study and memorizing it as they do their formal secular education they might be surprised to how much their position might change or evolve over time . One did mention something about man not desiring to be animal like which is something we can't deny because depending on the level of intelligence some are animals and refuse to change but there is one area we are not animal like in which sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. We do not generally survive simply by our animal instincts. We have the power of thought and strength too change, animals don't seem to have that ability to the degree that man both male and female does. I have known folks who have done a 360 degree turnaround in their lives from the grossest to the the most righteous. This is what separates the lower level of the animal kingdom from the human level. Humans over time have adapted or evolved to the existing conditions of their surroundings so that those in the meridian of time had the ability to walk the roads of Judea while in our modern day we would have a major challenge of those conditions. Even our clothing has evolved. I wonder how many could keep up with any individual or even survive in those other periods of the history of man? I would stand firm on the side of creationism simply because the theory of evolutions remains a theory, it has not been proven and if one accepts something that has not been proven as factual truth then I would question their opinion on anything they say just as I question Darwin or anyone that basis their decision on his unproven theory. As I have read some of the comments above it I have concluded that some are just to smart for their own good. Being smart by the way does not indicate intelligence. I do feel that evolution is a part of the make up of creation that even the most educated may not understand. We do evolve from an infant to an adult and to a senior and we do adapt to all conditions around us or we die from them. I personally have very little faith in such studies as that above simply because one can design it to reveal their own agenda. The Darwin theory has never to my knowledge been proven, but it has evolved over time but it still remains a theory or hypothesis no matter how one looks at it. In my opinion the mistake that the educated makes is to reject anything that is outside the bounds they have set for themselves based on the traditions they have accepted and or rejected likewise many of the Christian have made the same mistake. If one were to seek out the word of God and invest as much time in the study and memorizing it as they do their formal secular education they might be surprised to how much their position might change or evolve over time . One did mention something about man not desiring to be animal like which is something we can’t deny because depending on the level of intelligence some are animals and refuse to change but there is one area we are not animal like in which sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. We do not generally survive simply by our animal instincts. We have the power of thought and strength too change, animals don’t seem to have that ability to the degree that man both male and female does. I have known folks who have done a 360 degree turnaround in their lives from the grossest to the the most righteous. This is what separates the lower level of the animal kingdom from the human level. Humans over time have adapted or evolved to the existing conditions of their surroundings so that those in the meridian of time had the ability to walk the roads of Judea while in our modern day we would have a major challenge of those conditions. Even our clothing has evolved. I wonder how many could keep up with any individual or even survive in those other periods of the history of man? I would stand firm on the side of creationism simply because the theory of evolutions remains a theory, it has not been proven and if one accepts something that has not been proven as factual truth then I would question their opinion on anything they say just as I question Darwin or anyone that basis their decision on his unproven theory.

]]> By: Geotopia http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17886 Geotopia Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:36:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17886 "i normally don't let creationist comments through, but a lot of them are quite funny in the car-crash-rubbernecking fashion -razib" Well, this kind of demonstrates my criticism of Evolutionism being sustainable only through dogma and censorship and not by any standard of open examination. I don't expect that you'll "let THIS comment through" because it cuts to the core. Suffice it to say that "buy in" for Speciation through Evolution requires the otherwise astute scientist to set aside the rigors of proof and observability, repeatability, and to engage in a fantasy, conforming conclusions to support his investment in the theory rather than to simply observe and report and perhaps DISCOVER the truth. (BTW, I give credit to genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium, just not Spontaneous Speciation through Evolution nor the misplaced sister concept of Allopatric Speciation, at least not without external influence of a designer, creator, or whatever sentient force.) “i normally don’t let creationist comments through, but a lot of them are quite funny in the car-crash-rubbernecking fashion -razib”
Well, this kind of demonstrates my criticism of Evolutionism being sustainable only through dogma and censorship and not by any standard of open examination. I don’t expect that you’ll “let THIS comment through” because it cuts to the core. Suffice it to say that “buy in” for Speciation through Evolution requires the otherwise astute scientist to set aside the rigors of proof and observability, repeatability, and to engage in a fantasy, conforming conclusions to support his investment in the theory rather than to simply observe and report and perhaps DISCOVER the truth.
(BTW, I give credit to genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium, just not Spontaneous Speciation through Evolution nor the misplaced sister concept of Allopatric Speciation, at least not without external influence of a designer, creator, or whatever sentient force.)

]]> By: Clark http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17885 Clark Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:04:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17885 John (#27), interesting hypothesis. My own guess would be that anti-evolution was more due to the acceptance of the old Aristotilean divide between rational animal and animal and that it allowed a distinction between reason and passion. This is similar to your point but somewhat different. I think there was a real fear that if we were more animal like (which even anti-evolutionists you'd think would be forced to accept by now) that it would justify breaking down the barriers of civilization. I think it's that same fear that led Hobbes to his views about civilization. So in a sense the anti-evolution fears were as much a Hobbesian reaction as it was a fear about the religious order breaking down. My guess is that the rise of a certain strain of fundamentalism amongst Protestants was this kind of Hobbesian reaction ultimately. It just happened to merge with a literalist hermeneutic and the rest is history. I should note that I think this is why there was so much anti-evolution fervor amongst the Soviets as well. Not quite Hobbesian, but the Marxist teleology still needed that divide between the rational and animals. But all this is just my guess. I'm not terribly committed to it. John (#27), interesting hypothesis. My own guess would be that anti-evolution was more due to the acceptance of the old Aristotilean divide between rational animal and animal and that it allowed a distinction between reason and passion. This is similar to your point but somewhat different. I think there was a real fear that if we were more animal like (which even anti-evolutionists you’d think would be forced to accept by now) that it would justify breaking down the barriers of civilization. I think it’s that same fear that led Hobbes to his views about civilization. So in a sense the anti-evolution fears were as much a Hobbesian reaction as it was a fear about the religious order breaking down.
My guess is that the rise of a certain strain of fundamentalism amongst Protestants was this kind of Hobbesian reaction ultimately. It just happened to merge with a literalist hermeneutic and the rest is history.
I should note that I think this is why there was so much anti-evolution fervor amongst the Soviets as well. Not quite Hobbesian, but the Marxist teleology still needed that divide between the rational and animals.
But all this is just my guess. I’m not terribly committed to it.

]]> By: Clark http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17884 Clark Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:56:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17884 <blockquote>In fact, "social science" majors seem distinctly less creationist than either Science or English majors (N=31, though). Business majors (N=129) are more creationist than all these groups. I guess that relates to the association between creationism and conservatism.</blockquote> That's about what I expected, but I'm glad someone could verify it. I'm not entirely convinced its tied to conservativism though. More that there are accepted beliefs in the humanities and sciences and the people in those tend to adopt those beliefs by peer review. Admittedly there are political beliefs as well. Most majors outside of the practical applied majors tend to have liberal beliefs and business conservative. But I'm more curious if it's more about a wide ranging set of dogmas that get assimilated. One can ask why the humanities have evolution as a de facto dogma of course, but I suspect part of that is tied to skepticism of religion and the masses of society rather than an embrace of science proper. With the social sciences I think there's more outright embrace of science. WIthin the humanities I suspect it's much more mixed. The thing to check would be acceptance of some popular pseudoscience belief. I suspect we'd then see a split between the science majors and the humanities.

In fact, “social science” majors seem distinctly less creationist than either Science or English majors (N=31, though). Business majors (N=129) are more creationist than all these groups. I guess that relates to the association between creationism and conservatism.

That’s about what I expected, but I’m glad someone could verify it. I’m not entirely convinced its tied to conservativism though. More that there are accepted beliefs in the humanities and sciences and the people in those tend to adopt those beliefs by peer review. Admittedly there are political beliefs as well. Most majors outside of the practical applied majors tend to have liberal beliefs and business conservative. But I’m more curious if it’s more about a wide ranging set of dogmas that get assimilated.
One can ask why the humanities have evolution as a de facto dogma of course, but I suspect part of that is tied to skepticism of religion and the masses of society rather than an embrace of science proper. With the social sciences I think there’s more outright embrace of science. WIthin the humanities I suspect it’s much more mixed.
The thing to check would be acceptance of some popular pseudoscience belief. I suspect we’d then see a split between the science majors and the humanities.

]]> By: KingM http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17883 KingM Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:54:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17883 I grew up in an educated Mormon family and we always had a subscription to National Geographic on hand. It was widely accepted that humans had evolved from earlier life forms and that the Bible's "from the dust of the earth" was a pretty good metaphor for evolution. Of course, I knew many Mormons who sneered at Darwinist thinking, but these were generally people with less education. Having said that, most of my educated, professional, and evolution-believing family continue to believe in a religion that is obviously falsifiable to anyone who takes even a cursory look at the 19th Century record about it's origins. The human mind is quite capable of believing what it wants to believe. I grew up in an educated Mormon family and we always had a subscription to National Geographic on hand. It was widely accepted that humans had evolved from earlier life forms and that the Bible’s “from the dust of the earth” was a pretty good metaphor for evolution. Of course, I knew many Mormons who sneered at Darwinist thinking, but these were generally people with less education.
Having said that, most of my educated, professional, and evolution-believing family continue to believe in a religion that is obviously falsifiable to anyone who takes even a cursory look at the 19th Century record about it’s origins. The human mind is quite capable of believing what it wants to believe.

]]> By: John Emerson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17882 John Emerson Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:50:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17882 I think that a lot of people assume that Beck is a Southerner just because he's so raving stupid. We're more or less off topic, so I'll go further off topic and float my hypothesis that the staying power of anti-evolutionism comes from the belief that eveolution leads to ethical naturalism leads to "animalistic sex behavior". A lot of Christians and other distinguish humans from animals on the basis of the human ability to "control our instincts [animal desires]". Sexual liberationists, coming along at about the same time as evolutionists, preached that we should express our animal nature and not suppress our sexual desires, and they used naturalistic arguments to support that. I think that a lot of people assume that Beck is a Southerner just because he’s so raving stupid.
We’re more or less off topic, so I’ll go further off topic and float my hypothesis that the staying power of anti-evolutionism comes from the belief that eveolution leads to ethical naturalism leads to “animalistic sex behavior”. A lot of Christians and other distinguish humans from animals on the basis of the human ability to “control our instincts [animal desires]“. Sexual liberationists, coming along at about the same time as evolutionists, preached that we should express our animal nature and not suppress our sexual desires, and they used naturalistic arguments to support that.

]]> By: TGGP http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17881 TGGP Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:24:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17881 Bryan Caplan's findings on economics beliefs are a counter-example to education being more important than <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/07/intelligence_an.html" rel="nofollow">intelligence</a>. Bryan Caplan’s findings on economics beliefs are a counter-example to education being more important than intelligence.

]]> By: IST http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17880 IST Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:02:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17880 geotopia> Your ignorance of the evidence and the scientific definition of the word theory (conjecture!= theory as a hint for you) is pretty impressive. Why don't you actually <i> consider</i> the evidence as it is presented on say Talk Origins, or in Dawkins' new book, without the religious influence, and work from there? Or just try <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm" rel="nofollow"> here </a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment" rel="nofollow">here </a> for starters on directly observed events. Seeing as you think you're using logic, I'd like to point out that you establish a false dichotomy when you claim that the options are natural selection or an unseen creator. Proving Darwinian evolution entirely wrong still wouldn't demonstrate that said creator exists without evidence to support that argument. geotopia> Your ignorance of the evidence and the scientific definition of the word theory (conjecture!= theory as a hint for you) is pretty impressive. Why don’t you actually consider the evidence as it is presented on say Talk Origins, or in Dawkins’ new book, without the religious influence, and work from there? Or just try here and here for starters on directly observed events.
Seeing as you think you’re using logic, I’d like to point out that you establish a false dichotomy when you claim that the options are natural selection or an unseen creator. Proving Darwinian evolution entirely wrong still wouldn’t demonstrate that said creator exists without evidence to support that argument.

]]> By: Bruce http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17879 Bruce Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:49:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17879 I'm an LDS member and believe evolution is a 'type' of our universe. It is self-evident - all things change from one form to another. Time is the only variable. That said, I am also a 'creationist' when it comes to mankind. I believe Zecharia Sitchin's Earth Chronicles - his 7-volume work stretching back to 1976 that re-examines human and Earth history in the context of its important relationship to a larger rogue planet (recorded as 'Nibiru' in Sumerian and Akkadian writings)that became caught in our solar system several billion years ago that orbits elliptically around our sun and causes havoc every 3,600 years as it crosses planetary bodies during its return on its path through our solar system on its way around the sun and then back out of our solar system. The story premise becomes intertwined with human history when we are informed in the story that Nibiru is inhabited with technologically advanced and intelligent beings who look like we do today - but who are much larger (giants by our standards). The story of the original fifty Nibiruns on a mining mission "who from the heavens to earth came" nearly 450,000 years ago begins the interactions (and interference if you will) with the most advanced primates on earth at that time. Current science findings about the origins of our moon, the Kuiper belt of asteroids, the retrograde aspects of Neptune and Uranus and numerous other findings seem to verify Sitchin's interpretations of ancient writings starting with the 12th Planet - long before current theories were hypothesized. The creation story currently in the Book of Genesis is a very brief synopsis of the much longer and more detailed Atra Hasis - The 18th century BCE Akkadian epic of Atra-Hasis. An "Atra-Hasis" ("exceedingly wise" one) appears on one of the Sumerian king lists as king of Shuruppak in the times before the flood. It includes both a creation myth and a flood account and is one of three surviving Babylonian deluge stories. Sitchin's critics - and there are always critics - focus in on his seeming misinterpretation of some of the arcane symbols that most ancient language scholars have signed off on - thus throwing some doubt on several of his premises but certainly not all of them. The way I see it, Sitchin is winning 80 to 20. His life's work over 40 years has thrown much light upon many ancient 'unexplained' or debateable human and archaeological mysteries. Sitchin's research has clarified my belief and strengthened my faith allowing both Evolutionists and Creationists to be correct in my mind and co-exist just as a Creator and his Creation can also co-exist. So what's all the fuss about? Take a year off and read Zechariah Sitchin's work. Bruce I’m an LDS member and believe evolution is a ‘type’ of our universe. It is self-evident – all things change from one form to another. Time is the only variable.
That said, I am also a ‘creationist’ when it comes to mankind. I believe Zecharia Sitchin’s Earth Chronicles – his 7-volume work stretching back to 1976 that re-examines human and Earth history in the context of its important relationship to a larger rogue planet (recorded as ‘Nibiru’ in Sumerian and Akkadian writings)that became caught in our solar system several billion years ago that orbits elliptically around our sun and causes havoc every 3,600 years as it crosses planetary bodies during its return on its path through our solar system on its way around the sun and then back out of our solar system.
The story premise becomes intertwined with human history when we are informed in the story that Nibiru is inhabited with technologically advanced and intelligent beings who look like we do today – but who are much larger (giants by our standards). The story of the original fifty Nibiruns on a mining mission “who from the heavens to earth came” nearly 450,000 years ago begins the interactions (and interference if you will) with the most advanced primates on earth at that time.
Current science findings about the origins of our moon, the Kuiper belt of asteroids, the retrograde aspects of Neptune and Uranus and numerous other findings seem to verify Sitchin’s interpretations of ancient writings starting with the 12th Planet – long before current theories were hypothesized.
The creation story currently in the Book of Genesis is a very brief synopsis of the much longer and more detailed Atra Hasis – The 18th century BCE Akkadian epic of Atra-Hasis. An “Atra-Hasis” (“exceedingly wise” one) appears on one of the Sumerian king lists as king of Shuruppak in the times before the flood. It includes both a creation myth and a flood account and is one of three surviving Babylonian deluge stories.
Sitchin’s critics – and there are always critics – focus in on his seeming misinterpretation of some of the arcane symbols that most ancient language scholars have signed off on – thus throwing some doubt on several of his premises but certainly not all of them. The way I see it, Sitchin is winning 80 to 20. His life’s work over 40 years has thrown much light upon many ancient ‘unexplained’ or debateable human and archaeological mysteries.
Sitchin’s research has clarified my belief and strengthened my faith allowing both Evolutionists and Creationists to be correct in my mind and co-exist just as a Creator and his Creation can also co-exist.
So what’s all the fuss about? Take a year off and read Zechariah Sitchin’s work.
Bruce

]]> By: sg http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17878 sg Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:36:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17878 "Despite the fact that the LDS Church has clearly stated that one can believe in evolution and still be a faithful Mormon, Mormons continue to doubt. As a Mormon darwinist, I find this trend both strange and frustrating." From what I have seen of religious folks, none really seem to use their religion to understand natural phenomena. It seems to be more of a code of conduct and source of moral support and motivation for them. Also people are willing to support all kinds of ideas, not just religious ones, based simply on their perception of the authority of those proposing it. Personally, I am a natural skeptic, so I often refuse to give opinions on things I don't know enough about just because I recognize that I am too ignorant to form an opinion on the topic. I assume there may be some, especially younger people, who may skeptical when they don't have much information. I would not consider them stupid for just being skeptical when they don't have information. Similarly, a truly unintelligent person brought up with no religion who is taught evolution will be neither skeptical nor will he understand it, however he may "believe" it. His "belief" is not based on understanding. Regardless of the topic, the ignorant skeptic generally strikes me as brighter than the ignorant believer. It seems that the endless battle for the hearts of the simple rages on. If the people in biology departments understand evolution, does it matter that a grocery clerk doesn't? Shall we ask her if she "believes" in quantum mechanics? If a significant portion of sanitation workers don't "believe" in relativity shall we pledge to spend more on schools and early childhood ed. to persuade them? Seems like a rapidly diminishing return. Personally, if I have to choose, I would rather have the clerks and manual laborers committed to an ethical code of conduct than "believe" in any given scientific concept that I am pretty sure they don't even understand. “Despite the fact that the LDS Church has clearly stated that one can believe in evolution and still be a faithful Mormon, Mormons continue to doubt. As a Mormon darwinist, I find this trend both strange and frustrating.”
From what I have seen of religious folks, none really seem to use their religion to understand natural phenomena. It seems to be more of a code of conduct and source of moral support and motivation for them.
Also people are willing to support all kinds of ideas, not just religious ones, based simply on their perception of the authority of those proposing it. Personally, I am a natural skeptic, so I often refuse to give opinions on things I don’t know enough about just because I recognize that I am too ignorant to form an opinion on the topic. I assume there may be some, especially younger people, who may skeptical when they don’t have much information. I would not consider them stupid for just being skeptical when they don’t have information. Similarly, a truly unintelligent person brought up with no religion who is taught evolution will be neither skeptical nor will he understand it, however he may “believe” it. His “belief” is not based on understanding.
Regardless of the topic, the ignorant skeptic generally strikes me as brighter than the ignorant believer.
It seems that the endless battle for the hearts of the simple rages on. If the people in biology departments understand evolution, does it matter that a grocery clerk doesn’t? Shall we ask her if she “believes” in quantum mechanics? If a significant portion of sanitation workers don’t “believe” in relativity shall we pledge to spend more on schools and early childhood ed. to persuade them? Seems like a rapidly diminishing return. Personally, if I have to choose, I would rather have the clerks and manual laborers committed to an ethical code of conduct than “believe” in any given scientific concept that I am pretty sure they don’t even understand.

]]> By: James Sweet http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17877 James Sweet Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:18:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17877 <blockquote>Mormon bloggers were also surprised at the apparent lack of universalism.</blockquote> That's funny, because for about 18 years of my life I remember hearing over and over and over again that LD$ is the "one true church", and that Joseph Smith's whole motivation was because all of the churches in his time were false. I give Mormons credit that they don't believe the unbelievers are going to burn in hellfire. In Mormon mythology, even the Telestial Kingdom (where all the criminals and "bad people" go) is supposedly a rather nice place, in fact, just not nearly as nice as the Celestial Kingdom, right? But please, don't pretend that there is some touchy-feely universalist attitude in Mormonism. There ain't. Universalism is the idea that you DON'T have a monopoly on the truth, and that other approaches are just as correct as yours. If you think Mormonism preaches <i>that</i> attitude, you've apparently never been to a fast & testimony meeting...!

Mormon bloggers were also surprised at the apparent lack of universalism.

That’s funny, because for about 18 years of my life I remember hearing over and over and over again that LD$ is the “one true church”, and that Joseph Smith’s whole motivation was because all of the churches in his time were false.
I give Mormons credit that they don’t believe the unbelievers are going to burn in hellfire. In Mormon mythology, even the Telestial Kingdom (where all the criminals and “bad people” go) is supposedly a rather nice place, in fact, just not nearly as nice as the Celestial Kingdom, right?
But please, don’t pretend that there is some touchy-feely universalist attitude in Mormonism. There ain’t. Universalism is the idea that you DON’T have a monopoly on the truth, and that other approaches are just as correct as yours. If you think Mormonism preaches that attitude, you’ve apparently never been to a fast & testimony meeting…!

]]> By: James Sweet http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17876 James Sweet Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:12:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17876 <blockquote>You have not correctly described Mormon belief. Mormons actually believe that those of other faiths can go to the "highest level," as you call it,</blockquote> UMMMM... no, that is not correct. Mormon mythology dictates that you can't get into the Celestial kingdom without a temple marriage, and how the hell is a non-Mormon going to get married in the temple?

You have not correctly described Mormon belief. Mormons actually believe that those of other faiths can go to the “highest level,” as you call it,

UMMMM… no, that is not correct. Mormon mythology dictates that you can’t get into the Celestial kingdom without a temple marriage, and how the hell is a non-Mormon going to get married in the temple?

]]> By: Kevin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17875 Kevin Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:00:48 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/09/29/the-root-of-all-anti-evolutionism/#comment-17875 Talk about humble beginnings, I was reared to become a Jehovah's Witness 'elder' (they don't have priests, only elder brothers; they consider themselves egalitarian, though all elders I recall were men). I'm an atheist now, but I remember... the JW are strange. In fact, I am reminded of them by the Mormons I know: basically kind, family oriented and science averse/agnostic, mostly white, the kind of people Steve Sailer wishes the middle and working classes consisted mostly of. My wife offered a Mormon the chance to borrow Frost/Nixon, but she turned us down because of the language. Who couldn't be charmed by that? And I doubt that wasn't the real reason; this woman possesses nothing resembling guile. At any rate, as all religious leaders know, one can't have too much power in this country. I'm sure Mormon leadership will squirm its way to a respectable mainstream view, and I don't mind watching them wriggle, so long as they upend these damn Baptists and motley Protestant bozos as the Christian power in America, assuming there must be at least one (they should have a 'There can be only one!' contest of some sort, to amuse the rest of us; go Mormons! At least they're home grown and organic) . I prefer dignity from our lunatics! Talk about humble beginnings, I was reared to become a Jehovah’s Witness ‘elder’ (they don’t have priests, only elder brothers; they consider themselves egalitarian, though all elders I recall were men). I’m an atheist now, but I remember… the JW are strange. In fact, I am reminded of them by the Mormons I know: basically kind, family oriented and science averse/agnostic, mostly white, the kind of people Steve Sailer wishes the middle and working classes consisted mostly of. My wife offered a Mormon the chance to borrow Frost/Nixon, but she turned us down because of the language. Who couldn’t be charmed by that? And I doubt that wasn’t the real reason; this woman possesses nothing resembling guile.
At any rate, as all religious leaders know, one can’t have too much power in this country. I’m sure Mormon leadership will squirm its way to a respectable mainstream view, and I don’t mind watching them wriggle, so long as they upend these damn Baptists and motley Protestant bozos as the Christian power in America, assuming there must be at least one (they should have a ‘There can be only one!’ contest of some sort, to amuse the rest of us; go Mormons! At least they’re home grown and organic) . I prefer dignity from our lunatics!

]]>