Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
re 14: Yep, people are all alike in some important ways despite cultural differences and different cultural manifestations of those similarities.Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Seversky @ 4 I agree that there is no such thing as "absolute" morality in the real world. It is an idealized religious notion that people project as "coming from" God (or Krishna, or whatever) e.g., that there is some type of transcendent "law giver" whose laws are absolute and universal as to to all of mankind. No exceptions, no negotiation, no give or take. I would actually describe your notion of morality as "objective morality." Objective morality vis a vis absolute morality is simply a set of rules agreed to by (democracy) or imposed on (monarchy) a given culture/society which are the "rules of the road" that allows a culture to function. These rules are objective because they are publicly communicated, readily understood by members of the culture, carry consequences and are clear as to what is and is not appropriate behavior. But, unlike absolute laws, they can be changed and modified. A person may not agree with them but is still subject to them unless that person chooses to opt out and either leave the culture, suffer the consequence for non-compliance or overthrow or change the culture. Christian apologists keep trying to mischaracterize the latter as "subjective" morality or mere "preferences." But they are not merely preferences, they are applicable to anyone living in that given culture. They also vary from culture to culture, but, again, that does not make them subjective or preferences.chuckdarwin
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
VL You can consider AH we don't want to name. And his buddy JG.Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Who are AH and JG? Am I supposed to recognize those initials as people who post here? Or someone "famous"?Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
summary of buddhist ethics
In the extremely long set of comments on the natural law it was pointed out that nearly every ethnic group from around the globe especially those of Asia had similar observations on the nature of humans and similar recommended ways of living because of it. https://uncommondescent.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-725390jerry
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
F/N: For record, a summary of buddhist ethics: https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/glossary/buddhist-ethics/
The common ethical principles of Buddhism were articulated by Gautama Buddha. They include the Five Precepts (or virtues) and three of the eight points on the Noble Eightfold path to enlightenment. These imperatives are not to be construed as commandments as in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but more as guidelines for attaining enlightenment. Enlightenment, or Nirvana in Sanskrit, is a state of mind or being in which one simultaneously realizes one’s true identity (which is infinite and eternal), the illusory nature of the world, and perfect bliss and equanimity. In mainstream Buddhism there is no separate “God” who is the judge or arbiter of ethical action. Rather, it is a general psycho-spiritual “law” that certain behaviors promote enlightenment and abate suffering while others impede enlightenment and bring about suffering. It is in these terms that an act or series of acts is generally deemed ethical or unethical. Ethical behavior both leads to and flows from an enlightened mind. In the Five Precepts Buddha advises abstinence from: (1) harming living beings, (2) taking things not freely given, (3) sexual misconduct, (4) false speech, and (5) intoxicating drinks and drugs causing heedlessness (Knierim). While there are up to ten precepts for lay practitioners and sometimes hundreds for ordained monks, these five are the most basic and important. The Noble Eightfold path to enlightenment consists of cultivating the following : (1) Right View, (2) Right Intention, (3) Right Speech, (4) Right Action, (5) Right Livelihood, (6) Right Effort, (7) Right Mindfulness, and (8) Right Concentration. These virtues generally fall into three categories. The first two tend toward cultivation of wisdom, the middle three toward ethical conduct, and the latter three toward mental development. Buddha viewed Right Speech as abstinence from lying, deception, slander, and idle chatter. Said in a positive way, he advocated speaking only when necessary, and with honesty, mindfulness, and loving kindness. Right Action generally entails the first three points of the Five Precepts listed above. The emphasis is to behave so as not to harm any sentient being physically, emotionally, or spiritually. Right Livelihood follows from Right Action in that one ought to make their living in a peaceful way. Buddha listed four occupations which ought be avoided for their promotion or condonance of harmful behavior. These are (1) weapons dealing, (2) dealing in living beings (including slavery, prostitution, and raising animals for slaughter), (3) meat production such as butchery, and (4) dealing in intoxicants and poisons.
There are obvious points of differences or points that give pause, but the underlying appeal to commonly recognised first principles is clear. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
How is that different from almost everyone here, “regurgitating the same stuff for years, unwaveringly, almost as if [they] are metaphysically certain of [their] position
There's a huge difference One side can justify what they say about ID. The other side cannot. One side occasionally says something without justification but nearly every thing they say is backed up. The other side occasionally says something they can justify but most of which they say cannot be backed up. So one side - 97% justified beliefs. The other side 3% justified beliefs. (obviously some hyperbole but close to accurate.) If anyone disagrees with this observation, present your reasons with justification? ___________________ Relevant to the OP. I'll repeat this which I posted a couple times before. In graduate school we were presented with a study that had a homogeneous group divided into two and then separated but such that each could observe the other from a distance. They were given different tasks to perform. After a short time an attitude test was given to each about the other group. They were negative. The negativity increased over time. Then a representative from each group was sent to the other group to observe them up close. The representatives came back and reported on each group's activity. The negative attitudes disappeared. This is normal human behavior and probably a survival technique since throughout history other groups were usually not benign. Aside: I am currently watching/listening to a course on English history from the withdraw of Rome to the Norman Conquest. During this time a massive number of Europeans from the area of current Belgium to Denmark migrated to Britain. The question was how peaceful it was and while there was definitely conflict most of it was peaceful. The term "England" means land of the Angles who were from the area of present day Germany and southern Denmark.jerry
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Polistra: It would be more accurate to say that unfamiliarity breeds unfamiliarity.
It might be more accurate to say that unfamiliarity breeds willfull ignorance, which is definitely a major factor in racism. But, I can honestly say that I modified many of my racial and cultural prejudices as the result of extensive travel for work. You soon realize that we have far more in common than we differ. Does anyone know if education level was looked at as a variable in this study?JHolo
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
"How is that different from almost everyone here" VL, It's not. But It's only fair to observe that Sev, and others (you included), criticize others for the same things they do, which is hold on to unscientific beliefs. Sev is especially egregious, because he tries to pretend it's all science for him, which is impossible and self-defeating, but he'll never waver, unless a miracle occurs, which he wouldn't acknowledge anyway. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
VL, kindly note the just above. Warrant on right reason towards knowledge of objective truth is not empty repetition of claims. Warranted, objective knowledge is not empty dogma. And do you want me to remind you of just which agit prop practitioners were ever so swift to make turnabout projections? You won't like the names, I just give initials, AH and JG. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Sev, >>Nor is there any such thing as absolute or objective morality.>> 1 - including, the duties to truth, right reason and warrant you are implicitly appealing to in this assertion? 2 - in short you inadvertently demonstrate the branch on which we sit, first principle status of first duties and principles of reason 3 - that's how we can recognise they are self evident and thus objectively true, accurately describing states of affairs that obtain. >>Whenever people propose it, what they really mean is their own morality,>> 4 - that is a twisted way of saying, if you see something as true, state it and wish to live on it you can be pounced on as an imposing little bully 5 - the objectivity of first duties is such that they in fact are pretty widely recognised, I notice sneers at me for pointing to Cicero, but in fact he was a pagan Roman Stoic who recognised that these are foundation of law. 6 - let me do something else sneered at, cite from a key historical source:
, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC
>> usually derived from their personal religious beliefs.>> 7 - so, if a religion endorses naturally evident, conscience attested first duties of reasoned, responsible conduct, that is now held against it as another way to imply oppressive imposition. 8 - Here is the classic foundational Christian scripture that so endorses:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . .
9 - Let's extend this, the very same author, in another Epistle, endorses the Law of Identity (thus of excluded middle and non contradiction) by making reference to what is probably a C1 Rhetoric 101 classic example:
1 Cor 14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.
10 - should we therefore dismiss a Christian who endorses this as a self evident first principle of right reason, as attempting to impose his beliefs and religion? 11 - I think, pardon but your ad hominem fallacies are showing >>Hence, you will never see an evangelical Christian argue that Islam or Buddhism is the source of absolute morality.>> 12 - Immediately, no text is the SOURCE of objective moral truth, though it may well state or endorse it. 13 - Next, the only place where first laws of our responsible, rational, morally governed freedom can come from is the source or root of that nature, which to bridge is and ought requires that that root be inherently good and utterly wise as well as powerful enough to cause worlds, also being a necessary being . . . a familiar figure 14 - Islam endorses that such describes God, Buddhism is a bit harder to specify, but acknowledges self evident first moral principles. 15 - Oh, similar to one certain Tully, as he is affectionately called. 16 - As in, a pagan Stoic you have repeatedly seen me endorse by name; just as you have seen me endorse Aristotle in his definition of truth and in his outlining of the core of right reason as well as in his identifying pathos, ethos, logos as key levers of persuasion. Another pagan. __________________________ C1 - I think you need to take back your remarks, sir. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
How is that different from almost everyone here, "regurgitating the same stuff for years, unwaveringly, almost as if [they] are metaphysically certain of [their] position"?Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
" for them, almost anything is preferable to uncertainty and insecurity." Sev, I don't know, Sev. Kinda sounds like *you*. You've been regurgitating the same stuff for years, unwaveringly, almost as if you are metaphysically certain of your position. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
BR, yup. Though we need to broaden, objectivity of accessing, warranting and knowing truths, including moral truths. We seem to especially struggle with branch on which we all sit pervasive first principles, the first principles and duties of right reason. Then we see Overton Window marginalisation games that target God, belief in God, belief in the gospel as truth, accepting gospel ethics as integral . . . which in part is about naturally evident first moral truths . . . and associated living a lifestyle of purity. They want it deemed hateful to reject fashionable perversities of thought, ideology, speech, behaviour, and associated social engineering. Sexual aspects get headlined but it is much broader, we are seeing rejection of the built in conscience attested law of our nature, leading to nihilism, which is of course denied, and to question the agenda is deemed hate speech subject to censorship. These serve to slide us down into lawless ideological oligarchy dominated by the perverse. Where, as societies like that more and more lose contact with reality, they slide down a slippery slope over a cliff. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
There is nothing wrong with being an animal. Human exceptionalism is just a manifestation of the same impulse that leads to racism. Nor is there any such thing as absolute or objective morality. Whenever people propose it, what they really mean is their own morality, usually derived from their personal religious beliefs. Hence, you will never see an evangelical Christian argue that Islam or Buddhism is the source of absolute morality. The only worthwhile morality is that which we can agree upon amongst ourselves. All of us. The usual facile objection that the Nazis agreed that the Holocaust was a good thing ignores the fact that the victims of that policy and the populations that fought a world war in part against Nazism most certainly did not agree. Yes, trying to work things out ourselves is messy but it's still preferable to having some self-appointed authority decreeing that this is the one true morality and when you ask why you are told not to ask questions, it's none of your business, just do as you're told. Unfortunately, a lot of people can get drawn to that just for the (unwarranted) certainty because, for them, almost anything is preferable to uncertainty and insecurity.Seversky
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
The study is simply an Enemy Creation/Targeting Exercise. There's a need for groups of people to hate. Surprise, surprise. Andrewasauber
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
People who view themselves as nothing more than animals deny absolute morality.BobRyan
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT
It would be more accurate to say that unfamiliarity breeds unfamiliarity. When you haven't lived around Group B, you only know what the media tells you about Group B. The media's judgments of each group are purely positive or purely negative, depending on the divide-and-conquer plans of the psychopathic rulers at the current picosecond. But if you live and work next to Group B, you know the good AND the bad tendencies of Group B. This also applies to Group M and Group F, especially now that academia is forcing those two groups into strict segregation and filling the minds of F with bizarre prejudices about M.polistra
April 8, 2022
April
04
Apr
8
08
2022
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
1 11 12 13

Leave a Reply