Saturday, March 26, 2011

Does Religious Belief Drive Evolution Skepticism?

A typical evolutionary argument is that skepticism is driven by religious belief. As one evolutionist recently commented:

isn't it odd that essentially 100% of evolution deniers just happen to also be theists?

If you want to understand evolution, you need to listen to evolutionists. This example reveals their logic at work. Consider the facts. Atheists typically believe the world arose on its own. They believe in evolution, in one form or another. Theists, on the other hand, have a diversity of views. Christians in particular have the freedom to engage the broad spectrum of explanations, ranging from natural processes to miracles. Ever since Basil, Christians have considered origins narratives ranging from mostly secondary to mostly primary causation.

Given these facts, how could it be odd that "essentially 100% of evolution deniers just happen to also be theists"? How could this suggest religious belief drives evolution skepticism? Quite the opposite, it is what one would expect. There are few atheists who aren't evolutionists. So what?

Only evolutionary logic could force-fit the fact that skeptics are mostly theists, into support for evolution.

Next, note the evolutionist's use of the word "denier." This is a strong word, but why apply it to skeptics of the dogma that the world spontaneously arose? Evolutionists insist their idea is a scientific fact, and they fail to support this claim. In fact there are monumental scientific problems with this claim. Cannot people be skeptical without being labeled as a "denier"? If one wants to use the D word here, it would seem that those insisting evolution is a scientific fact are the ones who are in denial.

But on the other hand, those who accept evolution come from all sorts of religious backgrounds; over 40% of scientists are professing believers of some sort or another. If religious/anti-religious sentiment were driving acceptance of evolution what are we to make of the religious diversity in the evolution crowd, and the very distinct lack of religious diversity in the anti-evolution crowd? Another coincidence?

Again, the evolutionary logic misses the mark. Where it counts there is little religious diversity in evolutionary thought. Yes there are atheists and various types of theists, but there is a conserved metaphysical view. Christians such as Francis Collins and atheists such as PZ Myers agree that god would not have created what we find in this world.

Skeptics, on the other hand, have tremendous diversity. Their religious views range from young earth creationism to the very theological naturalism that drives evolution. In the latter case, many skeptics of evolution agree with evolutionists that natural processes must have played a significant role in creating the species because god would not have created what we see in biology. But they also realize that those natural processes are, alone, not up to the task.

And of the Christians who do accept evolution, do you think they are on average more, or less educated than their brothers and sisters who don't accept evolution? Care to take a guess? Is that a coincidence as well?

So what does that tell us about the state of our educational system?

Isn't the high correlation between education and acceptance of evolution a little odd? It's almost as if the more people learn about the subject, the more likely the are to accept it.

The correlation between education and acceptance of evolution is not necessarily a plus for evolution, as though good science is up for a vote. In fact, our education system does not teach critical teaching regarding evolution. Instead, it dogmatically instructs students that evolution is a fact using the usual combination of faulty science and metaphysical reasoning. You can read more about this here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

It is hardly surprising that there might be a correlation between education and acceptance of evolution.

I guess education is a bad thing, a temptation from the devil, perhaps. Maybe they're just being brainwashed in institutions of higher learning, and it's a happy accident that they are able to so effectively add to mankind's body of knowledge.

Here we have both a straw man argument and circular reasoning that are all too common amongst evolutionists. Clearly the education system is badly failing and we ought not try to cover that over with hyperbole.

Secondly, there is no happy accident with evolution. It has not added to "mankind's body of knowledge." Only the evolutionist's erroneous claim that evolution is good science can lead to this conclusion.

did you ever stop and think how odd it is that you're smarter than 99.9 percent of all professional biologists? (and around 98 percent of all other scientists?) ... Supernatural explanations are ruled out, as a matter of practicality. Science is about testing claims. Call us when you can test supernatural causes. A design claim that had either a testable agent, or a testable mechanism would be considered.

Finally the serendipity of evolutionary thought is clear. Naturalism is mandated and luckily enough, it also turned out to be a fact. Naturalism is mandated and isn't it strange that all those scientists just happen to be evolutionists? Naturalism is mandated and incredibly enough, all those journal articles support evolution. Naturalism is mandated in our schools and amazingly there is a correlation between education and acceptance of evolution. Evolutionists aren't fooling anyone but themselves.

28 comments:

  1. Naturalism is mandated and luckily enough, it also turned out to be a fact. Naturalism is mandated and isn't it strange that all those scientists just happen to be evolutionists? Naturalism is mandated and incredibly enough, all those journal articles support evolution. Naturalism is mandated in our schools and amazingly there is a correlation between education and acceptance of evolution.

    Naturalism is the methodology of science. You are more than welcome to apply supernaturalism to your sermons in your church.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius Hunter said...

    "And of the Christians who do accept evolution, do you think they are on average more, or less educated than their brothers and sisters who don't accept evolution? Care to take a guess? Is that a coincidence as well?"

    So what does that tell us about the state of our educational system?


    It tells me we're doing a good job keeping the religious nutters from sneaking their pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design Creationism garbage into public school science curricula. See Kitzmiller v. Dover for a great example.

    Still, the religious nutters like the professional liars at the Discovery Institute will keep trying. They're on a holy mission from their GAWD!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Atheists typically believe the world arose on its own. They believe in evolution, in one form or another.

    Don't be mean to Raƫlians, they are your fellow ID supporters. Remember, ID is not about theism. It is open to general nutjobbery.

    Christians in particular have the freedom to engage the broad spectrum of explanations, ranging from natural processes to miracles.

    Not simply "Christians", but Christian denominations. Different Christian denominations have a diversity of views, but individual Christians are constrained to the view of their particular denominations.

    Cornelius, some questions for you:

    -What is your particular Christian denomination? (I thought you wouldn't have a problem answering this. If you do, ignore this question)

    -Do you personally think the beliefs of your denomination is compatible with the possibility of undirected evolution?

    -What do most people in your denomination think about that compatibility?

    I invite the other "skeptics" to answer as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius,

    Naturalism isn't actually mandated. Rather, it seems to be the one thing that we can all agree on and make sense of.

    You and I might argue about the reality of a soul, but we would surely agree that we both have physical bodies.

    Do I have a soul? Well I don't know. What's my blood pressure? Oh, I can tell you that! I can measure it with a device and show you the metered result. Then you can measure your own and we can compare.

    Naturalism isn't mandated, it's our shared experience. Supernaturalism on the other hand? Well, your Jesus is my Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I'll thank you to capitalize that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Evolutionist: And of the Christians who do accept evolution, do you think they are on average more, or less educated than their brothers and sisters who don't accept evolution? Care to take a guess? Is that a coincidence as well?

    Hunter: So what does that tell us about the state of our educational system?

    May I answer that?

    The system of higher education in the US is top notch. Don't take my word for it. Look at the Academic Ranking of the World Universities published by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. In natural sciences and mathematics, 7 out of 10 top universities are in the US.

    You have a Ph.D. from a university that ranks in the top 25 on that list. You know first hand how many international students come to the US.

    ReplyDelete
  7. oleg:

    "You know first hand how many international students come to the US."

    Thank God. May they be richly blessed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another clear and logical piece of reasoning CH.

    Its amazing that evolutionists still go into rabid fits of denial whenever they read this kind of thing though.

    I mean just look at the responses above that prove this!

    One Darwinian actually claims that naturalism "isn't mandated" but is our shared experience!

    Evolutionist fundamentalists are wackos of the worst kind.
    How else does one explain such philosophically incompetent nonsense as the FSM and the evolutionary princes from frogs by the magic kiss of selection?

    They will allow nothing else to be taught but their inane materialist dogma and will persecute and black ball anyone that tries, then they see a correlation when they claim that higher education = more belief in Darwinism!! Duh!

    Worse, they cannot see the 'why' of that when shown it plain and simple, as you have done here.

    What is wrong with these people's minds?
    Easy, their minds are on hold and the synaptic circuit is stuck in an infinite loop.

    Curiously, thats usually what happens to people in religious cults!

    Gee did I just find another interesting coincidence? One unnoticed by the poor unthinking soul that wrote the quotes in the article?

    Darwinism is indeed a religious cult.

    It is disguised as science, but the mask is easy to see through for anyone not brainwashed in the academic temples of secular humanism, i.e. the whole of the Western & European public education systems.

    Here's another strange correlation that your interlocutor didn't notice: its just 99% of Darwinists that give a bad reputation to the rest ... as infantile logicians and dead from the neck up philosophers. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Geoxus:

    ===
    Not simply "Christians", but Christian denominations. Different Christian denominations have a diversity of views, but individual Christians are constrained to the view of their particular denominations.

    -What is your particular Christian denomination?
    ===

    The farther west you go the less relevant is that question, and the less influential are denominations on those who are members. As with politics, religion in the west is often a movement of "independents." That doesn't mean they don't have specific beliefs, it just means they are less tied to a central authority, such as a denomination.

    If I had to describe my particular Christian faith in a sentence, it would probably be something like: "Unity in the essentials, liberty and charity in the non essentials." That may seem obvious, and indeed it is a common phrase. But unfortunately it too often is exactly the opposite. You would probably find my Christian faith to be rather non descript because I simply feel no need to take a position on the non essentials. Yes, I am dogmatic on the essentials. I have no question that Jesus is alive right now, and that without him we have no hope. But I will not take a firm position on interpretations that can go in several different ways.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Norm, Spaghetti noodles have a more complex structure than the chemicals in a warm little pond so it looks like the noodles have a better chance of spontaneously forming life. Is that why you espouse Spaghetti monsters?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gary, with all that pointless chest-thumping bluster you forgot you provide your falsification of ToE thru statistical mechanics.

    That's almost a year now that you've been, er, 'forgetting'.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tedford the idiot said...

    Norm, Spaghetti noodles have a more complex structure than the chemicals in a warm little pond so it looks like the noodles have a better chance of spontaneously forming life. Is that why you espouse Spaghetti monsters?


    Tedford, the FSM has exactly the same amount of positive evidence for being the Designer of life as your deity does. Why should we exclude the FSM and not your Big Majik Guy?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Neal:
    Is that why you espouse Spaghetti monsters?

    No, it's just that I really enjoy pasta!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cornelius:
    The farther west you go the less relevant is that question, and the less influential are denominations on those who are members.

    True, but I'd bet that the majority of evolution "skeptics" are not precisely "independents" or take lightly their denominational views on evolution. Does anybody have actual statistical data on this?

    If I had to describe my particular Christian faith in a sentence, it would probably be something like: "Unity in the essentials, liberty and charity in the non essentials."

    Is separate creation an essential? In other words, what is your answer to the second question?

    And, if you go regularly to a particular church, please answer the third question with the people that go to that church in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius:

    This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

    You know something, Cornelius? Here is the reason that I had decided to stop commenting on your blog. You allow a rabid evolutionist like Thorton have his/her way and insult non-evolutionists, especially Christians, left and right. But as soon as I do the same to them and make fun of the likes of Darwin, PZ Myers and Dawkins, you delete my comment. What's up with that?

    I am beginning to believe that you are either afraid of the evolutionist camp or you somehow love them even though you profess otherwise. So that's what I want to know. Are you a chicken or are you a fighter?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Louis:

    Your post was deleted for language. Thorton doesn't use language. It's as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cornelius:

    Your post was deleted for language. Thorton doesn't use language. It's as simple as that.

    I was responding to Thorton's insulting comment. Thorton wrote above:

    Still, the religious nutters like the professional liars at the Discovery Institute will keep trying. They're on a holy mission from their GAWD!

    IRC, I think my reply was: It is a hell of a lot better than being on a mission from cretins like Darwin, PZ Myers and Dawkins.

    Now which word did you consider "language"? Was it hell? Was it cretins? Or was it because I named Darwin, PZ Myers and Dawkins? And why are they more offensive than Thorton's insults?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Looie, Cornelius and I are obviously light years apart in our views. But he is both consistent and fair in how he handles not allowing obscenities. He also doesn't censor opposing views just because they are opposing. That makes him unique among all IDC proponents, and for that I give him major props.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thorton, Cornelius is a lot more tolerant of jerks like you than I could ever be. I would have booted you out on the first day. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Louis:

    I wouldn't advise words like "Cretins," but it won't get your comment deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Louis:

    ===
    And why are they more offensive than Thorton's insults?
    ===

    I hate to tell you this, but you're going to receive some insults. You'll do well if you stick to your points.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cornelius:

    I hate to tell you this, but you're going to receive some insults. You'll do well if you stick to your points.

    Well, it's one thing to be insulted on somebody else's blog. PZ Myers once dedicated an entire blog post to insult me. That's his prerogative under the law. However, I don't understand why you allow jerks like that Thorton to come into your backyard and your bedroom to insult you in your face. Is this an example of the turn-the-other-cheek philosophy that some Christians profess to believe in?

    If so, that's too bad in my opinion. I am more of a King-David kind of Christian, you know the kind of Christian who is not afraid to walk up to the enemy and kick him real hard in the testicles before cutting his head off. And, remember, David was a man after God's own heart.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Neal Tedford:

    "Norm, Spaghetti noodles have a more complex structure than the chemicals in a warm little pond so it looks like the noodles have a better chance of spontaneously forming life. Is that why you espouse Spaghetti monsters?"
    ===

    Actually I believe it's the protein molecules as represented by the Meat Ball eyes that get them excited.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Louis:

    Your post was deleted for language. Thorton doesn't use language. It's as simple as that."
    ===

    Actually you have always been consistant on this policy. I believe sometime back last year one of Thorton's posts was deleted and numerous times you did booksmith and edit her language in several posts, so it is fair and accurate to say that you have been unbiased on this towards both sides.

    Though Thorton has less language issues now, the ongoing insulting, biligerence and name calling which have been allowed beautifully illustrate what that side is actually left with when backed into a corner and real world answers are wanting.
    Many times just letting evolutionists spew out their usual rants and diatribes with no comment on your part have beautifully illustrated EXACTLY what a couple of your blog subject threads were trying to say or point out as failings in the first place. They make your points over and over and become increasingly angry when such failings are pointed out, as the last couple of threads bare out.

    Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Louis the Fruit Loop said...

    If so, that's too bad in my opinion. I am more of a King-David kind of Christian, you know the kind of Christian who is not afraid to walk up to the enemy and kick him real hard in the testicles before cutting his head off. And, remember, David was a man after God's own heart.


    LOL! Looks like Joe G has competition for the title of board internet tough guy

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, Cornelius, I must say I'm flattered as this is at least the second article based on comments of mine. Unfortunately, my time for reply is quite limited this weekend, so I'll have to keep it abbreviated for now.

    Cornelius: "Consider the facts. Atheists typically believe the world arose on its own. They believe in evolution, in one form or another. Theists, on the other hand, have a diversity of views."

    Strange that you would say something like this, because you yourself have pointed out the error in conflating evolution and atheism. My comment was entirely about those who accept or reject evolution. The fact is that of those who accept evolution, there is a great deal of diversity. Of those who reject evolution, there is almost no diversity; this group is made up almost entirely of theists. I doubt Collins and Myers share many metaphysical views. And if not Collins, then many (if not most) Christians who accept evolution would probably say that the world is exactly as God intended it, mosquitos, ebola, and all. (or at least the ones who also believe in an omniscient God, which again, I'm assuming is most Christians, evolutionists or no) It seems to be mostly the literalistic crowd who most often proclaims that this world is not how God intended it. (that darn talking snake and magic fruit!)

    Cornelius: Secondly, there is no happy accident with evolution. It has not added to "mankind's body of knowledge." Only the evolutionist's erroneous claim that evolution is good science can lead to this conclusion.

    Cornelius, If you're going to base an article on one of my posts, at least take the time to read what I'm saying. I did not say in that paragraph that evolution has added to our body of knowledge, I said that the scientists who accept evolution have.

    Cornelius: Finally the serendipity of evolutionary thought is clear. Naturalism is mandated and luckily enough, it also turned out to be a fact.

    What I said was " Supernatural (i.e., untestable) explanations are ruled out, as a matter of practicality." Methodological naturalism is a core, inseparable component of science. Take the methodological naturalism out of science, and what you have left is philosophy with test tubes. You're more than free to invent your own way of discovering truth that allows untestable, unverifiable claims, but you can't call it science. And you must know that philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism aren't the same thing. Science does notmandate philosophical naturalism.

    I wish I could write more, but for the moment, that will have to suffice.

    I will concede that I don't like the term 'evolution-denier' for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on. I used it mainly for linguistic diversity, but I'll refrain from using it for now.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Derick said, "Take the methodological naturalism out of science, and what you have left is philosophy with test tubes."

    Yes, this is what evolution... is philosophy with test tubes." I'll need to remember that phrase : )

    ReplyDelete
  28. Tedford:

    Yes, this is what evolution... is philosophy with test tubes." I'll need to remember that phrase : )

    Yes, you will, because rhetoric is all you have.

    ReplyDelete