Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

People who doubt “evolution” are more likely to be racist?

Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
Racism
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So academic elite types claim in a recent study:

A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Similarly, across the globe — in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel — low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person’s group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution…

“People who perceive themselves as more similar to animals are also people who tend to have more pro-social or positive attitudes toward outgroup members or people from stigmatized and marginalized backgrounds,” Syropoulos explains. “In this investigation, we were interested in examining whether belief in evolution would also act in a similar way, because it would reinforce this belief that we are more similar to animals.”

University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism” at ScienceDaily (April 4, 2022)

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

A friend who has read the paper kindly writes to say,

I think this study is a prime example of the temptation to make the correlation equals causation fallacy. What this paper is measuring has nothing to do with evolution or belief in it. It is measuring parochial attitudes among people in insulated groups who don’t have much contact with the outside world. These people tend to be prejudiced against other races and also have little contact with evolution so they are skeptical. It just shows that isolation breeds prejudice against the other.

The principle that isolation breeds prejudice against the “other” is a truism. And you could find evidence supporting this truism from very different groups. If you surveyed attitudes of ivory tower types you’d find similar prejudice against conservative religious groups, you’d find similar discriminatory attitudes. Why? Because those evolutionary secular academic types who accept human evolution have very little contact with conservative religious people.

So what’s interesting isn’t the finding of this paper. What’s interesting is why they chose to study isolated people who happen to be religious and defined prejudice as attitudes towards certain privileged groups in society (eg LGBTQ). Why not study prejudice of secular types who accept human evolution towards religious consevatives? You’d find analogous prejudices. But the researchers weren’t interested in studying that…because they are evolutionary secularists with an agenda to make religious conservatives look bad.

Come to think of it, if you are here anyway, you may also wish to read: E. O. Wilson and racism: The smoking gun is found. Some have dismissed the findings but others say they fit a pattern. From Schulson’s story: “I don’t really care that Wilson had racist ideas, because I know pretty much all of the people that I dealt with, when I was coming up through the science system, had racist ideas,” said [evolutionary biologist Joseph] Graves, who in 1988 became the first Black American to receive a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. “Wilson was just one of many.” Oh.

And remember, Wilson was supposed to be the second Darwin. Funny no one talks about that now.

Comments
KF
I find the reality of five guavas is comparable to I owe five dollars. Both accurately describe a state of affairs and identify a unique quantitative attribute of the world, in the context of structures known as sets of different classes of numbers.
Yes. In the world of abstract, existent entities the debt is a real concept. But it exists entirely as a mental concept. It cannot be instantiated in reality. The five guavas match five fingers. Negative 5 guavas are just not there. In terms of the observable, external reality by which we validate what the numbers represent, we could say "I borrowed 5 guavas and ate them. Now I owe 5 which are not there - so that's -5 guavas as existent." But you're applying the term "debt" to the missing value. The guavas don't exist. They can be debt to pay back or just lost. I come to you and say "Give me the ten guavas I loaned you". You say "you only loaned five and I ate them". In either case, you have zero guavas. Not -5 not -10. To prove I loaned you 5, you need something other than -5 guavas. You need a trusted document or something else. I say, "give me the 5 guavas I loaned you" and you didn't eat them, you can return the five. They exist. The -5 is a convention and strictly an idea that cannot be validated in real-time in reality. They're strictly in the memory or imagination. +5 guavas can be seen, touched, eaten, etc.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
KF: Our is and our ought often fail to agree, which is precisely why we need well warranted counsels.
But what if our is and ought can’t be reconciled? Aren’t we left with individuals doing the best we can in cooperation/negotiation with other individuals who can’t reconcile their is’s and outs? Where the most egregious horrors have surfaced is situations where one side is certain about being able to bridge this fallacious is-ought gap. You don’t have to look any further than the colonial treatment of indigenous peoples from the different continents to realize this.JHolo
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
SA, what I have pointed out is that numbers from the various sets are woven into the fabric of all possible worlds as part of logic of being in such worlds. That is what gives mathematics its universal power, it is about the logic of structure and quantity. We are more familiar with counting numbers, but they too are just as abstract as the rest. Why is it that a group of guavas on a kitchen counter and my fingers can match 1:1? Because they share the fiveness quantitative property. That can be identified, one, two, three, four, five, fingers/guava exhausted we know both are five sets. That is how von Neumann constructed, {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 . . . This is truly abstract and powerful when you think of it. I find the reality of five guavas is comparable to I owe five dollars. Both accurately describe a state of affairs and identify a unique quantitative attribute of the world, in the context of structures known as sets of different classes of numbers. I doubt a short comment would be decisive, but see the PS in 93, from SEP. KF PS, +1 and -1 alike, are vectors relative to 0 on the number line. That is an element injected when we go from N to Z, we change from scalar to one dimensional vector, C brings in a 2nd dimension and allows us to address rotation.kairosfocus
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
KF
And that 1:1 matching already loads in oneness. The abstraction lurks under familiarity.
The same is true of collections of letters. They are merely abstract symbols. But you're drawing an equivalency on what the symbols represent on that basis. It's like saying the letters: "Universe" are an abstraction just like the letters "cat" are. They're both just symbolic, mental ideas. We could even say the letters "pwoienrwo" are an abstraction, just like the letters "God". But we evaluate the value of the symbols by what they represent in reality. With that, "Universe" is radically different than "cat" and "pwoienrwo" is radically different than "God" as representations of reality and for their information content. In the same way, +1 is radically different than -1 as representations of existing realities.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Respectfully, what you wrote was nonsese Here it is: "Hitler was a very bad, evil person (as is Putin, FWIW)." Here are the facts: People are NOT evil. They are all children of God. They have free will, all will choose to do evil sometime. Some do it very often and some to do unpeakably evil things. But they still retain the capcity to repent, reform, and to do good. And even those wh do unspeakably evil things, also do good things from time to time. This includes mass murderers such as Hitler who killed tens of millions. Yet he was very kind to his secretaries. It also includes Americans such as Blackmun, Berger, Thurgood Marshall, Ginsburg, Breyer, the Clintons, Obama and Biden, as well as half the Congress, and the bulk of the media and academia. . They have successfully promoted the premeditated murder of scores of innocent defenseless persons, far more than the Nazis killed. Yet even Ms Justice Ginsberg was very good to her grandchildren. And she always retained the capacity to reform and repent for the evil things she did.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
It is not God that puts limits on what I am permitted to do
This was all discussed in detail over a year ago. Everything here is a repeat. It’s what happens at UD on certain threads. Morality/ethics can be based on human nature or what’s called the natural law. But where does human nature/natural law come from? https://uncommondescent.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law I don’t recommend trying to read it because there are over 1200 comments mostly irrelevant. But in the comments nearly everything discussed here is there including definitions. After awhile one realizes few are interested in communicating. They are only interested in getting their way. So logic is ignored, the obvious never admitted, only my way is better or your way is disagreeable.jerry
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
JH, repeating the assertion, shifting the vocabulary. One cannot base oughtness on observed human patterns of behaviour, which will often reflect any number of ill advised or even ruinous patterns. Our is and our ought often fail to agree, which is precisely why we need well warranted counsels. Those start with first duties, as 21 notes. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
SA, we have become so familiar with counting and the counting numbers that we overlook how abstract they are. Fiveness is the property on which two sets of that cardinality may be matched one to one, often we use subsets of N, by in effect orally matching members of N in sequence until the set being evaluated is exhausted. And that 1:1 matching already loads in oneness. The abstraction lurks under familiarity. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
SA: The paraphrase of Dostoevsky comes to mind though: “If God does not exist, everything is permissible” There’s good reason to have some fear about that.
Everything is only permissible if you live in isolation. In the real world, we all live in groups, interact with others, require this interaction, benefit from these interactions. If I want to benefit from these interaction on an ongoing basis, the people I interact with will not permit me to steal from them, to injure them, to repeatedly lie to them, to rape their wives and daughters, to be compulsively rude to them, to undermine their ability to benefit from the interactions they thrive on. It is not God that puts limits on what I am permitted to do, it is the people around me who do that.JHolo
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
People think in naratives therefore all are religious because they fit whatever concept is discussed into their own worldview that can't be proved because nobody was there at the beginning of time. So atheists who draw conclusion from observations have no observations from beginning of the universe only just so stories and hypotheses that are not observations. We are left with who we believe in : some with Jesus ,some with Darwin. Good luck for people who believe in Darwin.Sandy
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
JHolo The paraphrase of Dostoevsky comes to mind though: "If God does not exist, everything is permissible" There's good reason to have some fear about that.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
KF
Just today at service on this Palm Sunday, I was reminded of TWO disciples sent to fetch ONE colt, which had been ridden ZERO times. (It seems, they also fetched its mother so the colt could be accustomed to being ridden with minimum panic.)
We had the same Gospel and I wondered about the two animals. The Haydock commentary compares the unridden colt to the Gentiles who would be brought with the Jews (the donkey Jesus rode). Both are "loosed" from the bonds of sin. The mother (Jews) then later follow the colt (Gentiles) as they are stirred to hostility in spite of having carried Jesus. It's a mysterious passage in any case.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
KF@91, as I mentioned, the commenters fall into one of two camps. Those who draw conclusions based on observations (eg, VL and CD) and those who base their conclusions on hope (yourself and Andrew). I should probably qualify this. “Hope” is probably the wrong word. “Fear” is probably more appropriate. Fear of possible consequences should those who base their conclusion on observation be correct.JHolo
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Human beings have a rational nature. That's an objective quality - universal and not subjective. The rational process is not a subjective set of rules. It's inherent in human nature. Humans have a moral conscience as part of their nature. This is how we access the "objective moral law" - from within our conscience which directs us to the good and virtuous and provides guilt and opposition to vice and moral failings. Also, "we are oriented to the truth". This follows from rationality. "We have a moral duty to the truth". That's universal and an objective basis - and is absolute. To deny that you have a moral duty to the truth is to destroy any basis for trust when presenting one's convictions or testimonies or agreements. That then destroys the reasoning process and attacks human nature.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
KF
There is no concreteness about +5 that exceeds the want of concreteness of -5.
I disagree here and it comes down, once again to the LOI. There is concreteness of +5 that -5 lacks. We can compare the cluster of guavas starting with and composed of 5 to the cluster with 3. Thus, we have the abstract -2. But that comparison is only possible under one condition. You cannot, for example, compare the cluster starting with and composed of -5 to a cluster with -3. Reality is reflected with the positive integers. We can have an abstract understanding of loss, minus, lack, subtraction -- but those things cannot directly correspond with reality. They're abstractions based on mental concepts, not abstractions from observed reality.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
SA, actually, you can show a cluster of guavas, you can show that cluster a matches with cluster b or may not, leading to structure and quantity as abstracta. Positive or negative integers, alike are relevant abstract entities, we are recognising the presence of the quantity when we see five guavas, maybe counting or matching to fingers. There is no concreteness about +5 that exceeds the want of concreteness of -5. Both are equally abstract and stability and coherence of math operations should give a clue as to objectivity. But the abstract is notoriously hard to address. KF PS, SEP: >> Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented. The most important argument for the existence of abstract mathematical objects derives from Gottlob Frege and goes as follows (Frege 1953). The language of mathematics purports to refer to and quantify over abstract mathematical objects. And a great number of mathematical theorems are true. But a sentence cannot be true unless its sub-expressions succeed in doing what they purport to do. So there exist abstract mathematical objects that these expressions refer to and quantify over. Frege’s argument notwithstanding, philosophers have developed a variety of objections to mathematical platonism. Thus, abstract mathematical objects are claimed to be epistemologically inaccessible and metaphysically problematic.>> I doubt the objections; which, can be countered by noting that key Math structures and quantities are part of the framework of any possible world.kairosfocus
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
F/N: Wikipedia on Religion:
Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements;[1] however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3] Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacred things,[5] faith,[6] a supernatural being or supernatural beings,[7] or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life".[8] Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities and/or saints), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that may also attempt to explain the origin of life, the universe, and other phenomena. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.[9] [--> in fact, with the Agrippa trilemma once a worldview is involved, as neither infinite regress or circularity are sound, reasoning involves first plausibles which define faith points]
Religion is complex and is deeply intertwined with philosophy and ideology as well as lifestyle choices. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
JH, at the heart of morality is the question of right conduct, thus the is-ought gap, tied to the one and the many problem that is literally where Western philosophy began. If one tries to define ought on the is of human conduct, he will end in nihilism and lawless imposition. Instead, we should note the phenomenon of oughtness as sensed and responded to, leading to issues such as rights, duties, freedoms and justice, due balance of the three. Further to such, we can readily see how objectors to the Ciceronian first duties of reason invariably appeal to the said duties in their objections. In your own comment you appeal to our own duty to truth, right reason, warrant and even prudence. Issues of duty to conscience and to neighbour come up, with fairness and justice with them. Branch on which we all sit first principles are self evidently true on pain of self-referential absurdity on attempted denial. See 21 above. KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Jerry, pardon, but debt slavery is about debt, a negative number per what is owing, that was my first illustration, and the real impact of debt should be clear; were something merely imagination, it would take up any convenient value. It does not as any accountant will tell. I will just note further, that a short while back we saw negative bank interest rates and even -- briefly! -- a negative price for oil; also, that the economic variable are best understood to be reals or at least decimal values [which are mixtures of whole and fractional parts]. My point is there are structures and quantities embedded in any possible world and while abstract they are framework entities. Just today at service on this Palm Sunday, I was reminded of TWO disciples sent to fetch ONE colt, which had been ridden ZERO times. (It seems, they also fetched its mother so the colt could be accustomed to being ridden with minimum panic.) KFkairosfocus
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
True, a colloquial use of "religious", but not the sociological use. But yes, my position is philosophical. It is a part of a system of beliefs and principles important to me, and is held by choice. I think there is evidence and arguments to support my position, but it is not provable in the scientific sense.Viola Lee
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
VL, One from Merriam-Webtser: ": a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" So, not unheard of, especially if it is beliefs that substitute for or replace or mimic something like the beliefs Christianity. Andrewasauber
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
That is an unusual definition of religious.Viola Lee
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
"Just because something is not addressable by science (I didn’t say it was, by the way) doesn’t mean it’s religious." VL, I suspect you are personally invested in it, and it shapes your outlook and behavior. That's religious, IMO. Andrewasauber
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
re 83. Actually, bad grammar. My mistake. More seriously, it's philosophical, but I wouldn't call it religious. Just because something is not addressable by science (I didn't say it was, by the way) doesn't mean it's religious. That is not an exclusive dichotomy.Viola Lee
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
In any discussions I have been involved in about the nature of morality, I have found that the commenters fall into one of two camps. Those who come to a conclusion based on what they observe, and those who come to a conclusion based on what they hope.JHolo
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
"my perspective is that those qualities arise and reside in each of us individually on there own" VL, Aside from the spelling mistake... This is as a religious belief as any. It's not addressable by science. Can I get an amen? Andrewasauber
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Jerry
It all comes down to positive integers because something real is the only thing that exists.
Exactly. Existence or being is an affirmation or positive entity. A loss or debt or subtraction cannot exist in reality but only in memory or the imagination or the mind.
Dare I bring up that there is no such thing as a negative integer except in our imagination?
That should end the discussion. If people are confused about this it could go on for a while, but not really. I can show you two apples plus two apples. I cannot show negative 4 apples - or negative anything apples. That's only a concept in the mind.Silver Asiatic
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
re 79, Here’s an example of this confusion. Above KF makes a point he has made many times: “Physical inspection is only one means of warrant as we know from mathematical reasoning etc. Moral truths can be warranted through the use of right reason ... As has been repeatedly pointed out seven core first duties are such that the one who attempts to object will invariably appeal to them implicitly.” All people have some common aspects of their nature: we use logic in our thinking, we have moral concerns and beliefs, we desire in most cases to ascertain the truth about things, etc. All of these qualities reside in billions of people, but that fact does NOT elevate those qualities to some type of transcendent, self-evident duty that exists in some way outside of the people who exhibit those qualities. The difference, which SA mentioned in another post, is the religious perspective is that there is an outside source of these qualities bearing down upon us, while my perspective is that those qualities arise and reside in each of us individually on there own, not because they are imposed upon on from the outside. They do not get some new ontological status just because we create an abstract understanding of them by noticing their prevalence as common to all human beings. This is a key philosophical difference in perspectives, I think.Viola Lee
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
just curious, are price level, rate of interest [a debt tied metric], inflation, growth rate etc real entities
Absolutely! But they are all examples of positive integers. People will use shortcuts that make it easier but they all come down to positive integers. Again, you are conflating what’s real with what’s useful. Have to go. Have a lacrosse game to see.jerry
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Sev writes, "The question is whether all those other moral codes, originating with all those other – objective from my perspective – human beings, are thereby objective. I would argue that anything that exists nowhere else but in the consciousness of intelligent beings such as ourselves is still subjective whether we are talking about one consciousness or billions." This is a key point, and well said. I said it this way above: "But those commonalities are just recognizable features of our common experiences of people: they are objective in the same sense that the maple tree is. Just because we have a common understanding about human behavior doesn’t mean that that understanding all of a sudden has existence outside of its presence in human beings.”Viola Lee
April 10, 2022
April
04
Apr
10
10
2022
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11 12 13

Leave a Reply