Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Evolution Institute talks about Darwinism’s PR problem

Spread the love

Well, they call it “evolution’s” PR problem. Whether that’s because they do not genuinely acknowledge any other approach to evolution is for them to say. If so, that’s part of the problem, not that they would realize it in that case. Anyway, some are vexed by a 2003 study that found that the more people know about Darwinism (oops. “evolution”), the less they like it.

And so it is no wonder that students, but also many evolution educators themselves, are wary about the use of evolution to explore human behavior, cognition, and culture. The human traits we tend to hold dear and that tend to define our everyday experience – from our sense of community and self-identity, moral intuitions like fairness, empathy, and liberty, to language and thought, to music and art, to our goals and values – do not seem to lend themselves to evolutionary explanations as offered by gene-focused accounts and unidirectional organism-environment relationships. At best, evolutionary theory would seem irrelevant to understanding these traits, and at worst, evolutionary theory would seem to imply that such traits can not be a part of the rational individual nature of our species.

Susan Hanisch, Dustin Eirdosh, “It’s Time to Fix Evolution’s Public Relations Problem” at The Evolution Institute

Well, now that they mention it, we’ve all heard many efforts to explain away everything that makes us human as some fix for spreading our selfish genes.

And the proposed solution?

We argue that the only way forward for evolution education in terms of fixing the public relations problem, and hence to advance evolution understanding and acceptance, is to systematically engage with the 21st-century science of evolution. Maybe we need to redefine and reassess what evolution understanding means in light of modern thinking in evolutionary anthropology. Maybe then, evolution “understanding” will not be mysteriously correlated with misunderstanding. Maybe then we will find that the more a person knows about evolution, the more helpful their conceptions of themselves and their fellow humans become.

Susan Hanisch, Dustin Eirdosh, “It’s Time to Fix Evolution’s Public Relations Problem” at The Evolution Institute

So maybe a bigger dose will work? The pop science media is chock full of this stuff now. Guess they could try cramming more in.

Ooh, I have an idea! Sponsor class discussions of Darwinism and “scientific” racism. We could show John West’s film (the less awful one that YouTube allows for under-18s). We might start to get a clue as to why people don’t “like” Darwinism, oops “evolution.”

We might not have to dig very far.

See also: YouTube placed restriction on vid on scientific racism. Apparently, it was considered too awful for a general audience So John G. West, the producer, has edited it, in the hope of keeping it up.

8 Replies to “Evolution Institute talks about Darwinism’s PR problem

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    I think John West’s video should be shown. There seems to be no good reason for censoring it.

    And perhaps it could be balanced against a video on religious racism which, of course, long pre-dates the theory of evolution.

    Then, when we have got that out of our systems, perhaps we can confront the reality that racism is a human problem, that the seeds of it at least are in all of us. Then, perhaps, we might actually be able to do something about it.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Everything predates any scientific theory of evolution. That’s because it doesn’t exist!

    If DNA does NOT determine form do evolutionists even have a mechanism capable of producing the diversity of life? I ask because the evidence says that DNA does not determine form.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Why is racism a human problem? What if predator eats prey just because they don’t like that species?

    And if that’s the case, am I a racist with respect to scallops?

  4. 4
    doubter says:

    ” Maybe then we will find that the more a person knows about evolution, the more helpful their conceptions of themselves and their fellow humans become.”

    What an example of self-deception. There is simply no possible way to make Darwinism or any modern version of it palatable to most people, except perhaps by presenting oversimplified popularizations stressing the “wonder of it all” and not going into the downsides, the details. That’s the PR part he doesn’t mention.

    One good (honest) Darwinist spokesman is William Provine. His remarks on Darwinism:

    “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and I must say that these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposeful forces of any kind, no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be completely dead. That’s just all—that’s gonna be the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.”

    “Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable… modern science implies too there are no inherent moral or ethical laws… free will, the freedom to make uncoerced unpredictable choices among alternative possible causes of action, simply does not exist… there is no ultimate meaning for humans.”

  5. 5
    polistra says:

    The fact that evolutionists are primarily concerned about public acceptance tells us that evolution is not part of science but part of religion. Real science has hundreds of real laws and formulas that the public doesn’t know, and real scientists DON’T CARE if the public knows and accepts them. Electronics has gone a long way without trying to force the public to BELIEVE Ohm’s Law. Gas engines have developed without worries about public belief in Carnot’s laws.

    Only priests and tyrants insist that the public must agree with their theology.

  6. 6
    Belfast says:

    Cornered, Seversky pulls out his tu quoque card.

  7. 7
    BobRyan says:

    Seversky:

    How can racism be wrong if there is no free will? How are racists any different from anyone else? If everything is predetermined and nothing more than a mechanism, then does that not also include people you view as racist? Morality does not exist, just as free will does not exist. If you say racism is wrong, then you must believe free will is involved when it comes to racists.

  8. 8
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ bobryan
    Seversky who desperately hates religion, is just saying that he wants videos about religious racism so religion can be punished and revealed as the evil trash that its is

    I’m sure he won’t mention anything about religious persecution (Holocaust and Christians being fed to lions and crucified etc. , he’ll conveniently leave that out) because all religions evil in his eyes. He is willfully ignorant so there’s no point in even engaging him, you can prove him wrong directly, and present information that’s shows he is entirely wrong and he will still continue to repeat the same stereotypical crap about religion

    And remember he is genetically predisposed to hate religion so his opinion is entirely invalid

    He’s just got some genetic mutation that makes him this way so he can’t help it, rationality doesn’t work with him

    He won’t accept evidence against his opinion

    So obviously, it’s some form of genetics and there’s no point in engaging him anymore you can sum up almost all of Seversky’s opinions these three comments

    It’s Predictable super liberal
    Its all religion’s fault I said so
    Evolution super true, even when it’s not

    He does not diverge from those three

    Sometimes his responses are so scripted and so repetitive that I think he is actually someone paid to be the token atheist on the site or he’s a bot

    So don’t bother and the only reason why I’m criticizing him like this right now is the first thing I read from him was how he wanted to see scientific racism put up so that way religious racism can be REVEALED And the comparison between the two could happen so everybody can realize how stupid religion is

    He even tries to segue how awful religion is in topics that aren’t even related to it

    I mean he believes in a theory that everything he is doing It’s determined by some form of biology and genetics, he has no real opinion other than a protein reacting with another protein, creating proteins, which in turn created a structure which formed his opinion

    Which makes it so stupid because he hast to view that for everybody else as well so what is the point of continuing on nobody can help them selves he has no right to critique or even whine about religion

    It is quite literally only human nature which he’ll never be able to change

    He is literally a waste of time

Leave a Reply