Don’t Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder
The theory of evolution by natural selection is among the best established in science, yet also among the most controversial for subsets of the American public.
It’s appalling that this pysch prof can get away with misinforming the public about the fact that evolution by natural selection (= Darwinism) is increasingly regarded as a millstone around the necks of evolutionary biologists, so few are its demonstrated effects. By contrast with the many common, little-publicized modes of evolution, such as horizontal gene transfer and genome doubling, to say nothing of genetic drift.
For decades we’ve known that beliefs about evolution are well-predicted by demographic factors, such as religious upbringing and political affiliation. There’s also enormous variation in the acceptance of evolution across different countries, all of which suggests an important role for cultural input in driving beliefs about evolution. A child raised by Buddhists in California is much more likely to accept evolution than one raised by evangelical Protestants in Kansas.
But in the last 20 years or so, research in psychology and the cognitive science of religion has increasingly focused on another factor that contributes to evolutionary disbelief: the very cognitive mechanisms underlying human cognition.
In short, it is irrational to doubt Darwinism despite the lack of evidence, and constant revisions of evidence. Darwin’s iconic finches anyone?
The reality is that, for whatever reason, people often choose to stand against the tide of self-serving elite opinion, such as hers. And those who doubt Darwinism, like those who doubt many things these days, know good arguments against the sludge served up in media like NPR—heck, such arguments and evidence are not even hard to find. Listen to the The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry, to start.
Such information is usually not sought by media that caters to self-serving elite opinion. She goes on:
Researchers have argued that a variety of basic human tendencies conspire to make natural selection especially aversive and difficult to understand, and to make creationism a compelling alternative. For instance, people tend to prefer explanations that offer certainty and a sense of purpose when it comes to their lives and the design of the natural world and they have an easier time wrapping their heads around theories that involve biological categories with clear boundaries — all of which are challenged by natural selection.
Biological categories with clear boundaries … like the human race? As opposed to the racism (black people will speciate away from other races) that is critical to Darwinian thinking?
Can anyone imagine legacy media like NPR addressing all that stuff honestly?
These factors are typically taken to hold for all humans, not only those who reject evolution. But this naturally raises a question about what differentiates those individuals who do accept evolution from those who do not. In other words, if the California Buddhist and the Kansas Protestant share the same cognitive mechanisms, what accounts for their differing views on evolution? More.
The real mystery is why NPR, just another cacophony of shallow non-entities emitting psychosocial noise in order to drown out serious discussion, receives public support and approval.
At this point, it isn’t even a class act on its own low terms.
Follow UD News at Twitter!